Addressing "may issue" regarding weapons carry permits

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Key among the basis for liberty are the concepts of truth and justice. Laws not soundly based in these, lead to a lack of fairness in opportunities of some over others.

Of the many requirements for training, knowledge of the law, proficiency and other prerequisites, the requirement to demonstrate a reason to fear imminent, pressing and/or clear threat of attack and assault is inherently inequitable in application.

Our principles and procedures of due process necessitate the innate presumption of innocence, the need to uphold the rights of the accused and that anything taken from individuals for the public good be done so in a fair and equitable manner. Making the process public and the records of it visible is the only way to assure this fairness. If my application is denied but some attorney down the street (who is a friend of sheriff) is approved, the reasons for that inequality need to accessible and open to challenge

The "shall issue" process incorporates visible and vincible requirements for the common citizen to pursue with diligence and clarity. Verifying that those requirements have been accomplished to the authorities is a straightforward and objective process. "May issue", OTOH, in addition to those visible requirements also burdens the citizen with convincing the authorities of both his reasons to suspect danger and his general and specific trustworthiness.

Beyond these points, in a "may issue" system, how can an individual challenge his own denial by the authorities without examining the processes and evidence presented by those who've been approved? Would not at least some of this investigation involve what may be issues of privacy? I've seen great amounts of push back over publishing lists, maps and such of people who have carry licenses.

It's not a secret that in many "may issue" jurisdictions those with enough money, elected office, professional position or personal connections to those in office are more likely to be approved for a carry permit.

How can a system that bases trust on office, profession, friends or money be thought of as fair?
What if a driving or business license or a passport was awarded in the same way?

[tularetom]

1. Don't get me started

At one time I thought I might like to have one of those permits. So I applied. Unfortunately, my son, who was a city cop at the time, was a good friend of the deputy who was running to oppose the sheriff in his bid for reelection.

Needless to say my application was shitcanned. That sheriff remained in office for another two terms until 2006 (I think). While he was in office I had several run ins with him involving an attempted theft of a chainsaw from my barn, and lack of patrols in our remote area of the county. By the time he left I had given up on getting a permit. But here it is almost ten years later, we have a new sheriff and the word I hear is that if you want one, contribute to his reelection campaign.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Inequitable and unfair all the way around

Tru$t should be spelled without the dollar sign.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Shall issue is the way to go

This now seems to be the way it is heading. I would like to hear the arguments from the other side on how other things should be handled a " may issue"

I am sure they will have some twisted way of justifying it.



I am back!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. So would I

Back from where?

[Duckhunter935]

5. "vacation"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. excellent!

good for you

[Duckhunter935]

9. Thanks

[Hangingon]

7. Good to see you back!

[Duckhunter935]

8. Thank you

[ileus]

10. We've missed you.

[Duckhunter935]

13. As I have missed posting

😀

[ileus]

11. Lot's of folks like rights being granted on an arbitrary basis.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. arbitrary right = oxymoron n/t