If you legally qualify for a gun permit, you should get one

The Supreme Court was right — New York’s decision to place an additional restriction on concealed carry permits was ripe for abuse.

[O]n June 23, the court held that New York’s restrictive law violated the Second and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

What does that mean to those of us in Pennsylvania? Absolutely nothing. The law in this commonwealth, as in more than 40 other states, was already in line with what the court said the Constitution requires. That’s because Pennsylvania is what’s known as a “shall issue” state; New Jersey and Delaware, however, are “may issue” states.

A shall-issue state like Pennsylvania will issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets the legal requirements. That doesn’t mean just anyone can get a permit — the law carves out several groups including convicted felons, people “not of sound mind,” and “habitual drunkards.” But if you are legally qualified, you get the permit.

New York’s law — like New Jersey’s — was more subjective. In New York, as a “may issue” state, the government may issue you a license if you meet the criteria, but they can also choose not to if the state believes applicants haven’t demonstrated a “proper cause” for having a license and proven it to the satisfaction of a “licensing officer” — a judge in most counties, but the local police or county sheriff in others.

In no other circumstances do we require people to apply to the subjective judgment of a cop or judge before they can exercise a right. If this were any other civil right, New York’s law would have long ago set off alarm bells in the minds of liberals.

Between 1998 and 2020, the percentage of people with concealed carry permits nationwide has grown by more than sixfold, yet for most of those years (until 2020) the murder rate declined. The rate of violent crime overall declined even more sharply.

Our state does not break down crime data into permit holders vs. non-permit holders, but one state that does, Michigan, found that out of more than 750,000 permit holders in 2021, only four were convicted of homicide. That’s a rate of 0.53 per 100,000 — compared with 7.4 per 100,000 in the state as a whole. The rate for all crimes was 1,856 per 100,000; for permit holders, it was 177 per 100,000.

The changes that will follow in New York and New Jersey after Bruen will not make people there more safe or less safe. What they will do is bring order and equality to the administration of a constitutional right, guaranteeing that all applicants for permits will be treated equally under the law. Equal justice under the law should be uncontroversial in a democratic republic.

Everything said is both factually correct and reasonable.

Every time concealed carry rights are expanded the Left clutches its pearls and cries that every uncouth social interaction will become a shootout.

It never happens.

In a city like New York, the number of carry permits will not move the needle substantially on the crime rate.  But the argument for concealed carry isn’t a collective one (it will change the crime rate), it’s an individual one (it will protect the permitted person from being a victim).

And once again, we see how the Left treats guns separate from every other right.

Perhaps a man should have to obtain a permit that shows “just cause” to dress as a woman and dance outside of his home.  See how long it takes for the Left to drag that one to court.

I’m amazed to see this OpEd printed in a newspaper in a Blue city.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “The Inquirer publishes an incredible OpEd”
  1. “In a city like New York, the number of carry permits will not move the needle substantially on the crime rate. “
    The needle will go down measurably after the first few thugs start getting shot.

  2. More people legally carrying in NY will move the needle … if after lawfully defending themselves they are charged for doing so, like that shop owner from a day or two ago.

  3. Kyle Sammin is an author at The Federalist. You just got baited into thinking the Inquirer agrees with him (and didn’t heavily edit his post).

    This is no different than the FNYT posting Tom Cotton’s op-ed to use the feds to crack down on rioters.

    Don’t go mistaking Philadelphia journalism for being conservative for editing and posting some op-ed piece for rageclicks.

  4. Won’t move the needle? I give you the after effects of Bernard Goetz. After he gave the thugs some, then asked if one wanted some more, the citizens of F_NY emulated him and crime dropped like a rock. I still remember the lady that demonstrated how fast she was with her hat pin. That’s why F-NY hounded Goetz until they could get him for having a pistol, since they couldn’t get him for defending himself. Give me ten thugs in the ground, I’ll bet you get 50%+ drop in crime.

    1. Hat Pin? Was that Bernard Goetz or Charles Bronson in “Death Wish”? Both?

      Jose Alba’s Self Defense Case in his Bodega Stabbing Murder Charge will be critical. So will all the coming litigation against the new, UNConstitutional NY State Gun Laws.

      NYFC took over a hundred years to get here, it will take a dozen more years to get close to sane gun laws.

  5. “The rate for all crimes was 1,856 per 100,000; for permit holders, it was 177 per 100,000.”

    Yeah, about that….how many of those “177 per 100,000” were procedural crimes? As in, carrying one’s firearm into someplace where it’s prohibited, and the carrier is charged with trespassing. I’d wager those are a substantial part of those “177 per 100,000.”

  6. I thought PA has one set of firearms rules for Philadelphia (rather restrictive) and a different set of rules for the rest of the state?

    One thing I like about NH is that towns are explicitly forbidden to make any gun regulations, and (I think) town officials are personally liable for violating that law.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.