2nd Amendment Article Legallyarmed.com

laf.gif (23293 bytes)

The Second Amendment or
The Permit & License Schemes?
    Recently the Bush Administration issued a statement addressing the 2nd Amendment. How will this direction affect the issuance of permits or licenses to legally carry weapons?

    Although the Bush Administration addressed the right of a citizen to bear arms [versus a militia], the statement also addressed keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who should not possess firearms. This element of the statement leaves open the way that states currently issue permits and licenses to carry [except for the state of Vermont that allows any law abiding citizen to carry a gun]. It may not lead to a revamping of the current system where citizens are subjected to background investigations, money to obtain the permit or license, and mandatory training in certain states. States will continue to use these areas to validate the permit or license schemes. Who benefits the most from all the fees charged to obtain a permit or a license? Lets look at some of the entities.

    During the 1990's, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) began charging a $24.00 fee to analyze fingerprints. Prior to this time, no fee was charged. Between 1994 and 1996, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, and other states passed their right to carry laws. Lets look at what what is generated just to the F.B.I. for some of the states. The state of Florida currently has approximately 280,000 permit holders, Texas 230,000, and Tennessee 155,000. These three states alone account for 665,000 legally armed citizens.    Each state requires that a complete set of fingerprints be submitted to the F.B.I... This amounts to $15,960,000 ($24.00 each). Lets assume that each state also nets the same amount of money. This amounts to $ 5,320,000 per state.    These figures are only for those people who were eligible to obtain a permit or license. The people who were rejected also paid the same amount of money, and do not receive a refund when they are!
denied. Millions of dollars are spent by law abiding citizens in an effort to be legally armed. When these amounts are collected by various government agencies, it is not reasonable to assume that any government agency would become more lenient or less expensive just because the administration believes the 2nd Amendment refers to an "individual" right. The amounts of money collected in the permit or license schemes by the various government agencies have caused a "dependency" to collect these fees all the time. There is NO incentive for them to relax any of the requirements or fees that they currently charge.

    How could the current trend of high fees and regulations be eased in allowing citizens to exercise the right to be armed? The only movement that might create this more relaxed atmosphere would be a formal nonviolent movement by law abiding citizens exercising their right as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. Massive civil disobedience in exercising the right afforded by the 2nd Amendment...carrying guns without a permit or license. This will not happen because we are speaking about law abiding citizens who do whatever they can to avoid breaking any law. If they violate the law, they loose their authorization to carry.   They have spent too much money to become legal, spent time being investigated, spent time and energy in a classroom and qualifying on a gun range, all for the purpose of self-defense. They do not want to take a chance of loosing their authorization to carry.   They will leave this fight to someone else! Some may say that a lawsuit might help to ease re!
strictions and fees. How many people do you know who possess a permit or license who would be willing to contribute funds to this type of lawsuit? Not many. Whatever funds that might be collected would probably be countered by large firms, "anti-gun" organizations, and individuals, to help fund opposition to this type of lawsuit.

    Since the government agencies desire the fees generated by permits and licenses, and because legally armed citizens do not want to loose their authorization to carry, the stance taken by the Bush Administration on an "individuals" right to bear arms is important but, it probably will not cause any change in the current requirements imposed on citizens to be legally armed.

Submit Your Comments About This Article

First Name:
Last Name:
*Address1:
City:
State:
*Zip:
*Phone:
*Fax:
Email:
*Web Site Address:

Please choose a Message Subject:

Please type or paste your message here:

Note: All items with an asterisk are optional.

usamove.gif (12142 bytes)

mailmirror.gif (17553 bytes)

Retreat to Legallyarmed