To: Nick, Re: Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHLs)

Screw it... I'm not going to apologize to non-existent readers about moving a comment discussion onto the main page. Nick is the only person that talks to me anyway. So let's get comfy, crack open a PBR and get down to business...

Nick said:

I believe there are responsible individuals who should be allowed to carry. But there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed.

Simply put, almost everyone of age is licensed to drive a car, yet I would bet that 1/4 shouldn't be allowed to drive. They are just lousy drivers. So how do we know that licensing to carry is any different? Convince me I'm wrong.

I'm trying man... I'm really trying. :) I've presented direct quotes from high-ranking law enforcement officers, statistics from crime studies, personal accounts of people that would be dead without the presence of a CHL holder, actual views of criminals that are deterred by CHLs, our Constitutional guarantee, and philosophical logic regarding the innate rights of man. I gotta admit I've used just about every club in my bag and am wondering what "proof" would seal the deal for you.

Therefore, I would love to have you give some specific responses about what facts you think are bogus that's all over this ugly blog. I would prefer to tackle in-depth each point you can present rather than continuing my frantic attempt to cover 5 or 6 issues you bring up in each of your replies (e.g. the one short reply that made me defend semi-autos, hunting, 2nd Amendment, "high powered", "clip-fed" and then gun owners in general).

Nah, I'm not really complaining about that one. I actually enjoyed it.

Allow me to get back to your point and try to convince you you're wrong.... (But only partly, as there are certainly way too many shitty drivers on the road, and the number of auto accidents totally dwarfs the number of firearm accidents).

I have to vehemently disagree with you that "there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed." First, I hope you realize using a driver's license as an analogy is waaaay off base. It's like comparing the job requirements for being a Secret Service agent to those of a real estate agent. I've talked about the stringent requirements for getting a CHL before. Of course there will be one or two people that are the exception to any rule and no amount of rigorous FBI background check, fingerprinting, and training will prevent them from slipping through the system. I admit that. But that's a fact of life for anything and you can't hold that against this very needed practice of arming responsible adults for their own defense.

What you need to do is look at the actual statistics. That article I linked to with the Exec. Director of the Sheriff's Association quote about how angelic CHL holders are reported low number of CHLs that have been revoked since the law came into effect in 2004. I imagine these numbers would be important to you so you can prove how many wrong people get CHLs. Let's take a quick look:

• In 2004- 45,497 permits were issued, 78 were suspended and 42 were revoked.
• In 2005- 22,487 permits were issued, 219 were suspended and 75 were revoked.
• In the first three months of 2006- 5,546 permits were issued, 94 were suspended and 100 were revoked.

Overall, that means that close to 75,000 Ohioans have received a CHL. Only 391 have been suspended and 217 have been revoked.

This translates into 608/75,000 for revocations & suspensions, which means Less than 1% (~0.8%) of licenses have been suspended or revoked!

That in and of itself is amazing. I could stop here........ But I won't.

To make my case even stronger, you need to understand the reasons behind revocations and suspensions. First, did anyone move out of state? They go into the revoked column. Dead? Revoked. If anyone falls under a protection order (which is almost de facto for a man getting a divorce) - suspended. The rest of the reasons are admittedly bad... but may have absolutely nothing to do with a violent crime and happen to a large segment of society unintentinally. DUI? Revoked. Too many speeding tickets and have a BS warrant out for you that you didn't know about? Revoked. etc. etc.

Most importantly, once you factor all of those in, you need to re-read that article I linked to where it says that more than half of the 2006 revocations were due to a technicality because a firearms trainer had short-changed some people on their mandatory class. The Sheriff revoked those until the licensees re-applied after 2 more hours of training. Again, that's more than half of the revocations! Using only that fact and taking away those bogus 2006 revocations puts our figure at 511/75,000 = ~0.6% !!!

Do you trust policemen to carry firearms? Do you know that the percentage of CHL holders charged with crime is significantly less than the percentage of law enforcement officers charged? (I apologize I don't have those numbers right in front of me. But trust me, they're shocking.)

So... please try to convince me that "there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed." I expect statistics and math that are derived from the Ohio Attorney General's office (as that's where these figures originated).

The other major (philosophical) point that I wanted to bring up based on your very bad choice of analogies with driver's licenses is that there is a God-given right to protecting your life and that of one you love. It's been represented in human nature since the dawn of time. It's been represented in English Common Law. That God-given right is described (not granted) in our Bill of Rights. Last time I checked, there was nothing in the Bill of Rights about "government shall never infringe upon driving a car".


-----
Note: I wanted to point out another thing but fear that it would be asking you to walk before you crawl. Therefore, I reserve the right to mention something else about the licensing system in general so that no one can later call me a hypocrite when a more forward-thinking opinion of mine gets posted.
-----


Help me out. What statistics do you want to see? What doubts concern you the most?

Again... carrying isn't for everyone. I don't think carrying handguns should be mandatory. I just don't want some politician that happens to be scared of them to tell me I'm not allowed to have the necessary tools to protect my wife from being raped and murdered. Is that so much to ask?