Saw this first at the Captain’s Place…
CHARLESTON, West Virginia — The West Virginia Legislature has approved legislation allowing residents 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without first obtaining a permit or undergoing training.
So I thought, good! Another state bites the dust. No matter how the gungrabbers scream their hoplophobic lies, no matter how much money Bloomberg spends, on this one issue we’re winning. It’s probably moot in this particular case, at least for this year…
The measure, passed on a bipartisan vote Wednesday, now goes to Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin for his review. He vetoed a similar bill last year.
And I don’t know the likelihood that he’ll veto this one. But time marches on, and so does the Overton Window, and it’s moving in the right direction. So, good.
But then I saw this, and it gave me pause…
Passed on bipartisan votes by both the state Senate and the House of Delegates, the proposed law includes a $50 tax credit for residents trained to carry a deadly weapon.
Presumably for partial reimbursement of training costs?
Okay, I’m kneejerk averse to stealing from Peter to buy Paul a pony, but that’s what governments do. Other than shooting you, that’s the only tool they have for social engineering.
And this particular provision probably addresses the objections of a specific lobbying group. Back six years ago when Arizona was in the process of going Constitutional Carry, a bunch of quislings who saw their businesses being adversely affected tried to get involved. Up to that point CCW licenses were required, with mandatory training. In a gun-friendly state like Arizona where lots of people wanted to carry legally, it was good to be a CCW trainer. Until all of a sudden it wasn’t mandatory anymore, at which point a good number of those people found themselves in the peculiar position of being in the gun business but opposing a very gun-friendly bill. Those people made the wrong choice, and frankly I hope (but doubt) it cost them everything.
Now here’s another state legislature passing a bill to eliminate the licensing requirement, but instead of telling the trainers to go hang they’re paying shooters to take training.
That can be taken in two obvious ways. On the one hand it’s an obvious pay-out, and I hate those. On the other hand, Constitutional Carry does inevitably reduce the incentive for shooters who weren’t raised with guns to get basic training, and even a $50 nod at familiarization is better than nothing.
I’m a little torn on this one.
It’s a tax _credit_, so they’re not stealing anything–on the contrary, they’re _declining_ to steal $50. Even if it is for social engineering purposes, I’m all in favor of governments not stealing, and wish they would not steal more often.
I don’t think this sort of legislation is a problem to more than a very few “professional” trainers. Unless they are associated with the state to start with, perhaps. I know that here in Wyoming, when the law changed to “allow” unlicensed CC, a great many people continued to want the “permit” still available so they could travel to other states that still required permits. I quit advertising classes because I was too busy, even after the law changed. Unfortunately, there is NO other certified instructor in the area, so I still give classes now and then. I mostly concentrate on teaching women, one to one now. The full two day class was a killer. 🙁
It is highly unlikely that independent, certified instructors had all that much business before… and unlikely that they suffered any serious loss afterwards. The only exception would be the “mandatory” classes given by the state itself, I suppose. The more of them that perish, the better.
And yes, a tax “credit” is an amount taken from the total tax “owed,” so not a subsidy from other taxpayers. Well, except in the twisted mind of those who think productive people “owe” the government anything.
“…a good number of those people found themselves in the peculiar position of being in the gun business but opposing a very gun-friendly bill.
There’s actually a term for that type of behavior. It’s called rent-seeking.
From somewhere in the Internet: “Rent-seeking is when a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.”
A valid distinction, and one I missed. I sit corrected.
It also is a sneaky way of gun registration/pro-second amendment. You apply for the tax credit, you have to show documentation for the class. Which may or may not list the gun you trained with, but definitely shows you are pro-second amendment. I know…I’m paranoid, but I just don’t trust the bastards.
In addition to the not-stealing aspect, I like that submitting for the tax credit is an inherently voluntary thing.
I admit, my first gut-level reaction was mixed as well; probably also from an absolute distrust of anything “those malignant bastards”* do, period.
(I think Judy is being a bit harsh on herself, though, with the use of the word “paranoid”. I suspect her distrust is–like mine–exactly the sort of distrust I’d have for a venomous snake: not so much “paranoia” as “basic biological intelligence”.)
And anyway, I think we should all recognize this opportunity for what it really represents: a chance to crow to the prozis that this is, ultimately, “a good first step”. 🙂
_______________
*shamelessly borrowed from Grigg.
I’m with Judy, my first gut reaction being that this is a sneaky backdoor gun(owner) registration. I envision that line on your tax return flying off to another database to add to whatever compilation of gun owners the feds currently have.
Not so much paranoia as a good, long memory for past skulduggery and legerdemain.
A similar,bill to give tax credit for CCW training was submitted to the AZ legislature last year. I am not sure it made it out of committee.
….but definitely shows you are pro-second amendment. I know…I’m paranoid, but I just don’t trust the bastards.
And with good reason – they’re all exceptionally untrustworthy bastards, each and every one.
There’s a somewhat-less-than-simple solution: enroll the trainers in the process, rather than the students. Permit the trainers, and since they probably advertise they’re already publicly identified, to submit monthly or quarterly applications for reimbursement of $50 per student based on the number of students they’ve taught. Gummint employees (I refuse to call them “workers”) will still proclaim they need to know just who took the course in the name of preventing fraud, so they’ll have to be legislatively forced into submission on that issue, and it will be up to each student to ensure he or she is receiving the $50 reduction benefit. (Personal responsibility, what a concept…)
Two potentially simpler solutions are: A) to reduce the cost of a CWP by $50 (assuming it’s a state that still issues CWPs rather than having Constitutional Carry), or; B) Assume that every state resident, upon reaching the age of 21, will purchase and carry a firearm so whatever tax interaction that occurs between citizen and gummint during the year they turn 21 automatically carries a $50 tax credit. Sure, hippies will probably spend it on dope, drunks will upgrade to single malt for a bottle or two, and millenials will use it to buy Bernie posters. Live with it, nothing’s perfect.