Important to read carefully
Obtaining a CCW is a privilege extended, in most cases, by the Sheriff of a county and/or the State. It is not a right to be authorized a CCW, or to carry concealed.
The Right to Bear Arms is exactly that.
No one on this thread has offered an argument or discussion stating otherwise. However, there has been confusion as to the right to possess / bear Arms and the privilege to obtain a permit to carry (a handgun, in most cases) concealed.
There is no debate here. That's the way it is. If you believe having a CCW is a right, march on down to the issuing authority and demand to be issued said permit sans any of the adminstrative functions necessary in most states to obtain one...
Then tell us all how it went
Or, if you believe it is a right under the Constitution to carry concealed sans any permit or license...have at it. Again, should you run afoul of DA LAW at some point, tell us how it went
I also find the general blurring of "Letter of the Law" with "Spirit of the Law" interesting. In Washington State you may obtain a CCW. In Oregon you may obtain a CCW. In both states it's a fairly simple and inexpensive process. However, there is no agreement between WA and OR regarding honoring each other's CCWs. If you want to carry in WA legally...you have to have their CCW. This applies to LE, as well.
In California it's darn near impossible anymore to get a CCW under less than extraordinary circumstances. And I don't believe CA gives a rip about one's WA or OR CCW once you cross da border into CA.
Some states have adopted the Right to Carry law (Florida being one of these, I believe
) and that in itself is yet another facet of concealed carry...which IS a privilege not a right.
There is no "Spirit of the Law" regarding these state laws when it comes to concealed carry. You're either authorized by permit or license to do so, or you're not.
Now, here's the gemstone, in my opinion -
Aside from the interesting but often highly emotional debate about government this and government that...
The primary point might said to be this -
IF you elect to carry a firearm, or any other weapon illegally regardless of argument or position, and you use it in self defense then you should be fully aware and prepared to pay whatever price might be asked post incident.
Period.
That means putting aside the emotional nonsense and evaluating objectively "Am I fully prepared and willing to lose everything and cause enormous pain to those I love by doing what it is I am thinking of doing?" Go further. Trot down to your friendly family lawyer and ask his or her advice. Ask what you should expect if you pack a pistol illegally anywhere and use it. Have your lawyer spell it out. Then go home and think about what you've just learned and look again at your family, home, bank account, savings account, reputation, and so on.
If you're still of the opinion it would all be worth it...even just getting pinched for carrying illegally...then have at it. You've educated yourself honestly and have made your decision.
Again, the smarter thing to do SELF DEFENSE wise, is to train in a broader array of measures that offer you self protection any where you go regardless of where this might be.
I am not promoting anything other than this approach, based in large part on my long experience owning, carrying, teaching, and using a wide array of weapons systems throughout this country and elsewhere.
And this for consideration only. Make your own choices and decisions, but do so fully and objectively educated and not on the basis of half-truths, myths, right-center-leftist arguments, and outright crap.
The only reason for not better educating yourself and perhaps changing how you conduct your business in lieu of such education is fear...fear of perhaps learning more than you did before and learning that doing something differently is maybe better.
REF: the Gung-Ho article -
I wrote the piece on VI for Gung-Ho. Never did one for SOF. If one was done - and I'm sure it was - I don't recall who might have written it. I wrote it from an insider's perspective, not an observer's. In that article I pointed out that smart VI asset protection teams using the law, solid strategy and tactics, audio and video technology, good documentation, excellent working relationships with local authorities and the clients, and - when necessary - authorized armament in a purely defensive mode brought the kind of results wanted and demanded by high paying corporate clients.
The operators I trained at VI with and then worked / supervised were - at the time - nearly all former special operations personnel with field experience. Although there were certainly novices, cowboys, and "soldiers of fantasy" at VI during this period few of these ever lasted long on the teams I was with. Further, the guys who were the most obsessed about having to have a gun on them were primarily guys who didn't know why they were where they were, and had little or no time in the real world of serious business players.
One of the men I worked with and supervised was a former Rhodesian Selous Scout...which was one of the finest special operations forces in the world bar none. He played by VI's rules and worked the hardest, most violent sites. On one job where I was an assistant supervisor we put him by himself inside an area and let him do his thing. He carried only an Al Mar SERE fixed blade and a baton, and he worked only the night shift. it only took 72 hours for the law breakers among the opposition to learn that fussing with him was fruitless, painful, and humiliating. His smarts, training, experience, and force of character made him truly dangerous. And he never once packed a firearm unless mandated for the job, by the job.
'Nuff said.
