Constitutional Carry Question:


PDA






LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 11:35 AM
Okay, like the post I had a while ago in the General Forums, I seen an Article in the NRA Facebook page saying that they were pushing Iowa towards constitutional carry (exact terminology forgotten).

Now, with constitutional carry, does that mean I can carry any way I choose? Open or concealed? Or just concealed or just open? And I realize that this mean carry without a permit.

Can someone enlighten me?

If you enjoyed reading about "Constitutional Carry Question:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Scimmia
February 29, 2012, 11:52 AM
The wording the NRA is pushing for is:
The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny
It doesn't specify anything about concealed, open, etc so you would have a constitutional right to carry any way you choose.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 12:02 PM
Okay. I just wanted to clarify. I've got my fingers crossed hoping it passes. How close are we, do you know?

Scimmia
February 29, 2012, 12:11 PM
I think it's supposed to be up for a vote in the House today. It's been ammended a couple of times and the NRA is going to try to get it back to it's original wording, but I haven't even been able to figure out what's been changed. Either way, if it passes, it has to be voted on by the Senate. If that passes, it has to be passed by both the House and Senate next year. After that, it goes on a statewide ballot.

Even then, it doesn't exempt you from the federal Gun Free School Zone Act. This means that without a permit, you can't knowingly carry within 1000 feet of school grounds.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 12:59 PM
Well I figured the school zone thing would still be in effect. I just wish that it'd go in effect sooner rather than later.

X-Rap
February 29, 2012, 01:04 PM
Good for Iowa, you folks have taken some big steps in the last few years and looks like your not done yet. Congrats, hope it all passes.

Varmiter
February 29, 2012, 01:19 PM
Down here in AZ, we have a very good Constitutional Carry provision in that anyone not prohibited from owning a handgun can carry it either concealed or openly. Even someone from out of state. AZ also maintains a permit system for reciprocity purposes.

So, if this does eventually get on the books, will it be Constitutional Carry for out of staters, or just IA residents. Also, will IA maintain their permit system for reciprocity purposes?

Lastly, generally Constitutional Carry ONLY removes the necessity for a permit. All other restriction will still apply.

Chris

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
Indeed. I was astounded when we went to an "I Shall" state. Big steps in my opinion.

Owen Sparks
February 29, 2012, 01:31 PM
Restoration of the Constitution would solve a lot of problems. The 2A has routinely been infringed for over a century.

Varmiter
February 29, 2012, 02:55 PM
This just in.....hummm

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/02/29/house-democrats-have-left-the-iowa-capitol-in-protest-in-an-undisclosed-location/

Chris

Standing Wolf
February 29, 2012, 03:05 PM
Thank you for the link, Varmiter. It appears representatives of the Democratic [sic] party in Iowa are desperate for attention.

Four states have constitutional carry: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. Four out of 50 is a start.

KsThumper
February 29, 2012, 03:10 PM
Iowa House Democrats this morning left the Capitol in protest of two gun bills the Republican majority had planned to debate today.

That seems to be the Democrats answer to tough issues these days - i.e. the Wisconsin and Indiana Legislature.

Why don't they just 'Present' like Obama did 129 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.

Examining Obama's 'Present' Votes in Illinois (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437)

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 03:20 PM
That's a little immature to me. Especially if McCarthy had worked with the NRA on gun-rights before. What I'm seeing here is that he doesn't want the "Wild Wild West" mentality. Not like it'd be there anyway, just saying.

Scimmia
February 29, 2012, 03:25 PM
So, if this does eventually get on the books, will it be Constitutional Carry for out of staters, or just IA residents.

We'd have to wait and see how it got written into law. I would guess it would be everyone, but who knows.

Also, will IA maintain their permit system for reciprocity purposes?

They'd better, not just for reciprocity but for the GFCZA exemption. I live within 1000 feet of school grounds and have three more I drive by to get most places. Without that exemption, I'll be putting on more miles going way around.

This just in.....hummm

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/02/29/house-democrats-have-left-the-iowa-capitol-in-protest-in-an-undisclosed-location/

Chris

Gotta say I didn't see that one coming. This "take my ball and going home" attitude is getting tiring.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 29, 2012, 03:29 PM
Tiring and immature. The nerve of some people, I swear.

skidder
February 29, 2012, 08:00 PM
There is a reason why they call them constitutional carry states. I wish my state would pull its head out.

Scimmia
March 1, 2012, 12:44 AM
Well, on the plus side, the Dems came back late in the afternoon and the House passed both the stand your ground bill (60-38) and the constitutional ammendment (61- 37). As far as I know, they haven't gotten to the preemption bill. The constitutional ammendment was ammended back to essentially it's original wording that I posted previously.

Edit: ROFL! if anyone is wondering where that 61st vote came from on the constitutional ammendment, I was looking through the House Journal and found this:

On February 29, 2012, I inadvertently voted “aye” on House Joint Resolution 2009, I meant to vote “nay”.
LENSING of Johnson

armoredman
March 1, 2012, 01:13 AM
AZ is working on a bill to address the fed school restriction by stating anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is covered.

Zombiphobia
March 1, 2012, 02:54 AM
anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is covered

yeah, but the 'lawfully' part can be awfully confusing and restricting at times.

K-Rod
March 1, 2012, 03:17 AM
I'm curious about these states that have Constitutional Carry. Are you required to take a weapons training/saftey course to be able to carry?

Here in Idaho the law states you have to complete one of these certified training classes in order to get your concealed weapons permit. If you want a hunting license, you have to take Hunters education. Now most of the places here that do the training courses to get your concealed weapons charge around $300 for a 3 day course!! I've seen classrooms full of people taking this course. Unfortunately these people are not hunters. If they were, they would probably know that the law recognizes Hunters Education as an approved certified course & you can use your Hunters Education certificate to get your concealed weapons permit. Now Hunters Ed here is 4 2hr days & 1 field day but, its only $8.

Sometimes I want to stand outside the door of these places to tell these people they could save $292 but I'd probably be run off the premises!!!

So if you live in Idaho & your a hunter & have your Hunters Ed card, you can take it down to the sheriff's office & apply for your CWP.

Birch Knoll
March 1, 2012, 03:57 AM
AZ is working on a bill to address the fed school restriction by stating anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is covered.


How is that supposed to work? The GFSZA exempts those that hold a CCW license issued by the state, provided "the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license". So any wholesale authorization that AZ might grant would not qualify.

Scimmia
March 1, 2012, 04:56 AM
I'm curious about these states that have Constitutional Carry. Are you required to take a weapons training/saftey course to be able to carry?

Constitutional carry means you have the constitutional right to carry, period. No permit, no training, no fees, etc.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 1, 2012, 05:30 AM
Now off to the senate and hopefully they let it pass.

skidder
March 1, 2012, 12:28 PM
Constitutional carry means you have the constitutional right to carry, period. No permit, no training, no fees, etc.

Clear and to the point, thanks Scimmia.

Years of favors and promises of a better life is the silver that drips from their mouths. Safety courses, permits, qualifications, waiting periods are premeditated deterrents and a shadow of their real intentions. They don't give a rats about our safety, but they use this excuse to make it harder for law abiding citizens to carry. The guy outside the 7/11 didn't qualify or take any class, but they use his actions as an excuse to pass more of these infringements. Dang it.... I get a bee in my bonnet every time I read about these violations of our 2nd Ammendment :mad:.

X-Rap
March 1, 2012, 01:09 PM
It amazes me the number of people who will demand that there is some mandatory training attached to any ability to carry a weapon. Yes it is important to understand the implications of carrying a gun but having some faceless regulator being the one to decide it will be our self defeating end.
Life is hard and the lessons are harder, learn from others and save yourself but don't look at Uncle Sugar to save you it will end in tragedy.

Birch Knoll
March 1, 2012, 01:31 PM
Training is a good idea, of course. For those who think it ought to be mandatory, I have a simple solution. Let's start to teach it in the schools, shall we?

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 1, 2012, 01:41 PM
Indeed

armoredman
March 2, 2012, 12:29 AM
AZ has always had open carry, 100 years and going, no training licensing or permitting required.
ttolhurst, here is the language of the bill, which is moving along quite well, should pass Third Read next week then off to the Senate. Bold text is the added lanugage.

13-3121. Firearm possession; outside the grounds of a school
FOR THE PURPOSES OF 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 922, A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY OWNS OR POSSESSES A FIREARM PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE IS CONSIDERED BY THIS STATE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY LICENSED AND VERIFIED TO POSSESS A FIREARM IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE GROUNDS OF A SCHOOL.


http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2719&Session_ID=107

Edit to add, Johnny, AZ has a great program, the Arizona Gun Safety program for schools, 1/2 credit, requires discharging a firearm on a range to pass. Bummer is I don't know of any schools using it, would be nice to make it an elective the same as Drivers Ed.

Birch Knoll
March 2, 2012, 12:37 AM
That's real nice that the AZ law would declare that the state "considers" any person who lawfully possesses a firearm to be individually licensed and verified. But the Federal government most certainly won't. Because, you know... they haven't been.

The GFSZA is a travesty, yes. I applaud AZ's intentions. But it's legally meaningless. If the GFSZA is constitutional, AZ cannot short-circuit it with this sort of legislation. If GFSZA is found unconstitutional (again!), then AZ's legislation is unneeded.

armoredman
March 2, 2012, 05:13 PM
No, if you read the Federal law, I believe the AZ law WILL pass muster. Unlike the Arizona Made Firearms law, this one WILL be tested in court, and lately our laws that are challenged in SCOTUS seem to be on a winning streak. the state declares lawful carry to be lawfully licensed for the purposes of that Code and Title, and the Feds cannot tell the state what type of license to issue/not issue - remember Real ID? That one went down in flames too.
This one will work.

Zoogster
March 2, 2012, 06:33 PM
Johnny Dollar said: Yes,we thought it was settled with Lopez in '95 and the runts come back with the ever present Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause is far more powerful now than it was at the time of Lopez.
At the time of Lopez the old standard was that if something was actually moved in interstate commerce.
Another far reaching losing argument presented in Lopez was to say interfering with the education of students would impact their employment in the future and as a result their involvement in commerce.

Today the Commerce Clause is far more reaching, something no longer has to be part of interstate commerce, just its potential to impact it is enough.
The Lopez decision would likely have had to reach the opposite conclusion in light of today's commerce interpretation.



However the 2nd Amendment is also much stronger today. The height of the anti-gun legislation and sentiment being in the mid 1990s around the time of Lopez.
So while the Gun Free School Zone Act might be be within the scope of federal jurisdiction now, it may be determined an unconstitutional infringement of the citizens under the 2nd Amendment.



A map created to demonstrate what a school zone is in most urban areas would show how it defacto outlaws firearms.
It is also not a simple 1,000 foot radius in all directions as many of the helpful maps created display it as. But much larger, because it extends 1,000 feet from the edge of irregularly shaped school properties.
These properties including the athletic fields and other areas can create prohibited zones a half mile long near many high schools for example.

These zones effectively act as dozens of firearm prohibition checkpoints on public roads, sidewalks, and streets throughout your typical city.
Rural areas are little better, as with fewer roads their local schools tend to be along the few routes in and out of the community.


The legislation could be determined unconstitutional in its entirety.
However it could also be determined that the zone itself is an unconstitutional barrier to the citizens' 2nd Amendment, while the restrictions on the school grounds themselves are within the scope of restrictions permitted under Heller.
The zones are too far reaching, covering streets, highways, interstates, and acting as barriers to Constitutional rights in public places.

ttolhurst said: The GFSZA is a travesty, yes. I applaud AZ's intentions. But it's legally meaningless. If the GFSZA is constitutional, AZ cannot short-circuit it with this sort of legislation.

That is not necessarily true. For example I believe being a member of law enforcement is an exemption to the restriction.
The state could theoretically deputize every adult at the age of 18 if it so chose, exempting the entire population. They could then impose their own restrictions on those deputized in such a way so they don't actually gain any special law enforcement privileges outside of such exemptions to federal restrictions.
Similarly it could issue a permit to every citizen when they turn 18, automatically, providing them the ability to exercise all rights that they choose to. It likewise could tie automatic permits to unprohibited adults that get a driver's licenses or state ID, permitting most of society without any need to formally apply for anything.
So clearly the state does have the power even under the legislation to exempt all of its unprohibited citizens in a few different ways if it so decided. So if the feds want to be difficult, the state could be as well.
The downside to these measures is they would only apply to AZ residents and not visitors as well.

K-Rod
March 2, 2012, 06:47 PM
OK, I think this might start a S#@% storm of angry guys knocking my ears in but here it goes!!!

I believe there should be mandatory training in the case of Constitutional Carry. Now hold on guys!!! Let me state why I feel this before you let the remarks fly & I'll seriously consider your comments. The reason I believe there should be mandatory training is because its not going to be only responsible gun owners or people that know the basics of gun safety, who can carry.

Example, I was in a sporting goods store that sells firearms picking up some primers & of course, I was looking over the pistol cases. Its ski season here so there's people from all over here. This couple was walking around & when they goy to the gun cases, the lady says while clapping her hands like a seal, "OOOOOOO!!! Lets buy a pistol!!!". I knew instantly this would be interesting to watch so I hung around. She saw the pink lady Smith & said she wanted to look at that one, again clapping like a seal. The guy behind the counter gets it out, checks to make sure its unloaded & hands it to her. Instantly she points it at her husband/boyfriend & pulls the trigger & says "Bang Bang!!" Then giggles. He thinks its cute & laughs about it. The guy behind the counter & I look at each other & shake our heads. Then she wants to look at an auto & after waving it around pointing it at everyone she asks where the bullets go. The guy behind the counter explains it to her three times how an auto works & she still said she didn't want an auto because she did want to have to rack the slide everytime. She just wants to pull the trigger. At that point I had to walk away or I wasn't going to be able to bite my tongue any longer!!

Now, in a Constitutional Carry state, this woman could go into a store, buy a firearm & a box of ammo. Get outside the door, load the firearm & put it in her purse & be legal. THATS A SCARY THOUGHT TO ME!!! Terrifying is probably a better word for it!! I can't understand how any responsible gun owner who knows the importance of firearm safety could think otherwise? I don't think that a one time mandatory "Class" etc to teach even just the basics of firearm safety is a bad thing. For everyone of us that knows the basics, there's more that don't & probably don't have someone to show them.

OK, let the S%#@ storm start!!!

X-Rap
March 2, 2012, 07:37 PM
First
In every state I've ever lived it is legal as can be to do that already with the exception on concealed carry. We can argue about how much more dangerous she is with it in her purse than her auto, home, or openly carried but the point is she can buy the same gun in many states without some goofy card issued by the state.
Second
Who gets to decide on the training? Chuck Schumer? Mrs. Brady? Some board made up of inner city doctors, cops, teachers and lawyers or Wayne LaPiere and a bunch of bumpkins out in fly over country.

I'll take my chances with the lady with the cute pink gun, she might at least soon be in jail, the rest will be there forever.

mgkdrgn
March 2, 2012, 07:40 PM
Okay. I just wanted to clarify. I've got my fingers crossed hoping it passes. How close are we, do you know?
the phrase "snow balls chance in hell" comes to mind ...

armoredman
March 2, 2012, 08:02 PM
K-Rod, that's the way it's been with open carry for over 100 years here in AZ. I'm good with it so far. :) I would like to see the Arizona Gun Safety Program become an elective like Drivers Ed in school, as that might help.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00714-01.htm

Zoogster, we're already being difficult. ;)We're just going to get more difficult.:evil:

K-Rod
March 2, 2012, 08:10 PM
First of all I'd like to say I wasn't trying to pick on women. It just so happened that this experience involved a woman. I'm sure there's men out there with the same lack of knowledge in basic firearm safety.

Secondly, I support the 2nd A & Constitutional Carry but to be tunnel visioned & say they'll be in jail & not my problem contradicts a lot of what a responsible firearm owner believes in. You create more of a danger when there's 1000's of people carrying firearms without just the basics in firearm safety.

I've NEVER heard a father complain about his child having to take Hunters Education. As a matter of fact, we hunters that are fathers beam with pride when our child comes home with their Hunters Safety card in hand. Its like a crowning achievement!! This one class that nobody complains about & is a celebratory event when completed, teaches the basic fundamentals of firearm safety. The foundation of Hunters Education is built on it.

So why complain about installing some form of basic mandatory firearm safety to people that don't have a clue in order to conceal carry or even open carry & not complain about the same mandatory firearm training in order to hunt? Not everyone that is going to carry because of Constitutional Carry in aslo interested in hunting. Those people probably don't even know about Hunters Education to begin with. I don't see the big deal with it. We require people to take test to get your DL. If you drive without a DL, you get a fine ticket or maybe jail time. Why not the same with carrying a firearm?

X-Rap
March 2, 2012, 08:49 PM
My point about the women being in jail was more about the threat of those we allow to dictate what we do than the danger posed by individuals.
You still fail to answer the question of who gets to decide what the criteria is for owning that gun and who and at what cost is it to the honest citizen.
The criminal element in this country is not required to take a gun safety class, are you less threatened by them? Perhaps we should make that mandatory in our prisons.
I sure don't think safety is not important and the gun manufacturers even package their guns with all the pertinent info that you get at the hunter safety class.
I have been through a couple of those classes with my kids and frankly they are filled in with a bunch of anecdotal BS from the instructor along with some personal opinions that might run counter to what you want your kid taught, that was the case with me. All my kids got their cards but pretty much knew what they "learned" before they got to the class.

armoredman
March 2, 2012, 10:53 PM
You create more of a danger when there's 1000's of people carrying firearms without just the basics in firearm safety.
You didn't read a thing I wrote, didja? :)
Let me say it louder - WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT HERE FOR OVER 100 YEARS AND COUNTING. If you were right, this would be the single most dangerous state from its own people that ever existed, and the laws would have been changed to reflect that 75 years ago, instead of going the way they have.
Anytime the government mandates something, THEY CONTROL IT. If you don't believe that, please read that excellent series about the young reporter trying to get a legal firearm in Washington DC, or the barriers put up in Chicago so their citizens can remain the helpless victims they are today. After all that, if you are still sure that mandatory government interference is the right answer, to give up rights for government controlled "permissions", well, I wish you well.

Scimmia
March 2, 2012, 10:55 PM
I believe there should be mandatory training in the case of Constitutional Carry.

Secondly, I support the 2nd A & Constitutional Carry

These two statments are contradictory. Constitutional carry is, by definition, the right to carry. What you're talking about is known as "shall issue", where you will get your permit after taking a class and passing the requirements. You do not support Constitutional carry.

K-Rod
March 2, 2012, 11:12 PM
X-Rap,

I agree with just about everything your saying. I too feel that a bunch of the filler in Hunters Ed was BS but the fundamentals of safety were consistent with what I already had taught my kids. My state (ID) requires it in order to get a hunting license so we had to do it. This experience with this woman at the store just made me realize that there's probably a huge percentage of people that have no basic firearms safety training. This was an adult woman that pointed a firearm at a persons chest, pulled the trigger a couple times while saying "Bang Bang" & thought it was funny. That woman obviously has no training what so ever.

I'm not saying training in order to own a firearm. That goes against the 2nd A & "I would never support that!! In Idaho, in order to obtain a CCW, you have to complete an approved training course. Hunters Ed qualifies for that. With Constitutional Carry nothing is required. Criminal element doesn't even factor into it. That element is going to be there regardless. Now take that huge percentage of people that think pointing a gun at someone is funny or have no training other than a packet that comes with the firearm & add them to the already dangerous criminal element. That's a huge dangerous problem.

I understand that there's already Constitutional Carry in some states. A couple people have stated there's been problem. OK, I'll respect that. I'm not so foolish to think that mandatory firearm safety is going to cure all. Look at all the negligent discharges in the military or police departments & they all have had extensive training. My point of view is if mandatory training saves the life of just one innocent person or child from a ND by a person that otherwise had no training, that makes it worth it.

You ask who decides the criteria? You do. I do. Every responsible firearm owner does. Its our responsibility to say my rights will not be infringed on. The 2nd A isnt simply about owning a firearm. Its about our right to protect ourselves, our loved ones & our property from any & all attackers. Its also about our responsibility to teach & instruct those who may not know. Everytime you say "Because its my right" to someone that asks why you carry a firearm, you potentially scare away a person to help in the fight to make sure our rights are not infringed on. We need as many people in that fight as we can get. Sometimes you have to give a little. Saying we want safe knowledgeable people to stand with us isn't going against our 2nd A rights. It just makes it stronger.

Birch Knoll
March 3, 2012, 12:16 AM
No, if you read the Federal law, I believe the AZ law WILL pass muster.

OK. Why?

Unlike the Arizona Made Firearms law, this one WILL be tested in court, and lately our laws that are challenged in SCOTUS seem to be on a winning streak.

I hope that's not your legal reasoning: "We're on a winning streak".

the state declares lawful carry to be lawfully licensed for the purposes of that Code and Title, and the Feds cannot tell the state what type of license to issue/not issue

No, they can't. But they don't have to. The GFSZA provisions apply unless the state license meets the requirements in the Federal law. If the license does not meet those requirements in the Federal government's eyes, then the license does not exempt the bearer from GFSZA. AZ can deem all their citizens to have been licensed and verified all they want. It doesn't change the fact that they have not been verified.

X-Rap
March 3, 2012, 12:23 AM
saves the life of just one innocent person or child
Sometimes you have to give a little
I have read these same phrases from those who would take guns a way and those who would sell us out.
Nothing personal but IMO you are out of the game with a mentalty like that, sorry.

X-Rap
March 3, 2012, 12:41 AM
I think Franklin is credited with this gem and it still fits today.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Oh if only we would have listened these last 200 yrs.

K-Rod
March 3, 2012, 12:50 AM
Armoredman,

I know about AZ gun laws. I bought my first pistol at a gun show in Phoenix when I was 17. Glock 17. I lived in Scottsdale for 4yrs & graduated from Chaparral High. On the weekends we'd go out to shoot pool in Phoenix. Everyone carried guns. They would bring them in to the hall & give them to the guy behind the counter & he set them on a counter on a back wall. It looked like an armory on Sat nights. For every 1 person that turned over their pistols, 3 had their's concealed. Even then I remember wondering, what's the point of bringing in your pistol, just to give it to a guy at the counter? It was all for show. "Billy Badass" syndrome. This wasn't just punk kids either. 20-25yr holds were showing off too. There was at least one idiot a weekend that would fire off a round in the parking lot late nights. In the 4yrs I lived there, there was 7 shootings. Funny that NONE of them were in the papers.

Scimmia,

I support Constitutional Carry for what it is. Your right to carry anyway you want, when you want without permits, but I also believe people should have proper safety training as well. Here in Idaho we have Open carry without permit, Concealed carry with permit (Safety course required to obtain permit) & concealed carry without permit outside city limits. My wife & I have our CCW. Last year Idaho was trying to pass the Constitutional Carry law but it was put on the back burner. The majority of people I talked to about it were for it. Surprisingly the one most against it was the one who would benefit the most from it, our LGS. He said you wouldn't believe how many people that came in that didn't know the basic fundamentals of safely handling a firearm. I didn't want to believe him at first but then after I saw what Miss Pink Lady Smith did, my mind has been changed.

armoredman
March 3, 2012, 01:00 AM
Sorry, K-rod, but we're going to have to disagree. BTW, you might not want to admit to violations of federal law here, just an FYI. I've been to pool halls in Tucson and CG and never once in over 40 years did I find one who would store firearms. That's a new one.
tt, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. If anyone was betting their life/liberty/fortune on my legal abilities, I'd be the first to say "you're hosed". I do not think they would be pushing this if they thought is was an auto-loss.
Some of our legislators are attorneys, and all of them have attorneys available. If they thought this didn't have a ghost of a chance surviving a federal challenge, they might have not wasted the time. Also, we are on a 10th Amendment kick here in the Free States, trying to push the envelope back where it belongs, so maybe these laws NEED a good states challenge, eh? Doing something and throwing the dice is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing with a guaranteed loss.

Scimmia
March 3, 2012, 01:08 AM
I support Constitutional Carry for what it is. Your right to carry anyway you want, when you want without permits, but I also believe people should have proper safety training as well.

So now you're not talking mandatory training as previously stated? I agree that people should get training, but requiring that training is the very antithesis of Constitutional carry. You either support mandatory training or you support Constitutional carry, it can't be both, they're mutually exclusive positions.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 3, 2012, 01:36 AM
Looking like I started an argument without trying! Lol. I don't agree with mandatory training. Like others have stated, it goes against Constitutional Carry. And I think this has more than a snowball's chance in hell at passing. It already made it through the House, I'm sure it'll have the same effect at the State Senate. I'm spreading word around here to urge for support in our cause.

Iowa is making a big step forward and I want to be a part of it. It is astounding that the politicians are pulling the wool away from their eyes that the Brady Bunch and Bloomberg and the like, put over their eyes.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 3, 2012, 02:07 AM
I think Iowa may be a starting point to get other states to follow in our footsteps, with no less thank you's to the states who already have Constitutional Carry. Iowa, just back in January of 2011 passed into bill making the state an "I Shall" state. Even that was quite a step and looks like a year and a half to two later, we're going the way of AZ, WY, etc.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 3, 2012, 02:14 AM
I'm trying to rally up some support for it. I'm not getting the Ella reference, though lol.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 3, 2012, 02:35 AM
I can't watch certain YouTube movies on my iPod and both of those links are movies that it won't let me watch.

If my computer hadn't have chosen the worst time to crash.

JRH6856
March 3, 2012, 04:46 AM
Your right to carry anyway you want, when you want without permits, but I also believe people should have proper safety training as well.

I also believe in both. But I don't believe they should be connected. Proper training in firearms safety should be as mandatory as reading, writing and arithmetic. Everyone should have it whether they choose to own or carry a firearm or not.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee

armoredman
March 3, 2012, 03:14 PM
Johnny, I always knew it was a long hike back up that slippery slope, and I simply told him I disagree because he refused to answer one single argument I brought forth other than to say he "knows" AZ law and then admitted to breaking both AZ and Fed law. After that, I have no more time to argue with that troll.
All I know is that there is a core of good people here in my state that have made it their life's work to correct the mistakes of the past "useful idiots", and bring us back closer to the ideal envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We are NOT afraid to go toe to toe with Aunt Samantha, (*Uncle Sam just needed us, Aunt Samantha needs to CONTROL us), in every court of the land, and win.
I say again, training should begin at home. Training should be an elective in school, NOT mandatory, as it will be perverted. Heck, Pima Community College offered a two semester course in rifle marksmanship back in the day, no ideaa if they still do.

Zoogster
March 5, 2012, 07:49 PM
K-rod said:
I believe there should be mandatory training in the case of Constitutional Carry.



Constitutional Carry does not mean someone is not liable for their actions.

While it is nice that people have a basic understanding of firearms, history has shown that requirements to exercise a right disliked by some get abused to deny or discourage that right from being exercised. Either immediately or in the future as political feelings on that right change, or the person/people enforcing the requirements do.

For example a literacy test to vote. It makes perfect sense right?
You have to be able to read in order to read the description of the laws you are voting on.
Someone that cannot even read what they are voting on poses a risk of voting for random things or screwing up the entire process.
So a literacy test would on the surface appear like a positive.
But lets look at reality and how it actually was used. It was used to prevent certain elements of society from voting, by including phrases and other things only certain cultures of society would recognize on average.
It ended up having little to do with actually being able to read the law one was voting on, the official premise it existed to accomplish, and a lot to do with deciding whose vote counted and whose vote could be ignored or prevented.





I like gun safety, I like a culture that does not tolerate people lax with safety.
However a gun is really simple, it makes metal projectiles come out of the pointy end.
It is not hard to learn to be safe.
The beauty of the 4 rules is that it makes it so simple anyone can remember them without any need to study or sift through political additions.



People can definitely benefit from some instruction.
Fortunately most people get this instruction by the gun culture or other people at gun ranges.

JRH6856
March 5, 2012, 09:35 PM
As a society, we have been showing a disturbing tendency towards limiting a person's personal responsibility fo their actions and instead, reducing their freedom to act, responsibly or otherwise.

armoredman
March 5, 2012, 10:29 PM
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/Fourrulesedit1.jpg

X-Rap
March 5, 2012, 10:52 PM
I wonder how they made the 2nd picture?

JRH6856
March 5, 2012, 11:01 PM
I wonder how they made the 2nd picture?

Obviously it is someone he has issues with.

armoredman
March 6, 2012, 01:04 AM
No, both persons are me, through the magic of photography. :) Nobody had a firearm pointed at them. ;)

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
March 6, 2012, 02:40 AM
Was just going to say, the beauty of photoshop/photo editing software.

armoredman
March 7, 2012, 09:57 AM
Hardly, just a weird fat old man. :) It was fun getting the laser picture, taping the t-shirt to the door and lighting it up with the Crimson Trace lasergrips. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Constitutional Carry Question:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!