grylnsmn
Regular Member
I get it, you hate the very idea of permits. So do I. But we have to deal with the world the way it is, and CHPs aren't going anywhere in the next 4 years, no matter what we do.
I OC almost exclusively, but I do have a CHP because I occasionally go places where OC is not appropriate, and I refuse to compromise on safety. As one example, I often visit my elderly aunt in assisted living, and she is very anti-gun, to the point of lecturing me about guns in my own home one time. Her facility doesn't prohibit, so I have my CHP so I can conceal while I am there without breaking the law. Similarly, I use my CHP to legally carry at church, because I am not willing to sacrifice security, but it is also an inappropriate time and place to advocate for gun rights. Beyond that, I have used it only for when I have travelled to other places not as friendly to OC (such has a visit to Texas a few years ago).
The mere fact that I have a CHP doesn't mean I hold myself up as "better" than anyone else. It merely means that I a working within the system that we have right now, even as I advocate to change that same system.
You can hold your own opinion all you want, but you really don't get to pick your own definitions of words. The word "perk" comes from "perquisite", which is defined as:
Reducing the fee by $25 doesn't fit definition 1, because it's not some benefit or privilege. It's simply not paying for a "service" (the FBI fingerprint check) that you by law are not getting. It wasn't the government's money in the first place, so letting the applicant keep their own money isn't a "payment benefit, privilege, or advantage". It certainly doesn't fit definition 2, and it's not being demanded as a privilege, so it doesn't fit definition 3.
By the way you seem to be using the term, you would probably claim that changing from may-issue to shall-issue for CHPs was "P4P" as well. That defies all logic. Yes, a CHP is treated as a privilege, not a right (and that needs to change), but that doesn't mean that everything related to concealed carry is a perk. Some examples of that include reducing the fee for services not rendered, and clarifying the secured container law (which has nothing to do with CHPs, but Thundar claimed was P4P).
Consider also that many jurisdictions claim that they lose money on CHP applications as it is. Reducing the amount they can charge for them is more likely to encourage them to support eliminating CHPs than the extra $25 is going to convince applicants to reject CHPs.
Yes, CHPs are the camel's nose, but they can be that way for us to loosen the restrictions, too. For example, the change from may-issue to shall-issue for permits was a big step towards constitutional carry, even if it didn't get us all the way there. Similarly, the CHP exemption for school property (as long as you remain in your car) helped pave the way to the secured container law, which benefits everyone. Permits already exist, so complaining about their existence (especially among 2A supporters) does us no good.
Until we get constitutional carry, a CHP should be for nothing more than carrying concealed. It shouldn't bestow anything beyond that limited benefit. But it also shouldn't be a license for the government to charge any more than what the law explicitly allows (and for the explicit purposes stated in the law). And those who have CHPs should continue to work towards the ultimate goal of constitutional carry, as I have consistently tried to do.
