PDA

View Full Version : CCW Versus LTC: Word Semantics in our favor?


Gray Peterson
02-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Apparently in Illinois currently, in Missouri in the past, and so on, the pro-gun groups there have apparently stopped using the term "CCW" and now use the word "LTC". The current California CCW license says "License to Carry Concealed A Pistol, Revolver, or Other Firearm".

Does anyone here think it would be in any way beneficial changing the acronym for what we're talking about from CCW to LTC or LTCC?

Thoughts?

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 11:46 AM
Apparently in Illinois currently, in Missouri in the past, and so on, the pro-gun groups there have apparently stopped using the term "CCW" and now use the word "LTC". The current California CCW license says "License to Carry Concealed A Pistol, Revolver, or Other Firearm".

Does anyone here think it would be in any way beneficial changing the acronym for what we're talking about from CCW to LTC or LTCC?

Thoughts?

Currently the way the Penal Code is written, the only people who can get a "CCW" is a retired law enforcement officer.

Those who aren't retired LEO get a "License to Carry" Concealed a Pistol, Revolver, or Other Firearm, which is commonly referred to as an LTC.

Those who use CCW in reference to California are most of the time using the acronym in error.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 11:49 AM
I never did like LTC due to "license." I do like RTC; "right."

-Gene

7x57
02-25-2009, 12:24 PM
I never did like LTC due to "license." I do like RTC; "right."


Hmm. But isn't it semantically correct? If we called it a "RTC," it would be a "right" granted, controlled, and revocable by the state. Seems oxymoronic. In fact, without incorporation or state constitutional amendment "RTC" appears to be impossible in CA.

Arguably "RTC" would only apply to unlicenced carry where the government has no involvement or knowledge, such as LOC in states where that is unregulated or (best of all) Vermont. In Vermont, I'd say you really and truly have a right to carry.

7x57

383green
02-25-2009, 12:37 PM
I never did like LTC due to "license."

Agreed, but calling it something other than a "license" doesn't make it not be one. Why not use the offensive (and entirely accurate) name so that there is no doubt about what it is? Political correctness should be pooped on at every opportunity, IMHO. Hmm, maybe I should have worded that in a less politically correct manner? :rolleyes:

DDT
02-25-2009, 1:28 PM
Political correctness should be pooped on at every opportunity, IMHO. Hmm, maybe I should have worded that in a less politically correct manner? :rolleyes:

As long as you aren't being PC perhaps you should have said shat upon at every opportunity. :D

I agree btw. By labeling it a license it is much clearer that it needs to go away if there is ever a court decision striking down the ability to license..

Glock22Fan
02-25-2009, 1:41 PM
Those who use CCW in reference to California are most of the time using the acronym in error.

Technically you are right of course, but does it matter? We all know what we mean and this is a case where IMHO no harm is done by the usage.

dfletcher
02-25-2009, 1:48 PM
Massachusetts uses the "license to carry" and it has been used in the past to EXCLUDE carrying a concealed weapon for self defense. As in, "we'll issue the LTC, but it can't be used for self defense purposes.

For example, you could be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon to and from the shooting range only. Or while hunting only. A license to carry could also be issued "for all lawful purposes" (meaning self defense) and that is how the system in MA works today.

Not so much what it's called but what a person is allowed to do with it, promoting a two tiered system in a state like CA might be a good foot in the door since real CCW won't pass. If target shooters and hunters are allowed "shall issue" to carry concealed while they're going to & from the range only or while hunting only, perhaps that gets people used to the whole concealed weapon concept? Just a little thinking out loud.

artherd
02-25-2009, 2:28 PM
I don't like the word "License" in there. CCW is fine - the term is not hostile or inflammatory (frankly we are the only ones who know what it is.)

I like doing away with the permit/license system entirely...

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 2:38 PM
Rhetoric is not the law. Witness the term assault weapon.

From a marketing and PR perspective, choosing not to settle that we need a license in the term means we have more force when we demand the right be protected.

It's not logic. It's persuasion.

-Gene

383green
02-25-2009, 2:39 PM
I agree that no permit or license should be necessary. But as long as it is necessary, let's call it what it is: a LICENSE. If the word offends you, then that's good! Every time you see that LICENSE in your wallet, you'll get a little bit steamed, and a little bit more motivated to do something to eliminate the license/permit requirement. Calling the LICENSE anything other than a license just distracts from the offensive part. It's not what it's called that's bad, but what it is.

I'll be happy to do my part in the fight to eliminate the license/permit requirement entirely, but let's be honest: When folks like Ben or Gene get upset about something, a lot more good comes from that than when I get upset about something!

It seems unlikely to me that we could achieve no-license-needed concealed carry in CA without going through a stage of shall-issue licensing first. If I'm not mistaken about that, then I don't think it helps us to give the license a cute, fluffy name. On the contrary, I think it's in our best interest to keep an honest name, even if it's offensive. I'd call it "LICENSE TO HAVE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INFRINGED SLIGHTLY LESS" (LTHFRISL) if that could fly!

Just my two cents.

383green
02-25-2009, 2:40 PM
From a marketing and PR perspective, choosing not to settle that we need a license in the term means we have more force when we demand the right be protected.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Maybe you're approaching the "license" name issue from a different angle than I am?

GuyW
02-25-2009, 2:59 PM
If target shooters and hunters are allowed....to carry concealed while they're going to & from the range only or while hunting only...

Already the law, without a license (albeit unloaded if within a no-shooting area)...
.

GuyW
02-25-2009, 3:01 PM
How about calling it what it is?

LDF

"License to Defend my Family"
.

N6ATF
02-25-2009, 4:47 PM
IOGGRTSD

Infringement On God-Given Right To Self-Defense

Gray Peterson
02-25-2009, 5:07 PM
In Illinois and Missouri, the term "LTC" or "License to Carry" was used as a semantic gain to avoid using the term "Concealed Weapon", which has a more "evil sounding". Conceal gives the feeling of "evil intent".

artherd
02-26-2009, 12:01 AM
Self Defense License has an interesting ring, and reversed social connotation...

"Did you get your SDL?"
"wait, you need a LICENSE now for Self Defense? WTFBBQ!~!!"

Liberty1
02-26-2009, 12:15 AM
"Right to Carry" (shall issue but still revokable concealed privilege) laws are anything but a "Right", BUT it wins the political game as "who can be against a Right?" right?

CCW (concealed) vs LTC firearm (any way you want) is really more a legal discussion (IMO) of whether issuance of a 12050 license precludes or includes being exempted from the PC when open carrying or is it a CC only thang.

383green
02-26-2009, 12:33 AM
One problem that I have with the current carry laws is this: if I am legally carrying concealed, then I should not need to fear prosecution if I don't conceal the weapon well enough. Also, if I am legally carrying openly, I should not need to fear prosecution if I accidentally conceal the weapon partially.

I have a right to bear arms. Whether concealed of not, whether handgun rifle or shotgun, the color or features of the weapon, the size of the weapon, the cost of the weapon, etc. should not matter as long as I mind my own business, do not infringe upon the rights of others, and do not act with negligent disregard for the safety of other law-abiding people around me.