Publicola

BTW, if by glancing at the quotes below you get the idea that permits of any kind, even for concealed carry, are an infringement of your right to own & possess arms, you're on to something.
Concealed Carry permits, or CCW permits, impose several conditions that you must comply with prior to carrying a weapon. Most include conditions you must comply with while carrying.They include but are not limited to:
Paying a fee.
Passing a background check.
Taking state mandated classes.
Being fingerprinted.
Keeping the permit on your person while carrying.
Informing any police officer you contact that you have a CCW permit.
Turning over your weapon & permit to any police officer who asks for it.
Giving personal information to the issuing authority that will be used to create a registration of CCW holders.

Now these vary a bit state by state. Some are more lenient, some are very strict. But out of all 50 states only 1 has it right. & that state would be Vermont. They're law concerning the carry of weapons states that you must have obtained the arm legally & not use it to commit a crime of violence. That's it. Anyone in Vermont, even non-Vermonters, can carry in any manner they wish at any time they wish w/o being registered, paying a fee, or having to have a permission slip on them.

But let's examine what's wrong with the other carry laws:

Paying a fee.
By imposing a fee for the license you are in essence charging someone for excercising their right. The only way they can get away with this is to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons to the status of a privilage, rather than a right.

Passing a background check.
They imply that guilt is presumed untill innocence is proven, thus reversing several hundred years of common law. Also the standards which must be met vary greatly: in some states non-violent misdemeanors can cause you to fail the background check.

Taking state mandated classes.
By requiring classes they are again imposing artificial standards upon a right which they can only get away with if they convince us that it a privilage.

Being fingerprinted.
Some people have a religious objection to the use of biometric information & it forces them to make a choice : excecise my religious freedom or be able to defend my life. Also it again implies that you have done something wrong. the usual use for fingerprinting is in the processing of criminals or those accused of a crime. It implies that because you wish to carry a gun you are suspect.

Keeping the permit on your person while carrying.
This means you are a criminal if you don't have a permission slip to carry a weapon for self defense.

Informing any police officer you contact that you have a CCW permit.
Imposing a contractual forfeiture of your 4th & 5th amendment protections.

Turning over your weapon & permit to any police officer who asks for it.
Again, imposing a contractual forfeiture of your 4th & 5th amendment protections.

Giving personal information to the issuing authority that will be used to create a registration of CCW holders.
Registrations are bad. Most CCW permits are enetered into the states' DMV database so that every time a cop runs your license he knows you may have a gun. Not only does this make a routine traffic stop more tense, considering the attitude of most cops towards gun owners these days, but it is also the perfect vehicle for confiscation.

Not to mention that once you concede authority to the government to regulate or prohibit concealed carry, there's no guarantee that they won't use the same authority in other areas, like open carry or carrying in your vehicle or even merely possesing a gun in your house.

I was telling a friend of mine the other day that her stance on smoking laws was flawed. She was in favor of a law that prohibited any smoking in any business, even if the owners of the business wanted to smoke. She is a non smoker & liked the idea of never having to put up with a smokey nightclub again. I informed her that by telling the goverment they have the authority to step in & prohibit smoking on private property, they could just as easily turn around & require it. Once you give them say in one area, there's no guarantee that they're going to do as you like.
We currently have an excellent example of the effect licensing has on society. Few people would argue that you need a license to drive from Colorado to Oklahoma. But how many people 150 years ago would have thought it permissible to set up check points to make sure you had permission to use the public roads? Cars are different than horses you say? yes, they are but only in the technical aspects. the basics are the same. You board the car or horse. you then direct it to where you wish to go & at what speed. The difference is in speed & weight. & again. 150 years ago I am sure there were people charged with crimes who were negligent or dangerous in the way they rode a horse. The difference is that today people are stopped to verify that they have permission to drive. 150 years ago they were only stopped if they showed some reason that they should be stopped.
But the point is that through a process of conditioning most would never even assume that driving is a right or that a license should not be required. The state has told us it's a privilage from the time we could hear & most people have bought it without question. & despite the merits of any arguement to the contrary ( & I have heard some good arguements that driving is a right rather than a privilage) most people dismiss them out of hand & often with a few choice expletives for the person who poses the arguement.
That is one of the dangers of any firearms licensing laws: that one day they will be so unquestionable as to have people believe owning & carrying arms is merely another privilage bestowed upon us by our gracious government.
& let us not foget confiscation. NYC required registration of all guns a while back. Then they used the lists to make sure people turned them in when they were told. Same thing happened in D.C. In California something similar happened with assault rifles. In fact in nearly every country where the government decided to murder a segment of it's population, registration, followed by confiscation made it much easier to kill of it's own people.
In the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, a very small number of Jews held of the Nazi's for almost 4 weeks. They had a handfull of weapons when they started & lasted longer in their resistance than the entire country of Poland did. Granted, the Nazi's killed most of them by buring the ghetto down. But since they were destined for the death camps anyway i don't think this detracts from their accomplishments.
Now, think of how the holocaust would have happened if every Jew in Nazi occupied territory had a rifle & a pistol & 100 rounds of ammo. But unfortuantely a 1928 german law, followed by a March 18, 1938 Nazi law ( very similar to our own GCA of 1968 ) required registration & licensing of most guns. A November 11th Nazi law order the surrender of all arms held by Jews. The rest is history.

Any laws that impose any conditions or requirements on the possesion or carrying of arms are a direct infringement upon our rights. It should be the actions of a person that are judged, not his mere possession of arms. Carrying a weapon should not be a crime. Using a weapon in a certain manner may be a crime, but not the mere carrying.

Untill we stop backing laws that compromise our rights, then we can expect to see more & more examples of people being charged for these victimless crimes as discussed below. Sadly, it is not the anti gunners we need to convince of this, but the gun owners themselves. Most don't care what happens as long as they can carry or as long as they're favorite type of gun is not banned. This is what we have to deal with before any meaningful reforms can happen within our laws.

Again, concealed carry is as much of a right as open carry or ownership of arms. Mention this to a friend & ask them to pass it on.