With the turn of the new year, criminals using guns in the commission of a felony will receive drastically tougher criminal sentencing in Tennessee. The new “Crooks with Guns” law is a victory for law enforcement officers and regular citizens alike.
Now, so-called conservatives from both parties in the Tennessee General Assembly should turn some of their energy and attention on the issue of gun laws to drawing down some of the financial drain government regulation causes law-abiding gun owners.
The math is pretty simple. In order for a Tennessee resident to legally own and carry a firearm for self-defense purposes, state government exacts somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 to $300 in fees, taxes and charges.
Applying for a gun carry permit in this state costs a resident an initial $115. That comes on top of an instant-check fee of $10 and a sales tax of around 10 percent on a purchase that can run anywhere from a couple of hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars.
On top of all of this is an extra $100 to $150 for a gun safety class from a state licensed private business that offers them. Passing the class is a prerequisite to actually obtaining the gun carry permit. In some areas, local police departments offer these classes free of charge, but the demand can be higher than these departments have time and officers to teach the classes.
The extra costs added by state government to even a modest purchase of a $300 used handgun can almost increase the purchase price by 50 percent in an area where permit classes are given for free. The government-related charges can literally double the entry price to carrying a handgun for self-defense where these classes are not offered by local police departments.
Charging hundreds of dollars to a Tennessean’s right to carry a firearm is simply wrong on its face. Based on the spirit of laws already on the books, state lawmakers past and present appear to agree this a right Tennesseans have, not a privilege awarded to them by the government.
Furthermore, these charges create an economic barrier that may force law-abiding residents of our state on the lower socio-economic end of the food chain to either carry illegally or not at all. Why should single parents, young people and the working poor be at a disadvantage financially when it comes to a right others with more means enjoy freely? They should not.
If conservatives in the Legislature mean what they say about Tennesseans’ right to bear arms, then they should look at either reducing these fees or making firearms one of the items in this state where sales tax is not charged. We have made the use of firearms much more difficult for criminals. Now, we need to make self-defense for honest, hard-working and law-abiding Tennesseans not cost so much.
I agree. When the concealed carry law was first proposed, I was talking to a sitting judge who asked me what I thought about it. I told him that I thought we should have an "Open Carry" law where everybody should be considered to be armed, unless there was something, a pin, ribbon or something, signifying that they were not armed, visible on their person.Robert A Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."Firearm safety should be a required course in our schools starting in the first grade and continued through graduation of high school. A normal sales tax should apply to the purchase of a firearm only and the permit should cost no more than the cost of the paperwork. $15 maximum. No other fees should apply.
Not to mention the societal benefits of concealed carry licencees. Effectively (at least in Illinois where I currently reside), state statutes give civilians the same authority for defense, arrest, and use of force that are given the police. Thus, it is not far off the mark to consider CCW holders as de facto undercover police officers. Many of us with CCW licenses frankly feel it's our responsibility (far from a "priviledge) to serve society in this regard. Moreover, citizens aren't quite as tied down by political sensitivities as are police and police departments.As with any controversial issue, studies surrounding them are fraught with accusations of fraud and bias (be they real or imagined). I don't know if any reasonable or authentic criticism has been leveled at the following paper...but Lott and Mustard (1997) in their paper "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns" (Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, University of Chicago) estimated the public benefit for each additional carry license was $5000 per year. The deterrence posed by law enforement officers is real, and expensive. Yet with CCW, we have average (albeit especially law-abiding) citizens that deter crime by their very existence. If anything, society should make it easier, not harder and more expensive, for civilians to obtain CCW licenses.As an aside....as "progressive" as some people think Chicago politics are...this city has a long, long way to go toward a sensible policy on this matter.
There may be some Tennesseans who don't believe that burglars, muggers or carjackers should be shot, and therefore oppose changes that make it easier for people to carry guns.There is a way both sides can get what they want. The state should authorize an official armband and an official placard indicating a promise not to use deadly force against criminals -- to be dsplayed by anyone who believes that robbers' lives are more important than their right not to be robbed. (Anyone displaying this who then kills a robber can be charged with murder -- on the grounds that he enticed the robber just to have the opportunity of killing him.)If all the people who feel this way were to display this signal, robbers could protect their lives by seeking out only victims who wear the armband or display the sign.With my proposal, both sides get what they want. Those who care most about not being robbed could simply refuse to wear the armband or post the sign -- and would carry concealed handguns if they wish. On the other hand, those who consider the lives a criminals to be more important _would_ wear the armband and post the sign -- thereby helping criminals select victims who won't kill them.Suppose not enough people declare their willingness to submit peacefully to provide criminals with a safe alternative? It would then be clear that people caring more about robbers' lives are too small a minority for a democracy to let them impose their values on the rest of us.