Concealed weapons permits (CWPs) have made a major impact in the United States by causing or preventing crime and/or harm. Gun laws in the United States vary from state to state. However, most states have some form of a CWP for civilians and allow for those permit holders to carry a handgun in public. Many people speculate as to whether there should be any requirements for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon in public, or if civilians should even be allowed to obtain a CWP. Although concealed weapons permits should be legal for civilians to obtain, there should be more rigorous training and mental health requirements in order for a civilian to acquire one.

As mentioned in the introduction, CWPs allow civilians to conceal carry a weapon such as a handgun in any public place that does not strictly prohibit weapons. States vary in their requirements to obtain a CWP or carry a concealed weapon in public. South Carolina law enforcement is not allowed the discretion to deny a CWP. However, in order for a civilian to obtain an SC CWP, they must be 21 years of age or older, not be prohibited by state law from possessing a firearm, and have completed a handgun safety course from a law enforcement agency or nationally recognized organization that teaches firearm safety. In California, a civilian may obtain a CWP if they: pass a background check, have a good reason in the eyes of the government to be issued a CWP, have completed a firearms safety course, meet residency requirements, and pay any fees that may apply when being issued a CWP. According to a 2017 Smart Gun Laws report, there are states such as Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, that do not require that a civilian obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. There are some states, such as Alabama that will issue a CWP to anyone of age 18 years or older that can pass a short written test on gun safety. According to John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, the amount of active concealed weapons permits in the United States has increased a whopping 215 percent from 2007 to 2016 (“Concealed Carry Permit Holders”).

In most states, the firearms training course that CWP applicants have to complete contain information on state law relating to handguns and the use of deadly force. They also include information on handgun use and safety. The courses attempt to inform the student about proper firearm storage to reduce the chances of children finding them and accidently harming themselves or others. In order to pass the course, there is a required minimum accuracy score in the range test, the portion of the test in which the student fires a handgun at a target in the presence of an instructor. Completion of these courses typically takes one to two days and can costs $50 at the cheapest (Palmetto State Armory). Although this method is a well thought-out attempt to make sure CWP applicants are prepared for carrying a concealed weapon in public, it is not sufficient enough. 

In a 2009 ABC News study, an experiment was done in which several college students were briefly trained to handle and shoot a handgun and placed in a classroom with a simulation handgun that shoots paint. In each test, an assailant armed with a simulation handgun burst into the classroom in the middle of a lecture and started shooting the students and the professor. Each situation showed that the student under the stress of a shooting was unable to function properly or quickly enough to draw their weapon and take down the assailant before being shot themselves. The point of the study was to show that even though you may be carrying a gun on you at the right time, that does not mean you can necessarily stop a crime from taking place right in front of you. The conductors used the results of the experiment to support their bias that CWP’s have no good use. For example, the shooter knew which student was concealed carrying each time and always started shooting at them first. Even though in a real situation, the shooter would not know who was carrying a weapon or who to target first, the experiment proved a worthy point. Without the correct situational training, a civilian could possibly put themselves or others at more of a risk in a sensitive event such as a shooting or a hostage situation. A CWP holder without the proper training or instinct could freeze up in a shocking situation instead of being able to function properly and quickly with the correct reflexes.

In a more personal experience, last year, my older brother turned 21 and completed the required firearm safety course and sent in all of his credentials to be processed by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) in hopes to be approved and sent back his CWP card. After 6 months or so of processing, he did receive his CWP card in the mail. My brother told me about someone who he met at his work that had never shot a gun before he took the firearms safety course. This person purchased a handgun, passed the firearms safety course, and obtained his CWP. He told my brother that he carried the gun with him and said that he would use it if he ever needed to. My brother recommended that he get a lot more comfortable with shooting a handgun and possibly take more training courses before he continued carrying it regularly. That is a prime example of why the training courses required to obtain a CWP should be more intensive. My brother and I have grown up around firearms of all shapes and sizes and have been shooting guns since we were six years old. Needless to say, we are both very comfortable and experienced with handling firearms. However, even we do not have as much training as we should have to conceal carry. Yet, there are people who have never shot a gun before the test who are being issued CWPs.

The government should require completion of a course of situational and firearms training that lasts a minimum of a month before distributing CWPs to civilians. In addition, CWP holders should be required to take a short refresher self-defense course yearly to keep up to date with laws and stay sharp in their training. The key to helping our society is not having armed civilians that hardly know how to handle a gun in any situation, much less a stressful one, but by civilians that are properly trained to handle a violent or criminal situation should it occur in their presence. This method would mean that fewer people would have CWPs since not everyone would want to devote the time or the money to training, but it would mean that the CWP holders would be much more likely to prevent a crime, rather than making themselves or others victims.

In an article by the Harvard Law Review, two cases were discussed that had judges with varying opinions on whether CWPs are even protected by the constitution (1024). “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (US Const. amend II). The 2nd Amendment explicitly states that the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms is not to be trampled on. Some people read this with the idea that this right only exists on our own property. This right is not limited to just our own property, otherwise the United States Congress would have made that clear when they were writing the 2nd Amendment. The peoples’ rights are meant to be existent anywhere in the United States of America. This is true about our rights of freedom of speech and it is true about our right to bear arms. However, there are laws about our freedom of speech and likewise there should be laws about our right to bear arms.

In an article by John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, two stories are mentioned in which police officers were helped by civilians with CWPs. The point of the article was to show that even though the police are meant for protecting and serving the people, sometimes the police need the people to protect them. In both cases the police officers were at risk because they had been disarmed and attacked by assailants. However, the officers were protected and saved in both instances by civilian CWP holders (“Concealed Carry Permits Help Police”). It is unlikely that you would have more than one police officer around you in public at any given moment, if any. Although CWP holders can help police, they could just as well harm police if a situation were to occur. If a CWP holder were to assault a police officer, chances are that the police officer would win that fight due to their advantage of years of training and possibly the help of another CWP holder(s). A survey done by PoliceOne shows that of the 15,000 law enforcement officers that participated in the survey, 91 percent said that they support the concealed carry of firearms by civilian permit holders (Avery 1).  In times like these, it is important that civilians are able to defend themselves and other civilians, if needed.

People who believe that CWPs should be illegal make many valid points. However, just like in every other controversial issue, there are counter arguments to their points. They believe that the more CWP holders there are, the more likely a confrontation will escalate and become lethal. They also believe that criminals will be more likely to carry guns if they think that the victims might be carrying a gun. In addition, they think that the CWP application requirements and background checks are ineffective to prevent dangerous criminals from obtaining a CWP (“Should Adults Have…”). While people may think of CWPs insinuating more violence and lethality, the reality of it is that CWP holders have the idea drilled into their head that drawing their firearm is a last resort in a very bad situation. They are trained to try and get out of it by talking and/or any other method necessary. If they do have to resort to drawing their firearm, they know to try and use it to threaten the criminal first. Shooting the criminal is always a “shit hit the fan” resort and aiming for a lethal shot is a last resort of the last resort. CWP holders know to never turn a situation violent or lethal unless they have no other choice. The argument of criminals carrying guns because the victims may be carrying guns is very unlikely. Criminals commit petty crime when they are confident that they can get away with it. If they think there is a chance they could die for trying to hold up somebody for their wallet, there is a very good chance that they will not try to rob somebody. In the event of a shooting, the criminal already has a gun in public which means you better hope that somebody there is conceal carrying to take them down before innocent people die. Lastly, criminals are not going to go through a government process to legally carry a firearm. If they want to conceal carry a firearm, they will do it with or without the government’s permission. CWPs should not be illegal. However, I think that more training for CWP holders would greatly benefit the safety of themselves and others.

To some Americans, CWPs are seen as a safety net; a self-defense plan if someone tries to commit a crime or harm another in their presence. They believe that if criminals know that more people are carrying weapons, it will prevent crime out of fear. However, many other Americans see CWPs as a threat to the public and believe that less people should be allowed to carry guns in order to prevent crimes or violence from happening. Both arguments bring up very valid points and typically share a commonality in their beliefs: there should be requirements to obtain a CWP. Christopher Ingraham wrote an article for the Washington post in which he discussed why he believes the statement “more guns, less crime” is misleading. The author quotes many research groups and modern day scholars such as: David Fortunato of the Department of Political Science at Texas A&M, John Donohue of Stanford University, and Hepburn L. of Harvard School of Public Health. From the academics’ stance on the topic, he comes to the conclusion that CWP holders do not affect the crime rates and the crime rates do not affect CWP holders (1). Although, if this article is fact checked with federal records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, you will find that while CWP issuance and weapons sales saw a massive increase from 2007-2011, firearm crime rate saw an 18 percent decline. Even though a CWP might be used in a crime occasionally, CWPs and weapons sales increases seem to have had positive impacts on the crime rate recently.

Different states have varying gun laws regarding the mentally ill (National Conference of State Legislatures). Typically, if deemed by a physician to be incompetent to possess a firearm, it is illegal to obtain a CWP or a firearm. However, there was a study done in 2013 which explored how a physician can really assess whether or not a patient is competent to possess a firearm. It was found that many of the physicians had very differing views of what “competency to possess a firearm” was and there were a large number of physicians who had little confidence in their decisions on the matter (Goldstein et al.). Many horrible, violent crimes, whether by guns or other means, that occur in the United States are due to mental illness and/or medication for mental illness. Most Americans believe that the mental health system in the United States is broken. The mental health system needs to be fixed in order for physicians to have a better understanding of how to properly assess patients for firearm possession competency. Civilians that want to apply for CWPs or even purchase a firearm should be required to submit medical records to the government if they want any chance of being accepted. In the meantime, civilians that have had moderate to severe mental health issues in the past should not be allowed to possess or purchase a firearm until an amount of time, set by a physician, has passed without any more issues. 

Although many may think that concealed carrying is a pleasure to CWP holders, they do not take into account the cons of carrying a weapon all the time. Handgun concealing holsters are typically very uncomfortable to wear and cause chafing and other discomfort to the carrier. Before CWP holders enter any building or even certain outdoor areas, they have to make sure that they are legally allowed to carry their weapon there. In order for a building’s signs to hold up in a court of law, they must: be posted at every entrance to the building, be clearly visible from outside the building, be 8 inches wide by 12 inches tall, contain the words “NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED” in black 1-inch-tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign centered between the lateral edges, etc. (South Carolina Legislature). There are many very specific requirements for anti-gun signs to be upheld in court of law. In addition, legal concealed carriers can be prosecuted in court of law if, when in public, it is noticed or suspected by any other civilian that the CWP holder has a weapon on their person. This law serves the purpose of making sure that CWP holders keep their weapons concealed at all times in public, as to not cause panic or fear in other civilians. There are many cases of CWP holders being prosecuted because of their shirts getting caught up above their weapon and it being reported showing in public. It is often stressful to risk conceal carrying in public even as a CWP holder for fear of being caught up in any legal complications. These are some of the many reasons why gun rights advocates are appreciative to CWP holders. Not everybody can conceal carry whether due to lack of age of other reasons, but we should be thankful to those who do conceal carry with the intent to protect anyone around them who may be put in harm’s way since that would include us.

Almost any self-defense or firearms training course will teach CWP holders that their weapon is always the LAST resort to resolve a problem or conflict. CWP holders are supposed to attempt to resolve any problem that they come into contact with peaceably and only use lethal force if absolutely necessary (i.e. someone’s life is endangered). Many CWP holders do have a slight fear of ever having to use their weapons because of the chance of being charged with murder or manslaughter, or even possibly being sued by the very criminal whom they shot in self-defense. A majority of the time, when someone is killed in self-defense by a CWP holder, there is a full and thorough investigation into the situation to make sure of no foul play.

There is a large issue with the National Rifle Association (NRA) blocking gun legislation and gun violence statistics from being recorded. The NRA is going too far when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment right. It is nice that they are making sure that our right does not get abolished completely, but they need to be pushed back a little bit in order to better CWP requirements for our society. They have their hands in too much the congress so that no funding can go into gun violence research and no laws can be passed that tighten our laws on a federal level.

In conclusion, CWPs should not be illegal. However, the solution to violent crime in the United States is neither more nor less CWP holders, but it is more mentally stable and well trained CWP holders. Reevaluating the United States’ mental health system would benefit the efficiency of gun laws by assuring that patients are properly assessed. CWPs help the government and the people and therefore should be encouraged with the proper federal requirements. Those requirements being: a careful medical background check for past or current mental illnesses, a thorough criminal record background check, a training course that lasts a minimum of 1 month and which covers self-defense situational and firearm training to properly equip CWP holders with the skills needed to keep themselves and other out of harm’s way, attend a yearly, refresher self-defense course, and be 21 years of age. Unfortunately, until the NRA is in the way of any legislation for CWP requirements being passed any time soon. The first step must be backing the NRA out of congress.
