The only measurable thing the concealed carry law does for police is provide them a tool to arrest an armed gang member and take him to jail where valuable intelligence is collected: i.e. booking photo, finger prints, documentation of tattoos etc. I’ve done that many times. But, is that leverage over the gang member worth the price of liberty paid by the law-abiding citizen? NO. The price paid is the infringement inherent in the concealed carry law. That infringement compromises the citizen’s personal safety from the very same gangster the police used the law to arrest.
The state has placed the rule-follower at a disadvantage to the predator by Denying that citizen the at-will freedom to possess a weapon under a coat, in a purse or in a glove box for fear of being snared by the same law the gangster was arrested for. There are already laws to punish parolees and certain felons for possessing firearms. And when LE catches them in violation they are charged accordingly. There is a law against stealing guns and possessing stolen property. When LE catches those offenders with such contraband they are charged.
The Concealed Carry Law is only obeyed by rule followers. It is misguided, illogical and immoral. The unconstitutional tax component is a revenue generating scheme. Through word-smithing it is called a “FEE.”
The Law is argued necessary under the Orwellian banner of “Public Safety.” In fact, the concealed carry law makes citizens less safe by infringing on their right to possess a firearm at-will in a manner that gives them the best advantage: concealed carry. To illustrate the error in reasoning behind concealed carry laws consider this simple hypothetical: The population of “Safe City” is 10,000. The Safe City Police Department subscribes to the hiring ratio of 1,000: 1. In other words, for every 1,000 inhabitants, the Safe City Police Department hires one officer. In this example there would be 10 officers to serve 10,000 people. Those ten officers would be divided in three, eight-hour shifts giving Safe City “police coverage” consisting of 3.3 officers 24/7 (barring one calling in sick or being on vacation). Many calls for service are two-officer calls; this slows response time on a busy day and calls for service get stacked up in order of priority.
Now, let’s say that 1% of the 10,000 population are criminals. We are relying on 3.3 Safe City officers to police 100 bad guys roaming Safe City. Would it not make more sense to allow the 9,900 good citizens of Safe City to carry a weapon concealed at-will? When there is a rash of robberies or gang rapes reported more Safe City residents will choose to carry weapons concealed (without need for a permit). This makes sense even using Common Core math. It puts the odds in favor of the citizen and the city could be renamed, “Safer City.”