Are the DE CCDW laws about right?

[Obleo]

I’m often conflicted about the DE gun control laws and the Constitutional 2nd Amendment.  But lately I’ve been thinking about how our State legislators, over the years, have handled CCDW.  I must say that I see the pros and cons pretty clearly.

Cons:  The 2nd A. does clearly stipulate, and no one can contest this, that the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The definition of infringed indicates that nothing can be used to deny this right.  I feel that local governments have exceeded their authority in limiting such rights.  The City of Dover comes to mind here.

Pros:  In the case of CCDW I feel comfort in the fact that the State has considered that law abiding citizens can carry concealed.  But the character of the citizen must be examined.  That seems a logical approach.  The State gains by identifying a revenue stream.  The true regulation is that once licensed, the citizen will protect their privilege of concealed carry by carefully and thoughtfully conducting their affairs.  This also sounds logical.  However, this does nothing to keep criminals from acting criminally.  Criminals are criminals because they have nothing to lose.

So, my question is: Is the right to CCDW the high road.  Or is it an obstacle?

[Bmel17]

"Shall not be infringed" to me means exactly what it says.  Not a high road but a money making obstacle infringing on my rights.

[Condition 1]

I don't have any problems with examining someone's character before issuing a CCDW, however I am not so sure of the process. I don't think it should be a free for all - I.e. people who have committed certain crimes such as aggravated assault, rape, ... should not be allowed to have this privilege. Other crimes not as serious should not be a stopper - I.e. someone did drugs a few years back while a teenager.

I also don't think people deemed mentally unstable should be allowed to legally Cary a firearm.

The "shall not be infringed" line that so many love to use should be applied along with the Golden Rule - if you feel you can infringe someone's right to not to be raped, not to be assaulted...then you should not feel that your rights shouldn't be infringed either.

[calee13]

On another note, the newly elected Pennsylvania Att. General has vowed to remove the Florida CCP "loop hole" for Pennsylvania residents. This is something we should all follow closely.

[Hawkeye]

Delaware needs to become a "shall Issue" state as opposed to a "May Issue" state.  Look at the many threads in this forum where people ask what justification they need to use to obtain their license.  If you do not meet the criteria for being denied a weapon because of a past crime, mental illness, or whatever, then you should not have to justify why you want to carry.  We should not have a bureaucrat placed in a position to deny your license because he just does not think your reason is good enough.

[oldgraygeek]

I agree that DE should be a "Shall Issue" state, but this will never happen... and, if it does, it will carry a bunch of unpleasant baggage with it.

Last time Dover tried to make the state "shall issue" by simply removing the judges' discretion from the process, the bill was loaded down with so many anti-CCDW amendments -- required annual training, no carry in a bunch of really dumb places like doctors' offices, etc. -- that its sponsors and the NRA pulled support for it. The same kind of silly crap will happen again if such a bill gets introduced.

Besides, I hate to say this, but we have it pretty good right now. We fly mostly under the radar. We can carry in bars, schools, churches, polling places, and almost everywhere else. Big companies that put up "No Guns" signs in other states don't bother posting them in Delaware. (We love Costco, but the membership gets cancelled if they ever post such a sign). Also, such signs don't have force of law.

Publicity -- even the news coverage involved in reforming our "May Issue" system -- would ruin that. Imagine, for example, if any business could post a regulation-sized sign banning firearms and making it a crime to carry there. Thieves would simply hang out in parking lots, waiting for permit holders to turn around and walk back to their cars to leave their firearms... and then steal the guns and/or rob the clearly unarmed owners.

I can't say it's right to continue the awful discretionary permit process, but it may be less awful than the alternative.

[SweetPete]

DE is a Libtard state. It's a form of gun control imposed by the people.

[SturmRugerSR9]

I sure most of us know people we would rather not have weapons, even though they may/may not have a criminal record. I'm speaking of people with mental/temper problems and bullying personalities. Lets face it if you live in an area long enough you can find 5 people to sign off for you. That is why there is a 10 day period of "warning" to people of an application for DECCW in a print media. It's so people will know and have an opertunity to voice their knowledge of an applicant. If you see some one applying in the paper and know they are a bad risk to society, it's you responsibility to call the Attorney Generals Office and state your objections. There are many responsibilities of a DECCW holder, including seeing that the "wrong" people don't get them.

[Bmel17]

I sure most of us know people we would rather not have weapons, even though they may/may not have a criminal record. I'm speaking of people with mental/temper problems and bullying personalities. Lets face it if you live in an area long enough you can find 5 people to sign off for you. That is why there is a 10 day period of "warning" to people of an application for DECCW in a print media. It's so people will know and have an opertunity to voice their knowledge of an applicant. If you see some one applying in the paper and know they are a bad risk to society, it's you responsibility to call the Attorney Generals Office and state your objections. There are many responsibilities of a DECCW holder, including seeing that the "wrong" people don't get them.

So what happened to "shall no be infringed" printed next to the 2A.  Those people might have anger issues, just because YOU think so doesn't meant they shouldn't be issued a permit.  This is the same thing to me as a cop saying someone looks like a scumbag so the 4A doesn't apply to them...

It's not rights for some-  It's WE ALL have rights. 

[Obleo]

Bmel17  -  oldgraygeek has a serious point about us , maybe, not having it so bad right now.  But firearms in the wrong hands have always provided fodder to demean the rest of us.  And SturmRugerSR9 has a reasonble point: There must be some level of control other than a shootout between good and evil.

[SturmRugerSR9]

Obleo,
I concur. The key word here is "Responsibility"

[Condition 1]

Obleo,
I concur. The key word here is "Responsibility"

Completely agree with your post.

[oldgraygeek]

Obleo,
I concur. The key word here is "Responsibility"

Completely agree with your post.

I agree, too.
I like most of Delaware's CCDW laws, although I think the last step -- having to explain ourselves and convince judges to kindly grant us a permit -- is a violation of our Second Amendment rights.

In many cases, people described above accurately as having "mental/temper problems and bullying personalities" will already have an arrest and/or conviction record that shows up on the State Police background check.
(This is the argument we use up on DailyKos when our fellow liberals reflexively propose worthless "gun control" laws in the wake of a tragic murder: usually, the killer was already a person prohibited from having a firearm, if current law had been enforced).

However, SturmRugerSR9 brings up an important question: if the judges' discretion is removed from the process, making Delaware a "shall issue" state, to whom would the SP's investigators communicate their findings about the applicants' records? What good would any concerned citizen be able to do by spotting the applicant's name & address in the News Journal and calling... whom? The Prothonotary? The State Police? 911?
We may be stuck with the current system, both because of reasons I described upthread and because it actually works for us. However -- and here's the rub -- reciprocity allows millions of other states' residents to carry here, most of them have much less intrusive application processes, and this still results in no crime.

SR9 is taking a position to the left of the token lefty-lefty-liberal in the group (me)... not a criticism there, just interesting. I agree with him that we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and our state from inappropriate applicants. Without judges' discretion, we might not have enough influence to accomplish that.

[SturmRugerSR9]

Old GG,
This is the first time I've ever been accused of being "Left". I just see it as common sense. If everyone is allowed to have guns, regardless of mental , personal, or behavioral problems, then why have any laws at all? I know a lot of people that I hope to never see carrying a gun open or concealed, and I'm fairly sure most can say the same. Just think about it. Just look at the ten people living on either side of you, or ten people at work. Would you like to soo all of them armed?

[oldgraygeek]

Old GG,
This is the first time I've ever been accused of being "Left". I just see it as common sense. If everyone is allowed to have guns, regardless of mental , personal, or behavioral problems, then why have any laws at all? I know a lot of people that I hope to never see carrying a gun open or concealed, and I'm fairly sure most can say the same. Just think about it. Just look at the ten people living on either side of you, or ten people at work. Would you like to soo all of them armed?

Like I said, we agree here. Couldn't resist the honor of being the first (and probably last) to accuse you of being a leftist.