Concealed Carry / Media

22 Minutes for a Concealed Weapon Permit in Seattle

The Michael Bloomberg backed gun reporting source “The Trace” recently ran a story dramatically titled, “25 States Will Let You Carry a Concealed Gun Without Making Sure You Know How to Shoot One.” Researched and written by Jennifer Mascia, the story notes that only 24 states require range time or live fire in order to receive a concealed carry permit. And once recognition and reciprocity agreements between states are taken into account, only a few states require a every person who carries concealed to have fired a handgun.

(Note that in The Trace graphic below it says live-fire “training,” but few would characterize the range time spent in most required concealed carry classes as “training.” Really this refers to whether you have to fire a gun as part of the process.)

Source: http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/live-fire-training-not-mandatory-concealed-carry-permits/

I have previously written about North Carolina’s concealed carry permit requirements and controversy over people obtaining Virginia non-resident permits (recognized by North Carolina) as a way of “skirting” the NC law. This concern animates Mascia’s Trace investigation, which is also an argument against recently proposed national reciprocity laws.

I have spent a good deal of time looking at the details of various state concealed carry laws — the devil is in the details, after all — and there is indeed a huge variation in what is required to get a permit, even just looking at shall-issue states.

The Trace article reminded me of an earlier news piece I had seen about getting a concealed carry permit in Washington State. The earliest state to go shall-issue — in 1961, well before the shall-issue revolution erupted in Florida in the 1980s — Washington is also one of the most liberal in terms of its concealed carry law.

For those who equate Washington State with the City of Seattle – the latter with its current reputation for Starbucks-drinking, REI-wearing, Microsoft-rich liberals – this would seem to be an unlikely location for the nation’s first shall-issue law. But the area’s transformation into the San Francisco of the Northwest is actually fairly recent. Even today, one need not go far outside of the city proper to find a robust gun culture. Then, as now, much of the state of Washington was very rural, with strong hunting traditions and not a little strain of libertarianism.

This was discovered by msnbc.com reporter Mike Stuckey when he was able to apply for and receive (a month later) a concealed pistol license from the Seattle Police Department in just 22 minutes despite never having fired a handgun before.

22 Minutes to CCP

Another interesting part of this msnbc.com story, as you can see from the screen cap above, is that the author spent some time with the venerable gun trainer and legal expert Marty Hayes of the Firearms Academy of Seattle and the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network, whose videoed thoughts are shared along with Stuckey’s text.

 

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “22 Minutes for a Concealed Weapon Permit in Seattle

  1. Pingback: 22 Minutes for a Concealed Weapon Permit in Seattle | Rifleman III Journal

  2. The map graphic seems to be intentionally misleading. As a Georgia resident, I know there is no live-fire requirement for a Weapons Carry License (WCL, as it’s termed in Georgia), but I also know that Tennessee does have a live-fire requirement for a Handgun Carry Permit. Tennessee recognizes Georgia WCLs, which I suppose does mean that “without live-fire training” is correct for that instance, but South Carolina does not recognize Georgia WCLs because there is no live-fire requirement for a WCL, so the graphic is incorrect for that instance. So, I’d say the graphic is incorrect overall.

    Like

  3. While training is, by default, a “good thing”, whether requiring it up front makes a meaningful difference in public safety (and thus is wide reciprocity a valid concern at all) is a testable hypothesis.

    An intellectually honest reporter should do a follow-up; checking the permit revocation rates and comparing them between various states with various standards as available. A truly informative investigation would also publish the breakdown, as available, of why the revocations occurred. Presumably if training prevented crime and mishap, the rates of revocations of permits for such behavior would be higher in states

    As far as I am aware from previous such studies, if you look at states who publish such data there is no statistically meaningful difference between revocation rates in states where training is required and where it i not. Further, also as far as I know, the vast majority of causes of revocation in all states which give that information are almost uniformly administrative, not criminal and certainly not involving a crime of violence involving firearms.

    That is, of course, to be expected due to permits uniformly requiring a criminal background check and the majority of serious criminal violence primarily occurring between persons with prior (and ongoing) criminal histories. It also makes sense that people who do take the time to apply for even as simple a permit as WA’s (I have one myself, the walk from my hotel to the Courthouse took as long as the process) are demonstrating a modicum of responsibility and personal investment which makes it less likely they will be among those causing the fairly uncommon firearm accidents, fatal and not.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s