Easing handgun licensing laws: helping the public fight back

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Sept, 1998 by Jeffrey R. Snyder

"... Discretionary licensing regulations and prohibitions against the carrying of weapons succeed in disarming only those who respect the law."

A little over a decade ago, a controversial "concealed-carry" law went into effect in Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, the law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared this quickly would lead to disaster and that blood literally would be running in the streets. To, day, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the current debate over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which they can reduce the crime rate.

To the shock and dismay of gun control proponents, concealed-carry reform has proven to be wildly popular among state lawmakers. Since Florida launched its experiment in October 1987, numerous states have enacted similar laws, with positive results.

Prior to 1987, almost every state either prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons or permitted concealed carry under a licensing system that gave government officials broad discretionary power over the decision to issue a permit. The key feature of the new licensing laws is that the government must grant the permit as soon as the citizen can satisfy specified. objective licensing criteria. In general. these laws provide that a permit must be issued to any adult state resident who has not been convicted of a felony; has no history of drug or alcohol abuse and/or mental illness: has not committed any violent misdemeanor within the last three to five years: and in years; and, in most states, has taken a firearms training course. In nearly all of these instances, the applicants' fingerprints are recorded and the license seekers are subjected to a background check.

In most instances, the new shall-issue laws replace concealed-weapon statutes dating from the 1930s and 1940s that granted the licensing authority (usually the police) broad, undefined discretion to issue permits to "suitable persons" or individuals of "good moral character" who had "proper cause" or a "justifiable need" to carry a weapon. Such laws still continue in about 15 states. As written, they suggest that only certain people, in "special" circumstances, are entitled to defend themselves from deadly violence with lethal force, and that those who face just the "ordinary" risk of criminal violence do not deserve the right to carry the means with which to defend themselves. The implicit suggestion that some lives are more worth protecting than others is morally repugnant and insupportable.

In large metropolitan areas with high crime rates, these older licensing, laws typically have been administered to deny the issuance of permits to ordinary citizens. From 1984 to 1992, the city of Los Angeles refused to issue a single permit. In a metropolis of 3,500,000 people over a period of nine years, not one applicant was found to have both "good moral character" and "good cause" to carry a handgun for protection. In Denver, Police Chief Ari Zavaras granted a mere 45 permits in a city with a population of 500,000. The detective who administered Zavaras' program explained that "Just because you fear for your life is not a compelling reason to have a permit." Among those denied a permit was Denver talk-show host Alan Berg, who had received death threats from, and later was killed by, white supremacists.

In New York City, the list of permit holders strongly suggests that licenses are issued on the basis of celebrity status, wealth, political influence, and favoritism. Such luminaries as journalist William F. Buckley, Jr., real estate mogul Donald Trump, publisher Michael Korda, comedians Bill Cosby and Joan Rivers, and radio shock-jock Howard Stern are among those who have been granted licenses. Meanwhile, taxi drivers, who face a high risk of robbery and murder, are denied permits because they carry less than $2,000 in cash. A Federal district court in California upheld similar class-based discrimination in Los Angeles County's policy of issuing permits to carry firearms almost entirely to retired police officers and celebrities, "because famous persons and public figures are often subjected to threats of bodily harm."

The point is not that celebrities, the wealthy, or influential citizens do not deserve to protect themselves; they most certainly do. The crime victim rolls in this country are not populated predominantly by the rich and famous, though, but almost entirely with the names of ordinary citizens, who equally are entitled to defend themselves and protect their lives. The frustration of the common, law-abiding citizen's desire to protect himself (and, increasingly, herself) from violent crime due to law enforcement's arbitrary refusals to issue permits under the older licensing systems has led to vociferous demands for licensing based on satisfaction of nondiscretionary, objectively verifiable, and specified criteria.

The right of self-defense