Concealed Carry Laws: Who Should Have the Right to Bear Arms
This essay argues that the legal right to carry a loaded, concealed weapon should be limited to individuals with a clear and demonstrable need, rather than extended to the general public. Using Missouri's concealed carry permit law as a central case study, the paper examines the law's requirements, loopholes, and practical limitations. It considers opposing arguments rooted in Second Amendment rights while contending that constitutional rights are not absolute. The essay also highlights categories of potentially dangerous individuals—future offenders, substance abusers, and gang members—who may obtain permits before establishing a criminal record, concluding that existing permit structures already adequately serve those with legitimate need.
- Introduction: The Concealed Carry Debate: Historical context and central thesis on concealed carry
- Missouri's Concealed Carry Law and Its Requirements: Missouri permit requirements and their rationale
- Limitations of the Law's Accuracy and Safety Standards: Critiquing the law's minimal accuracy and safety thresholds
- Who Already Has Permission to Carry — and Who Should Not: Loopholes allowing dangerous individuals to obtain permits
- The Second Amendment Argument and Its Limits: Rebutting constitutional justifications for broad carry rights
- Conclusion: Restricting Concealed Carry to Those with Clear Need: Calling for limits based on demonstrated, legitimate need
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay grounds its argument in a specific, real-world example — Missouri's concealed carry law — which gives the analysis concrete detail rather than relying solely on abstract principles.
- It anticipates and directly addresses the opposing Second Amendment argument before rebutting it with a well-known free speech analogy, demonstrating awareness of counterarguments.
- The paper identifies specific demographic categories (future offenders, substance abusers, gang members) who could legally obtain permits, strengthening the practical case against broad concealed carry laws.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a refutation structure: it acknowledges the strongest counterargument (Second Amendment protection) and then systematically undermines it by showing that constitutional rights are not unlimited. This technique — concede and rebut — is a standard and effective move in argumentative writing, demonstrating intellectual honesty while preserving the central thesis.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a brief historical context and states its thesis clearly. It then moves into a close reading of Missouri's permit requirements, critiques the law's practical gaps, and surveys categories of people who fall through those gaps. After engaging the opposing argument, it closes with a call to limit concealed carry to those with genuine need. The structure follows a classic problem–evidence–counterargument–conclusion arc appropriate for a persuasive essay at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: The Concealed Carry Debate
The idea of carrying concealed weapons is not new. Most, if not all, states have for many years allowed selected individuals — for instance, diamond cutters and jewelers who must transport items of great value — to carry a concealed weapon. The newer issue regarding concealed weapons concerns states such as Missouri, which passed a loaded and concealed weapon law allowing the great majority of the state's residents to carry a concealed weapon simply because they wish to. This essay argues that the only people who should carry a concealed weapon are those who have a clear and demonstrable need to do so.
The concealed carry debate in the United States has intensified in recent decades as more states have moved toward "shall-issue" or permitless carry systems. The core question is whether broad public access to concealed firearms improves safety or introduces new risks — particularly when permits are granted to individuals who have not yet demonstrated dangerous behavior but who may do so in the future.
Missouri's Concealed Carry Law and Its Requirements
Using Missouri as an example, the state requires that a person seeking a permit pass a gun-handling test and stipulates that the weapon may be fired only in self-defense. The law forbids issuing a concealed weapon permit to anyone below a certain age, anyone with a protective order against them, anyone with a history of drunk driving, or anyone with felony or violent misdemeanor convictions. Applicants must pass both state and federal criminal background checks.
These are important protections. Very young people may be more impulsive about discharging a concealed weapon. Someone who has been involved in a violent altercation — say, a fist fight — might be tempted to reach for a gun the next time a confrontation arises. People with a history of drunk driving have demonstrated both a disregard for the law and poor self-control regarding intoxication. That combination, paired with a loaded firearm, could prove extremely dangerous.
Limitations of the Law's Accuracy and Safety Standards
The construction of Missouri's law raises additional concerns. It requires that the gun-handling test include firing at a silhouette target from at least seven yards — that is, only 21 feet — which does not seem like a rigorous test of accuracy. The law also stipulates that beyond 21 feet, the permit holder should consider whether escaping or evading the life-threatening situation might be a better plan. But would that not be a better plan in virtually all cases?
If the person posing a threat carries a knife, simply producing a firearm should serve as an adequate deterrent. If the other person is also armed with a gun, being 21 feet away offers very little protection, since that person may be a capable shot from well beyond seven yards. The practical scenarios in which a concealed firearm provides clear, unambiguous safety benefits are narrower than the law's broad provisions suggest.
Conclusion: Restricting Concealed Carry to Those with Clear Need
The law has always made exemptions for people who have a real need to carry a concealed weapon. Broad new concealed carry laws open the door for anyone living in a permit-issuing state to obtain a weapon so long as they have not yet demonstrated a major problem with judgment. The absence of a prior record is not the same as the presence of a legitimate need.
Gun laws should restrict the right to carry a loaded and concealed weapon to those who have a clear and urgent need for one. The existing permit system already serves that population. Extending the privilege broadly — to virtually any adult without a disqualifying record — introduces risks that the screening criteria are not well-designed to prevent. A more targeted approach, consistent with how gun laws have historically functioned across the United States, would better balance individual rights against collective safety.
Source: "Concealed guns at a glance," Southeast Missourian, April 18, 2004.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.