Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?


PDA






monotonous_iterancy
February 5, 2014, 06:48 PM
Now that concealed carry permits are a reality in every state, the next logical step would be to push for constitutional carry. I'm in favor of this. However, I have one reservation...

What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I, and many of us dislike the idea of mandatory training or classes. It can be used as a run-around towards gun ownership.

On the other hand, there might be plenty of people who don't understand what true self-defense is. The difference between defending their lives, as opposed to defending their feelings.

Call me a nanny-state paternalist, but what about questions such as when it is appropriate to draw a weapon?

To most of us, we spend time immersed in a culture that stresses the side of caution on these things. We consider them to be common sense.

But common sense isn't so common, is it? I'm sure we all have stories of seeing unsafe gun handling at ranges and the like.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ks5shooter
February 5, 2014, 06:50 PM
Every state does not have concealed carry.The fascist state of NJ will not issue a carry permit.

monotonous_iterancy
February 5, 2014, 06:51 PM
Every state does not have concealed carry.The fascist state of NJ will not issue a carry permit.

Fair enough. Most states have concealed carry.

Schwing
February 5, 2014, 06:52 PM
I am not arguing for or against but I find it kind of amusing that we have come full circle on this. It used to be that it was considered cowardly and inappropriate to hide a gun instead of openly carrying it. These days, carrying openly seems to invite all of the trouble whether it is legal in your state or not.

The Lone Haranguer
February 5, 2014, 06:54 PM
Arizona is the latest state to adopt it. I haven't seen or heard of any, for example, shootouts over parking spaces. I support it 100%.

monotonous_iterancy
February 5, 2014, 06:55 PM
I am not arguing for or against but I find it kind of amusing that we have come full circle on this. It used to be that it was considered cowardly and inappropriate to hide a gun instead of openly carrying it. These days, carrying openly seems to invite all of the trouble whether it is legal in your state or not.

Oh. I'm not speaking of open carry. I'm talking about not requiring a permit to carry concealed. 4 states require no permit. 5 if you count Wyoming being resident-only.

tomrkba
February 5, 2014, 06:58 PM
It is on them and is their responsibility. Open carry here requires no permit or class, so it is effectively no different other than the gun may be covered up.

huntsman
February 5, 2014, 07:32 PM
To most of us, we spend time immersed in a culture that stresses the side of caution on these things. We consider them to be common sense.

But common sense isn't so common, is it? I'm sure we all have stories of seeing unsafe gun handling at ranges and the like.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

Should Liberty be dependent on the consensus of the masses or is it an inalienable right?

hso
February 5, 2014, 07:37 PM
Why do you assume that every state requires a class of any sort? Those states that don't have no higher crime rate from permit holders than those that don't.

danez71
February 5, 2014, 07:50 PM
I like how AZ does it.

They still offer a permit and having it gets you a couple more benefits such as carrying in a restaurant with alcohol and a school parking lot issue.

gbran
February 5, 2014, 07:53 PM
Most criminals already ccw. I don't see a problem with law abiding citizens doing the same.

brboyer
February 5, 2014, 07:56 PM
Now that concealed carry permits are a reality in every state, the next logical step would be to push for constitutional carry. I'm in favor of this. However, I have one reservation...

What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I, and many of us dislike the idea of mandatory training or classes. It can be used as a run-around towards gun ownership.

On the other hand, there might be plenty of people who don't understand what true self-defense is. The difference between defending their lives, as opposed to defending their feelings.

Call me a nanny-state paternalist, but what about questions such as when it is appropriate to draw a weapon?

To most of us, we spend time immersed in a culture that stresses the side of caution on these things. We consider them to be common sense.

But common sense isn't so common, is it? I'm sure we all have stories of seeing unsafe gun handling at ranges and the like.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force? Never had to take any class.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?Not my job to 'trust' anyone. They break the law, they go to jail. Simple.

Should people be required to take a State mandated literacy test and conduct background investigations on politicians before they vote?

Should people be required to take a State mandated religious exam before being 'allowed' to participate in the religion if their choice?

Should people be required to have a college-level English degree before they are allowed to post on internet forums?

MErl
February 5, 2014, 07:57 PM
My thoughts on this have evolved over the past year or so.

Permit less carry is a good thing. There should not be an assumption of either incompetence or malicious intent and a permit system exists because of one or the other.
The old argument of not knowing if a person is a criminal or not is moot today. The same interaction that will verify a permit will get a complete criminal background on somebody.

Training and knowledge is a good thing but that does not mean it should be a law.

siglite
February 5, 2014, 07:59 PM
I'm an advocate for constitutional carry. A state delegate sent me a message that was as succinct as I've ever seen. It said simply, "when are people going to stop pretending that it's about keeping guns out of the wrong hands?"

A profound statement, and I do not know if it was hers originally or if she picked it up elsewhere. But base logic says that guns will be in "the wrong hands." They simply will. Mr. Market will have his way.

If one accepts that it simply isn't about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, because such a mission is folly, what is left as rationale for restriction?

Red Wind
February 5, 2014, 08:06 PM
What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?

Not required by Alaska,Arizona, Vermont and so many other States. They are doing just fine. Just another infringement.

Charlie Horse
February 5, 2014, 08:11 PM
This thread shows the multitude of different states' procedures. In Alabama, there is no test, or class. The Alabama Sheriff's Association essentially said that the permit system is more about money into the pocket of the various Sheriff's Offices.

rockhopper46038
February 5, 2014, 08:24 PM
Yes. Constitutional Carry is the goal. Always.

Duckdog
February 5, 2014, 08:33 PM
Even the best intensions by state legislatures can be abused by officials. In WI we did not have to give fingerprints, but they do have other limited info that per the law can not be accessed without a warrant, but... who's to say how it may really be used?? We also did not need to take a class if you had military training that applied or had a hunters safety, which does not cover any of the stuff the OP has mentioned and we are in good shape, so I say constitutional carry all the way.

LemmyCaution
February 5, 2014, 09:07 PM
I'll hasten to point out that the Zimmerman/Martin shooting did not happen in Vermont, nor did the Wafer/McBride shooting. In fact, I'm not aware of any recent (last 1/2 century) cases of concealed carriers involved in bad, or even particularly questionable shoots in Vermont.

That isn't to say that I haven't heard some completely ignorant bluster about when one is legally justified to shoot, but the tenet OP's thesis is the hoary Wild West cliché that has been debunked into the ground regarding Constitutional Carry.

Of course the OP is free to argue that small, highly educated, wealthy, extremely liberal Vermont represents an exceptional case, but I don't think he will.

goon
February 5, 2014, 09:38 PM
Constitutional carry all the way.

My state and many others require no training. You pass the background check, pay the fee, and holster your handgun.

Many other states allow open carry with no permit whatsoever. That basically is Constitutional carry with the exception that it doesn't allow concealment... and it's stupid. Just go Constitutional all the way.

Of course the OP is free to argue that small, highly educated, wealthy, extremely liberal Vermont represents an exceptional case, but I don't think he will.

You could almost compare the population of Vermont to a largely homogenous European nation. I think the factors you've pointed out have more to do with Vermont's relatively crime free situation than Constitutional carry does. But there also wouldn't be any cases of CCW permit holders being involved in any shootings in Vermont, justifiable or not, because Vermont doesn't require any type of permit to carry.

Crashbox
February 5, 2014, 09:38 PM
I support Constitutional Carry one hundred percent. The name of it says it all.

For the record- here in Warshington State, classes are NOT required for obtaining a CPL, we have been 'shall-issue' since 1961, and there are relatively few places you cannot legally carry. Compared to a lot of other states, we actually have it pretty good here IMO (as long as the anti's in Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue don't have their way!!!)...

monotonous_iterancy
February 5, 2014, 10:13 PM
All good points. I didn't realize that not all permit states require classes. It's also true that when CCW was first proposed, anti-gunners cried that the Wild West (the one that only existed in movies) was coming back. That didn't happen.

I suppose my original post is based on the chain of logic that goes:

- some people at public ranges do stupid things with guns, mostly out of ignorance. Fine, that's their right.

- if anyone could strap on a pistol (and criminals already do, I know, but I mean the average law-abiding citizen who cares about permits), then wouldn't that mean that some people would do stupid things with guns, in public? That's not good.

- If that's true, couldn't that ignorance be filtered out by education?

My real problem with permits is that first and foremost, they are a de-facto gun license or registration. Look at the recent story out of Iowa. Second, they require us to ask permission for something that used to be an assumed right.

While it's true, many towns in the old west required guns to be surrendered while inside the limits of it, it used to be common practice even in places like New York, and even London to carry concealed. It used to just be something people did. When did that end?

Old Fuff
February 5, 2014, 11:01 PM
When considering how effective a statute might be - proposed or enacted - the best way to tell is to look around for others that have similar ones that have been in place for at least several years and see if they are working.

In Arizona we started out with concealed carry being prohibited - not by law but the state constitution! :what:

Today we have almost no restrictions, and anyone resident or visitor - who is not a prohibited person and 18 or older can carry either openly or concealed, under most circumstances.

And so far no one has been able to show any unusual increase in "gun violence(?)" because if it.

NavyLCDR
February 5, 2014, 11:08 PM
All good points. I didn't realize that not all permit states require classes.

Washington does not require a permit to open carry and does not require any training to obtain a license to conceal. Just like in any other state that does not require training, we have no blood flowing in the streets due to no requirement for training.

It's also true that when CCW was first proposed, anti-gunners cried that the Wild West (the one that only existed in movies) was coming back. That didn't happen.

Whenever any law is proposed that relaxes gun control the "wild west" claim is made. When open carry was proposed in Oklahoma (which still requires a permit), the law enforcement associations said that it would pose increased danger to LEOs. REALLY?!? You mean to tell us that you are in MORE danger from seeing the gun and knowing the person has one than not knowing if they are hiding one or not?

While it's true, many towns in the old west required guns to be surrendered while inside the limits of it, it used to be common practice even in places like New York, and even London to carry concealed. It used to just be something people did. When did that end?

It didn't end. Permit requirements have no affect on the criminals, they are still concealing and carrying their guns.

monotonous_iterancy
February 6, 2014, 12:18 AM
It didn't end. Permit requirements have no affect on the criminals, they are still concealing and carrying their guns.

I mean, when did the carrying of guns by law-abiding people end? It seems like it went away, and then was revived in the last few decades with the condition of permits.

CoalTrain49
February 6, 2014, 12:46 AM
My real problem with permits is that first and foremost, they are a de-facto gun license or registration. Look at the recent story out of Iowa. Second, they require us to ask permission for something that used to be an assumed right.

While it's true, many towns in the old west required guns to be surrendered while inside the limits of it, it used to be common practice even in places like New York, and even London to carry concealed. It used to just be something people did. When did that end?

CCP is not a de-facto gun license or registration. I've had a permit for 24 years and the state or fed has not collected any information about some of the guns I have carried. Your premise may be true in some states but it is not true where I live. In this state it is possible to purchase a pistol from a private party and the state has no record of that sale or the SN of that gun.

There is a state law requiring a record of the SN of a pistol when the transfer is made through an FFL. That is a recent requirement and will have no effect on private sales until a law is passed here that says all sales have to go through an FFL. These are entirely two different issues.

Constitutional carry is a good idea and something I support. Those of us who have CCP's know that a background check is run when we apply. I also have to have my fingerprints on file. No big deal because I don't have a criminal record and I want to carry concealed. Background checks and CCP's are becoming the norm. Most people want background checks. It makes them feel secure to know that people who buy and carry guns have been certified harmless sort of like the cow they ate being FDA certified. People that pass BGC's and E coli still kill people but the public feels better about it. It won't change anything but their perception.

I'm a proponent of one background check to acquire a National Carry Permit (NCP) good in every state just like a drivers license. I believe in registering the person and not the gun. After all, guns don't kill people. No officer in any jurisdiction is going to be able to arrest or deny you the right to carry unless you commit a crime. The NCP would become the Universal Background Check that the public feels it must have. They say UBC, I say NCP. That simple.

george29
February 6, 2014, 12:54 AM
I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

Arizona_Mike
February 6, 2014, 01:22 AM
Arizona is the latest state to adopt it.
Nope. We were before WY and AR. OK now has ConC reciprocity as part of their CC for residents of ConC states but not their own residents!

Mike

PS. Let's turn the map Green!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif

siglite
February 6, 2014, 02:13 AM
I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

Taxation is a factor, but the purposes of licensing are simply the requirement of the King's blessing under the proven false guise of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands." Also, the driving analogy is a false straw-man under the American system as it is not an enumerated right recognized under our Constitution and followed with the words "shall not be infinged."

Defense of self is an inherent human right, and should not be subject to the blessing of the King.

Further, the "idiots on ranges" argument is one of presumptive arrogance. It projects your judgement of a minority of fools onto all of society, yet not once have I heard this complaint followed by an observation that said morons drove 4000lb death machines to the range.

Liberty is not safe. You choose it or you choose false safety at the expense of the liberty of others. Any one of those range idiots is almost certainly capable of passing any CHL course in the country. And at the end of it, they will almost certainly remain an idiot. With a gun. And a car. And access to gasoline which has a relative explosive factor (to TNT) of .4 and is surprisingly toxic.

Permits do nothing to make anyone safer. They merely line some pockets, infringe on our rights, provide a false sense of security for those who believe a murderer needs the King's blessing to carry HIS gun, and unduly burden our exercise of an inherent right.

Permit systems are better than no-carry, but constitutional carry is the right solution.

goon
February 6, 2014, 02:57 AM
Not to mention that any one of those "idiots on the range" could also still choose to carry illegally and probably would if he or she couldn't meet the requirements to obtain a permit.

So if idiots and bad guys are going to carry anyhow, what's the point of requiring the rest of us to apply for a permit?

Tcruse
February 6, 2014, 06:21 AM
Carry permits should be thought to provide two different advantages. For one, the idea of justification for gun usage is not what un-trained people think and even if their actions would be justified, their description to police after the event may land them in jail. So, this part of education needs to be addressed for all, whether they carry or not.
The other factor is basic gun handling and not endangerment of innocent people. Such as the advice from our VP on warning shots.
We also need to make OC more acceptable to both the general public and police. Many police training is based on the idea that a target of a person holding a gun is the bad guy and if the target does not have a gun then good guy. We need to change the mindset or we will get good guys shot by other good guys.
To be successful, gun training needs to be part of everyone's life, both gun owners and non-gun owners. Public schools and local police classes were be good places to start.

Plan2Live
February 6, 2014, 06:30 AM
We have the Right to keep and bear arms. We have a Duty to do so responisbly. The sad truth is that most Concealed Carriers will only take the training required to get the permit. If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need any regulations of any kind.

MErl
February 6, 2014, 09:24 AM
So, this part of education needs to be addressed for all, whether they carry or not.
Education is a good thing, good thing does not mean it should be a law.
The other factor is basic gun handling and not endangerment of innocent people. Such as the advice from our VP on warning shots.
Basic gun handling is another eduction point.
We need to change the mindset or we will get good guys shot by other good guys.
Open carry with or without a permit is perfectly legal in many states and this does not happen. If police are of the mindset that gun = criminal then they are the ones that need to be have their training modified.
To be successful, gun training needs to be part of everyone's life, both gun owners and non-gun owners. Public schools and local police classes were be good places to start.
Not really. The fundamentals can be covered or researched or are even common sense (bad term). This pretty much covers it: lethal force is allowed to counter lethal threat. More education is good but not a requirement.

Schools teaching gun safety would do more to prevent accidental injury from guns than any law but it would also break the mantra of guns are bad. For this reason it won't happen even if it would be a benefit (beyond concealed carry).

I see an assumption of incompetence requiring eduction and permitting. There is evidence now from multiple states showing this not to be the case. The public does not seem to be generally incompetent to carry firearms.

zdc1775
February 6, 2014, 09:28 AM
What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?
What are these classes you speak of? All I have ever done to get my carry permits is pay my money to the sheriff.

I'm all for nation-wide Constitutional Carry

Mainsail
February 6, 2014, 09:35 AM
If class is required then it is NOT a right you're exercising, but a privilege.

If a class is required then all a misguided legislature (acting in typical knee-jerk reaction to some event) need to do is legislate that the current class is insufficient, and carry is no longer allowed until a NEW class is written. POOF right gone in a matter of a day or two.

If a class is required then all a misguided legislature (acting in typical knee-jerk reaction to some event) need to do is legislate a class requirement that is too difficult or too expensive to pass. POOF right gone in a matter of a day or two.

People who will do stupid stuff with a deadly weapon will still do stupid stuff after a class.

CoalTrain49
February 6, 2014, 10:23 AM
I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

Good question.

The state constitution for my state doesn't have an article that addresses driving, but it does about the right to bear arms and I quote The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. That has been interpreted to mean everyone, not just a person who can pass a test. I believe the reason we have back ground checks for CCP is to comply with a federal regulation that says a felon can't have a gun but I'm not sure about that one. The reason they don't push a test here is because it wouldn't get past the state supreme court, like some of the other "can't carry here" laws that some local municipalities passed. The push here is UBC for a sale that doesn't have anything to do with concealed carry.

So to answer your question, I don't have a constitutional right to drive, but I do to carry a gun. That simple.

monotonous_iterancy
February 6, 2014, 01:44 PM
What are these classes you speak of? All I have ever done to get my carry permits is pay my money to the sheriff.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was part of the permiting almost everywhere. In some states, those applying for permits are required to have taken a class regarding legal aspects to carrying.

For instance, like this one. Note a student asking questions and trying to understand that you can't shoot someone over property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNE9TBsRpMc

siglite
February 6, 2014, 01:54 PM
So let's examine the arguments FOR requiring permits.

1. The American public is too stupid and uneducated to carry guns without training, thus:
2. Training will magically make them less likely to shoot someone over a parking space or a copper coil from an air conditioner
3. Training will make them less likely to somehow accidentally shoot someone in a public setting via poor gun handling.

Am I understanding the arguments in favor of permits correctly?

monotonous_iterancy
February 6, 2014, 02:02 PM
So let's examine the arguments FOR requiring permits.

1. The American public is too stupid and uneducated to carry guns without training, thus:
2. Training will magically make them less likely to shoot someone over a parking space or a copper coil from an air conditioner
3. Training will make them less likely to somehow accidentally shoot someone in a public setting via poor gun handling.

Am I understanding the arguments in favor of permits correctly?

That's the gist of what I was trying to get at. Although I wasn't trying to be condescending and say that "the public is too stupid." I'm saying that some people are ignorant, they don't know better. A lot of people get perceptions of the world from media and the like. Most people don't live in the world we do, discussing and thinking about these issues.

Then again, we do require driving tests and instruction to get a license...and I still see people texting and driving.

Outlaw Man
February 6, 2014, 02:08 PM
To quote Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have."

monotonous_iterancy
February 6, 2014, 02:25 PM
To quote Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have."

That's a great quote. I've never heard that.

Tamren
February 6, 2014, 02:34 PM
Well, I'm going to quote my CCW class instructor on this, he made the point that not having a class as a requirement to voting or free speech has arguably caused far more damage to society then gun violence (as much as I hate the term, violence is violence is violence, but it works here). We don't require a class for free speech or voting because it would put a barrier between citizens and what is supposed to be a right.

So should we really have a barrier between citizens and the right to bear arms?

zdc1775
February 6, 2014, 02:34 PM
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was part of the permiting almost everywhere. In some states, those applying for permits are required to have taken a class regarding legal aspects to carrying.

For instance, like this one. Note a student asking questions and trying to understand that you can't shoot someone over property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNE9TBsRpMc
I know some states make you jump through all sorts of hoops to be able to carry at all, and I won't argue that there are idiots out there, but it doesn't change my opinion on Constituional Carry.

I will state that I do think that anyone who wants to carry a gun for self defense should take the initive to learn when and where it is applicable, but will always oppose any mandatory requirements for it.

Also missed where you had stated the same thing above my post.

strambo
February 6, 2014, 02:36 PM
I'm totally cool with whatever restrictions the Founding Fathers thought were appropriate.

Malamute
February 6, 2014, 02:41 PM
4 states require no permit. 5 if you count Wyoming being resident-only.


In Arizona we started out with concealed carry being prohibited - not by law but the state constitution!

Today we have almost no restrictions, and anyone resident or visitor - who is not a prohibited person and 18 or older can carry either openly or concealed, under most circumstances.

Last I looked at the Az statutes, permitless concealed carry was only for residents. Does anyone have statutes that show visitors can also carry without a permit?

I'm in the "it IS an infringement to require a permit to exercise a right" camp.

JohnBiltz
February 6, 2014, 02:42 PM
Is CC a good idea? Its really the wrong question. The real question is can it be proved to be a bad idea? If it can't and statistically that seems to be the case, then in the spirit of the constitution it should be the law.

JRH6856
February 6, 2014, 03:03 PM
I see an assumption of incompetence requiring eduction and permitting. There is evidence now from multiple states showing this not to be the case. The public does not seem to be generally incompetent to carry firearms.

Most people are capable of living their lives and handling their affairs without government assistance.

This is a hard pill for some people to swallow. :uhoh:

siglite
February 6, 2014, 03:34 PM
Then again, we do require driving tests and instruction to get a license...and I still see people texting and driving.

You cannot legislate away stupidity, nor can you legislate away crazy. All you can do is infringe on the liberties of the masses under the banner of "protecting them from" <insert rationale here>.

Sam1911
February 6, 2014, 03:39 PM
What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?
Many states (most?) have no such class required as it is. And yet, there is no public safety problem or harm to society because of this.

Here in PA no class of any sort is required and yet there are ZERO calls for reform or elimination of our LCTF.

It is a boogeyman raised by folks who think it "should" be a problem, but it isn't a problem that actually EXISTS.

Salmoneye
February 6, 2014, 04:07 PM
Being a native Vermonter and never having known any system other than 'constitutional carry', I can not understand when others seem to think that mandatory training will "weed out" any problems...

People are just not going around willy-nilly shooting each other here...

Clean97GTI
February 6, 2014, 04:23 PM
NV already has no law against open carry so I can pack whatever the hell I want as long as everyone can see it.

I would have to get a permit to conceal a handgun but that permit signifies that I understand the laws of my state regarding the use of a gun in defense and that I have demonstrated I am capable of handling the deadly weapon I strap to my belt.

Can't say it bothers me to have to get a permit, especially considering the gravity and potential legal issues of carrying that gun. Quite frankly, I didn't bother renewing my permit and I don't carry anymore.

I know I'll catch some flak but I don't consider the 2nd amendment to be absolute.

MErl
February 6, 2014, 04:29 PM
Why does it matter if a gun that ends up being used was carried openly or concealed? The same laws regarding justified use of force apply either way.

You sound like you are OK with the way NV is, why is open carry fine without a permit and concealed carry not?

Clean97GTI
February 6, 2014, 04:32 PM
Why does it matter if a gun that ends up being used was carried openly or concealed? The same laws regarding justified use of force apply either way.

You sound like you are OK with the way NV is, why is open carry fine without a permit and concealed carry not?
Yes I'm OK with NV the way it is. It provides citizens a way to still carry a gun without having to pay for a class and permit. It is a legal method to avoid paying a tax.
I feel most people with concealed carry permits are woefully undertrained but that is another matter.

gamestalker
February 6, 2014, 04:36 PM
Not only is it a good idea, it's a reality, and I support it 100%.

If thugs can carry, I think it's only common sense that law abiding citizens should have the constitutional right to defend their selves, and without having to get a permit. The state of Arizona seems to agree with that.

An angry exchange or words, is just that.

GS

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away"

NavyLCDR
February 6, 2014, 05:13 PM
Most people are capable of living their lives and handling their affairs without government assistance.

This is a hard pill for some people to swallow. :uhoh:

Especially since a pill like that is not covered by Obamacare!

CoalTrain49
February 6, 2014, 09:33 PM
Well, I'm going to quote my CCW class instructor on this, he made the point that not having a class as a requirement to voting or free speech has arguably caused far more damage to society then gun violence (as much as I hate the term, violence is violence is violence, but it works here). We don't require a class for free speech or voting because it would put a barrier between citizens and what is supposed to be a right.

So should we really have a barrier between citizens and the right to bear arms?

I'm going to have to disagree with this.

Does one not learn anything about how our gov't works in high school? I can say I had a pretty good idea about our system of gov't and my responsibility as a citizen when I graduated. Most people get some high school classes now days with civics. If you decide to not vote, which a lot of people do, it's not because of a lack of educational opportunities.

If you become a citizen from another country you have to pass a written and oral test with lots of civics related questions.

So the system is in place to educate the public. All the classes in the world aren't going to get some people up to speed.

siglite
February 6, 2014, 11:01 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with this.

Does one not learn anything about how our gov't works in high school? I can say I had a pretty good idea about our system of gov't and my responsibility as a citizen when I graduated. Most people get some high school classes now days with civics. If you decide to not vote, which a lot of people do, it's not because of a lack of educational opportunities.

If you become a citizen from another country you have to pass a written and oral test with lots of civics related questions.

So the system is in place to educate the public. All the classes in the world aren't going to get some people up to speed.

I assume then that you advocate licensing and governmental blessing in the form of a fee and a database check as a prerequisite for posting on THR?

BenFoo
February 6, 2014, 11:22 PM
Many states (most?) have no such class required as it is. And yet, there is no public safety problem or harm to society because of this.

Here in PA no class of any sort is required and yet there are ZERO calls for reform or elimination of our LCTF.

It is a boogeyman raised by folks who think it "should" be a problem, but it isn't a problem that actually EXISTS.


Unless you happen to live in Philadelphia. Where the world is just a touch different.

Id like some reform or eliminate the requirement for a LTCF.

PiratePenguin
February 6, 2014, 11:38 PM
I think basic firearm safety should be taught in schools. We teach kids how to be safe with "stop, drop and roll", Mr. Yuck, and swimming lessons, right?

arizona_cards_11
February 6, 2014, 11:44 PM
Nanny-state paternalist. :)

Ankeny
February 7, 2014, 11:40 AM
I am a believer in individual freedom/rights. One example is the 2nd Amendment. Wyoming has chosen to allow me to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, classes, training, etc. beyond something like a hunter's safety calss. The only restrictions are "forbidden establishments". It certainly amazes me how so many pro 2nd Amendement people would be in favor of further restricting the rights and privledges already granted to me by my state. Unless of course, we are talking a national carry permit with no attached regulations, requirements, restrictions, etc.

brboyer
February 7, 2014, 12:42 PM
I am a believer in individual freedom/rights. One example is the 2nd Amendment. Wyoming has chosen to allow me to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, classes, training, etc. beyond something like a hunter's safety calss. The only restrictions are "forbidden establishments". It certainly amazes me how so many pro 2nd Amendement people would be in favor of further restricting the rights and privledges already granted to me by my state. Unless of course, we are talking a national carry permit with no attached regulations, requirements, restrictions, etc.

Unless of course, we are talking a national carry permit with no attached regulations, requirements, restrictions, etc.
We actually already have one: ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

JustinJ
February 7, 2014, 12:47 PM
Its true that people who intend to use guns to commit crimes tend to disregard laws against carrying them. However, all illegal use of firearms aren't done by people who intended to do so. The guy in florida who shot the guy for texting did not wake up in the morning and decide he was going to commit murder. The real question, I think, is if required training regarding the use of CC weapons actually sinks in on the dotes who end up disregarding it anyways.

BigG
February 7, 2014, 12:55 PM
You already have the right. What part of "shall not be infringed" is eluding you?

brboyer
February 7, 2014, 01:27 PM
Its true that people who intend to use guns to commit crimes tend to disregard laws against carrying them. However, all illegal use of firearms aren't done by people who intended to do so. The guy in florida who shot the guy for texting did not wake up in the morning and decide he was going to commit murder. The real question, I think, is if required training regarding the use of CC weapons actually sinks in on the dotes who end up disregarding it anyways.
You cannot 'train' stupid out of folks. Stupid people will ALWAYS do stupid stuff.

Skribs
February 7, 2014, 01:41 PM
There is no training in my state. You are allowed to OC if you are allowed to own the gun, and CC with permit. Constitutional carry (and purchase, IMO) is good. If you're not trustworthy enough to have a gun, you're not trustworthy enough to be in public.

Mike J
February 7, 2014, 02:11 PM
Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?

Yep

megatronrules
February 7, 2014, 02:41 PM
I'm for permitless carry some people don't have the time or money for a training class. That being said I think owning a gun is a big responsibility and anyone who chooses to do so needs to learn the laws and safe handling aspects.

However I don't feel that the state should be able to mandate such things,before a right is exercised.

km101
February 7, 2014, 04:37 PM
Constitutional carry is the ultimate goal.

"If one accepts that it simply isn't about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, because such a mission is folly, what is left as rationale for restriction? " siglite

Well said Sir!

JRH6856
February 7, 2014, 06:30 PM
I think owning a gun is a big responsibility and anyone who chooses to do so needs to learn the laws and safe handling aspects.

This. And if people behave irresponsibly, there should be laws to deal with them after they do so, not before.

herrwalther
February 7, 2014, 10:09 PM
Growing up in Vermont I saw the best and worst of permitless carry. The pros are everything you imagine. The cons are you can have some fellow wander in on their 21st birthday, buy a firearm/ammo/holster and throw it on their belt without so much as glancing at the manual. On several instances I witnessed this happening, the 4 rules were crying in a corner. I am not advocating mandatory training classes by any means, but even a Youtube video on gun safety (for those that don't know it) is a better idea than buying a gun because it was used in Call of Duty.

Another downside of VT permit less carry is it is not recognized by any other state. I can't recall which of the other states handle it but I believe some have permits for carry in other states.

siglite
February 8, 2014, 12:14 AM
Growing up in Vermont I saw the best and worst of permitless carry. The pros are everything you imagine. The cons are you can have some fellow wander in on their 21st birthday, buy a firearm/ammo/holster and throw it on their belt without so much as glancing at the manual. On several instances I witnessed this happening, the 4 rules were crying in a corner. I am not advocating mandatory training classes by any means, but even a Youtube video on gun safety (for those that don't know it) is a better idea than buying a gun because it was used in Call of Duty.

Another downside of VT permit less carry is it is not recognized by any other state. I can't recall which of the other states handle it but I believe some have permits for carry in other states.

The optimum scenario is permitless constitutional carry within the borders of your own state, and the retention of some permit system to allow those who wish to take advantage of reciprocity agreements between states.

Salmoneye
February 8, 2014, 07:17 AM
The optimum scenario is permitless constitutional carry within the borders of your own state, and the retention of some permit system to allow those who wish to take advantage of reciprocity agreements between states.

Anyone not federally barred may carry open or concealed in VT...No need for reciprocity or a 'permit' from another state...I don't care to travel any longer, so I do not worry about not having a permit that is honored elsewhere...Only time I leave the state is the occasional foray across the deep water line of Lake Champlain into NY waters...Simply have to make sure I do not cross the 'border' while armed...

As for:

The cons are you can have some fellow wander in on their 21st birthday, buy a firearm/ammo/holster and throw it on their belt without so much as glancing at the manual. On several instances I witnessed this happening,

I have no idea where you grew up in Vermont, but where I grew up, we all had guns before we graduated High School and knew their workings and respect for them...No one I have ever known went to the store to buy a gun when they turned 21 as they already had them...Maybe I am just really old...

21 is the age to be able to buy handgun from an FFL, but private sales are legal at 18 (federally), and 'possession' of a handgun is 16 in VT (Yes, I am aware of the 'conflicts' with the federal age)...


§ 4008. Possession of firearms by children

A child under the age of 16 years shall not, without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, have in his or her possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 52 of Title 33.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=085

skoro
February 8, 2014, 07:19 AM
Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

Only if they and their handguns remained over a mile away. ;)

Ankeny
February 8, 2014, 11:15 AM
Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it? Yes. What they carry, why they carry, their markmanship skills, knowledge of Wyoming case law, etc. is their business, not mine.

JRH6856
February 8, 2014, 01:36 PM
Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

No, and frankly it is one of the reasons I feel a need to be armed myself. :uhoh:

Sam1911
February 8, 2014, 03:08 PM
Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

I have no choice. They are lawfully allowed to carry here, as am I. There are no classes, no tests. They must trust me, I must trust them.

And regardless of the fact that we have around 800,000 holding the LCTF here, and EVERYONE else is allowed to OC if they want, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

goon
February 8, 2014, 05:23 PM
Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

I have no choice. They are lawfully allowed to carry here, as am I. There are no classes, no tests. They must trust me, I must trust them.

And regardless of the fact that we have around 800,000 holding the LCTF here, and EVERYONE else is allowed to OC if they want, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Exactly.
Liberty isn't always comfortable.
Get used to it, or get ready to surrender yours when you make someone else uncomfortable.
Can't have it both ways.

JRH6856
February 8, 2014, 06:39 PM
Liberty isn't always comfortable.

The problem is too many people in too many places wanting to be too comfortable for their own good.

herrwalther
February 8, 2014, 08:08 PM
I have no idea where you grew up in Vermont, but where I grew up, we all had guns before we graduated High School and knew their workings and respect for them...No one I have ever known went to the store to buy a gun when they turned 21 as they already had them...Maybe I am just really old...

I consider VT my adopted state since that is where I attended school. More so lately since my real home state of NY has been destroying the 2A. I saw the unsafe practices I stated a few times at Parro's in Waterbury. Always sent me to the other end of the store and behind something.

76shuvlinoff
February 8, 2014, 09:26 PM
Yes to constitutional carry.

Michigan is nowhere near being a free state but those are the hoops I jump through to be able to "legally" cc.

CoalTrain49
February 8, 2014, 11:20 PM
I assume then that you advocate licensing and governmental blessing in the form of a fee and a database check as a prerequisite for posting on THR?

Sorry, I'm not making the connection here.

If you are referring to a license to carry concealed the answer is yes. I have one, I paid a fee for it, they ran a back ground check and I carry. No problem.

Posting on a forum is a little different then carrying concealed.

With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

goon
February 8, 2014, 11:49 PM
With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

The right to vote has evolved with our nation. Originally, you pretty much had to be a property owning male to vote and people had "no problem" with that. Even after the Civil War, schemes like taxes, fees, and tests were imposed on people with skin of the wrong color to discourage their participation.

Kind of like fees, tests, and other buffoonery are imposed on people wishing to exercise their right to keep and bear arms today to discourage their participation.

Just because you have "no problem" paying a fee and meeting whatever training requirement your state may choose to impose on you to carry a firearm for defense, that doesn't mean that those things aren't obstacles to other people. Single parents, elderly people, disabled people - they could all find those things barriers that prevent them from exercising their rights.

I do have a problem with that.

Salmoneye
February 9, 2014, 09:01 AM
I consider VT my adopted state since that is where I attended school. More so lately since my real home state of NY has been destroying the 2A. I saw the unsafe practices I stated a few times at Parro's in Waterbury. Always sent me to the other end of the store and behind something.

Thanks for the reply...

As I said, maybe I just grew up in a different time...I also was not considering people that came here for school...I can see where your scenario may indeed be more common than I thought...

Salmoneye
February 9, 2014, 09:07 AM
Posting on a forum is a little different then carrying concealed.

With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...

danez71
February 9, 2014, 10:42 AM
The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...


Well, the 1st has been used at times, by those with a mob mentality, to cause to harm, or worse, a person; often times a young female.


The 2nd, has been shown to, at times, has been used to prevent the harm, or worse, of often times a young female by group with a mob mentality.


Constitutional Carry is not a good idea. Its a GREAT idea.


.

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 12:19 PM
The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...

OK, I'll try make the distinctions between the two or at least how the courts have defined it. I know some people can't accept it but here it is.

I'm sure everyone has read 2A. Usually when a law is written the terms and conditions are spelled out in the last paragraph or sentence. In 2A the only thing it says is those rights are not to be infringed. That could be defined as activily breaking the terms, which seems to be the case and unfortunately there are no terms defined. If there had been we wouldn't be where we are today.

Now look at 10A.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This one kicks in on 2A because the terms are not spelled out. If you want something to not happen you have to be clear about it or it could go any number of directions, which is what happened to 2A when the courts got a hold of it. Remember that 10A was written and ratified at the same time that 2A was so there is some discussion about the fact that 2A may have been purposely left ambiguous so the states could hammer out their own requirements which they did and continue to do.

Now for your voting rights or 13A

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If you look at it closely you will see that in sec.1 it is specific by the word abridged (to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom) and who may not abridge it. Several states have tried to enact voter ID laws and they have been ruled unconstitutional in the circuit courts. I don't think it has gone to the supreme court yet but my money is on states not being able to require ID when you vote.

That's the difference. If that 13A language had been in 2A we wouldn't be having this discussion. The amendments were written about 100 years apart after a civil war that had a lot to do with federal and states rights.

No charge.

goon
February 9, 2014, 12:25 PM
The fact remains that you are apparently OK with requiring fees (sometimes outrageous fees) and other barriers to exercise one right but not to exercise the other right.

I don't understand how that makes sense to you or anyone who agrees with you and I probably never will.
Though I couldn't think you're more wrong about it, I'm going to just let it drop. If we don't let it go now, this whole thing is going to keep escalating until a dozen of us manage to shut down an otherwise decent discussion.

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 01:45 PM
Just because you have "no problem" paying a fee and meeting whatever training requirement your state may choose to impose on you to carry a firearm for defense, that doesn't mean that those things aren't obstacles to other people. Single parents, elderly people, disabled people - they could all find those things barriers that prevent them from exercising their rights.

I do have a problem with that.

There are obstacles in just about everything one does. I could find barriers and obstacles in my way with just about everything I do. I'm sorry if you find that your state statutes create obstacles for you regarding your ability to carry a firearm. My state has no requirements for a test but I have to pay a fee for a back ground check. I could consider that an obstacle but I know how to defeat it, I just pay the fee. I also have to pay the state for a lot of other things like a business license, a drivers license, a hunting license and many more but you get the idea. Some states even have an income tax. By your reasoning a felon may also have a barrier or obstacle that prevents him form carrying a firearm. If you are saying that everyone should have an unabridged right to carry, which I think you are from your line of reasoning, I think you will find you are in a small minority.

But I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

goon
February 9, 2014, 03:04 PM
By your reasoning a felon may also have a barrier or obstacle that prevents him form carrying a firearm. If you are saying that everyone should have an unabridged right to carry, which I think you are from your line of reasoning, I think you will find you are in a small minority.

I made no mention of felons. I'm not sure it came up in this discussion at all. That's a discussion for another time.

If I were in some southern states in 1950 and arguing that people of color had the same right to vote and should not be subject to poll taxes or literacy tests, I also would have been in a minority. Does being in a minority make you wrong?

My reasoning basically comes down to this: Once the state is given the power to decide who can and cannot exercise a right based on who can or cannot afford to pay a fee or navigate complex training and testing requirements, that right is no longer able to be exercised by many people. In the case of CCW permits, the people who may be most in need of the ability to protect themselves are those who are likely to have the most trouble complying with ridiculous, pointless infringements that don't make anyone any safer.

As most of us agree, criminals carry guns and commit crimes whether they're permitted to or not. Because they're criminals. They want your wallet or some power trip that comes from raping your daughter, so they do what they do. They won't be applying for permits to carry or attending classes with you, but they'll be armed and committing crimes just the same. Even in prison, with guards watching them all day every day, they victimize other people. If an entire staff of prison guards can't keep even a few hundred of them in check, then a law imposing restrictions on law-abiding people also will not make a difference.

Several states have realized this and taken steps to correct it. My state hasn't, so I pay the fee and deal with the red tape. But that doesn't make it right and I don't fool myself into thinking it is.

So now that I've clarified why I feel Constitutional Carry is preferable, I'm out of this. Maybe you should be too.
This isn't a bad discussion, but the more people like you and I push at it with very diametrically opposed opinions, the more likely it is to get closed. We should just let it be.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 03:23 PM
When Heller was decided, SCOTUS said the 2A enumerates 2 separate rights, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. It then went on to narrowly address the right ti keep arms (limiting the scope of the decision to the right to keep handguns in the home for protection), but saying nothing about the right to bear arms. This silence on the right to bear was heard loudly in several circuits to say that the right to bear is not a core right of individuals and is subject to regulation. This is the question the court is being asked to address in two cases out of Texas (see this THR discussion (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9337794&postcount=1)).

There are some scholars that believe that the 2A as originally written protects both an individual right to keep arms and a colletive right to bear arms in service to the state. And that the individual right was protected so that the state need for a militia could be served collectively.

SCOTUS silence on the right to bear in Heller is a concern because the Court could easily find that the right to bear was and is a collective right subject to state regulation while protecting the core individual right to keep (own) firearms from state and federal infringement without strict scrutiny. This outcome would please neither side in the end (and there is an old saw that says if neither side is pleased by the court's decision, it is probably the correct one.)

HexHead
February 9, 2014, 03:37 PM
Yes, I support "Constitutional carry". The ONLY intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means to resist the government should the need arise again. This is why "gun control" isn't about guns, but control. Any law or regulation put into place that diminishes the capabilities of that intent only serves to enslave us.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 04:00 PM
The ONLY intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means to resist the government should the need arise again.

But which government? Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Bill of Rights was seen to restrain the federal govt, not the states.

What's more, In Heller, SCOTUS clearly found a core right of self-defense against non-government threats, so there is clearly more than just resistance to a tyrannical government involved.

Study the history of the Bill of Rights closely and you find that it was revised several times before passage by Congress. The bill that came out of the House was more focused on absolutely protecting individual rights against encroachment by both federal and state governments. Many of these protections from the states were removed by the Senate (which represented the State governments) because the Senate felt the State Constitutions were the best place to protect individual rights from State encroachment.

What finally came out of Congress for ratification was what generally comes from Congress: A compromise which is not absolutely clear as to just what is intended, leaving it up to the Courts to eventually try to figure it out after sorting through a mish-mash of tradition and differing opinions.

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 04:37 PM
So now that I've clarified why I feel Constitutional Carry is preferable, I'm out of this. Maybe you should be too.
This isn't a bad discussion, but the more people like you and I push at it with very diametrically opposed opinions, the more likely it is to get closed. We should just let it be.

No reason to close it, we're having a civil discussion and you have valid points that many would like to consider. The only difference in our views is your's is from a philosophical perspective and mine from a practical perspective. It helps people see different sides of the same coin.

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 04:42 PM
When Heller was decided, SCOTUS said the 2A enumerates 2 separate rights, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. It then went on to narrowly address the right ti keep arms (limiting the scope of the decision to the right to keep handguns in the home for protection), but saying nothing about the right to bear arms. This silence on the right to bear was heard loudly in several circuits to say that the right to bear is not a core right of individuals and is subject to regulation. This is the question the court is being asked to address in two cases out of Texas (see this THR discussion (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9337794&postcount=1)).

There are some scholars that believe that the 2A as originally written protects both an individual right to keep arms and a colletive right to bear arms in service to the state. And that the individual right was protected so that the state need for a militia could be served collectively.

SCOTUS silence on the right to bear in Heller is a concern because the Court could easily find that the right to bear was and is a collective right subject to state regulation while protecting the core individual right to keep (own) firearms from state and federal infringement without strict scrutiny. This outcome would please neither side in the end (and there is an old saw that says if neither side is pleased by the court's decision, it is probably the correct one.)

Excellent. That helps this discussion a great deal. Thanks.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 04:44 PM
he only difference in our views is your's is from a philosophical perspective and mine from a practical perspective. It helps people see different sides of the same coin.

In many situations, philosophical principles appear impractical to many. And there is a reason that those practicing situational ethics are often seen as unprincipled. ;)

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 06:20 PM
In many situations, philosophical principles appear impractical to many. And there is a reason that those practicing situational ethics are often seen as unprincipled. ;)

I agree.

Unfortunately my state doesn't give a hoot about my personal philosophical principals. If I want to play I play by their rules, unprincipled or not. If your philosophical principals prevent you from practicing according to their standard then you don't practice or you do it illegally. I hold a professional license from the state. It was very expensive to acquire. I had to take a 16 hour exam to get it and 8 years of school and practice to even apply for the license.

They set the standard. It's their sand box. Your call if you want to play in it.

Life goes on.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 07:37 PM
They set the standard. It's their sand box. Your call if you want to play in it.

In practice, that's a good principle to live by.

Sam1911
February 9, 2014, 08:01 PM
It is. Unless you're talking about what SHOULD be, rather than what IS now.

Seems what SHOULD be is the focus of the thread.

CoalTrain49
February 9, 2014, 08:13 PM
In practice, that's a good principle to live by.

:D You got me there.

goon
February 9, 2014, 08:21 PM
It is. Unless you're talking about what SHOULD be, rather than what IS now.

Seems what SHOULD be is the focus of the thread.

Yep. You don't change what's wrong into something right by just sitting there and deciding to live with something that's wrong.

First step - Admit that there is a problem.

And the concept of a permit to exercise a right is a problem.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 09:01 PM
Seems what SHOULD be is the focus of the thread.

Well, we're agreed that it should be the focus. But like most threads, things get out of focus now and then. ;)

As to how things should be, that is highly dependent on whether we are starting from where we are, or starting from scratch with a blank slate.

Sam1911
February 9, 2014, 09:10 PM
Wait...how is "how things should be" dependent on where we are now? Is there a goal or not?

danez71
February 9, 2014, 09:17 PM
SCOTUS silence on the right to bear in Heller is a concern because the Court could easily find that the right to bear was and is a collective right subject to state regulation while protecting the core individual right to keep (own) firearms from state and federal infringement without strict scrutiny.

You could be right but......


I think SCOTUS didn't address the "bear" part in Heller because the case was about keeping a handgun in the home.

SCOTUS seems to only answer the question asked. The case wasn't about bearing a gun.


Now, cases about bearing guns are making there way to/through SCOTUS.

Incremental steps.

JRH6856
February 9, 2014, 09:30 PM
Call me a pessimist. I always try to anticipate the possible negative outcomes just to avoid unpleasant surprises.

danez71
February 9, 2014, 09:33 PM
^^^ I understand completely.

JRH6856
February 10, 2014, 01:05 AM
I think SCOTUS didn't address the "bear" part in Heller because the case was about keeping a handgun in the home.

SCOTUS seems to only answer the question asked. The case wasn't about bearing a gun.

No doubt. The Court generally does try to limit their decision to the case before them and keep their ruling as narrowly as possible. They did this in Heller by separating the right to keep from the right to bear. Many have come to consider the two rights as one or at least as so closely connected as to be one and the same. that they are separate. It is good to be reminded that they are separate rights, but that separation may come at a price as I have noted.

Since the Court really does not like to make new law and "upset the apple cart" so to speak, they do try to make the law fit and the Constitution fit the current situation rather then force a change. States have exercised the authority to regulate the bearing of arms for over 200 years. That is a big apple cart.

JRH6856
February 10, 2014, 03:56 AM
Wait...how is "how things should be" dependent on where we are now? Is there a goal or not?
If there is a goal, where you are starting often determines whether or not you can get there.

If there is not a goal, then this is probably a waste of time.

stressed
February 10, 2014, 04:32 AM
I have carry permit for my state, but I feel constitutional carry should be based of AZ. They need no permit. Just be 21 and in good standing with the law. Viola, you carry gun legally. No permits needed.

We need to do away with permits.

HexHead
February 10, 2014, 08:16 AM
My feeling is that if you can pass the background check to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it too.

Sam1911
February 10, 2014, 08:25 AM
If there is a goal, where you are starting often determines whether or not you can get there.Sounds like the old down-east Mainer saying, "Yah can't get there from heah..."

:D

Fortunately, you CAN get anywhere, from anywhere else, but I think I understand your point in that it is helpful to know where you are to understand better what the path to the end goal will be.

CoalTrain49
February 10, 2014, 01:46 PM
I have carry permit for my state, but I feel constitutional carry should be based of AZ. They need no permit. Just be 21 and in good standing with the law. Viola, you carry gun legally. No permits needed.

We need to do away with permits.

In reality what does a permit accomplish?

For one thing it allows someone to pay the LE agency to run a background check. So I guess you have to ask yourself are background checks of any value? I think most LE agencies would rather not have the burden of that task. It's just another administrative duty that they have to find a way to do. Here a lot of it is done by volunteers and PT because the sheriff doesn't have enough FT people to do it. I know because I just got a renewal. I've read where some states have a 90 day delay because they just instituted Shall Issue and they were inundated with apps. I used to work in Gov't so I know how permitting/licensing works or doesn't work in most cases.

Felons can't legally own firearms anyway so a background check really doesn't accomplish much of anything other than keep track of who is legally carrying a weapon. As big gov't shrinks more states will probably go to No Permit Required (NPR) as WY, AZ and AK just did. The Shall Issue with training trend hasn't done much of anything but create a cottage industry for instructors and add additional work for LEO's. If you look at the best well run state gov'ts (those without low or no debt) you will see a pattern. 3 of the NPR states are in the top 10 of that category. AZ didn't make it because of the housing bubble but they are still way ahead of the curve. I will predict that TX, NE, ND, SD, IA, UT and MN will be NPR states soon. It really isn't a matter of constitutions any longer, it's a matter of responsible government.

I know I've been a devils advocate here on some issues. But the fact is I carry, I'm a hunter and a recreational shooter. Being a pragmatist I think these issues should be discussed and the facts examined in full daylight for all to see, which is what this forum does very well.

JRH6856
February 10, 2014, 02:01 PM
Fortunately, you CAN get anywhere, from anywhere else, but I think I understand your point in that it is helpful to know where you are to understand better what the path to the end goal will be.

Exactly. Off the top of my head, it appears to me that there are three possible paths to constitutional carry.

1. SCOTUS decides the right to bear is a core, fundamental right protected by the 2A which McDonald has incorporated against the states. Some states will be fine with that, others, like NY and CA will probably argue that their existing regulations do not infringe there will be a long, hard battle in the courts.

2. SCOTUS decides the right to bear is collective and the authority to regulate belongs to the states under the 10th amendment. Now this path forks.

a. The US Constitution is amended to insure the core, fundamental right to bear arms. There are 2 ways to propose this amendment and 2 ways to ratify. There are no easy options. Getting such an amendment through Congress will not be easy, and getting ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures may be even harder if the goal is unregulated/unlicensed carry (states don't like to give up authority and revenue). Amending or ratification by convention would be even harder as the legality of every convention is sure to be challenged whenever possible.

b. State constitutions are amended to allow/protect the constitutional the bearing of arms. This will not be easy in some states (same problems as in [a.]) and will result in differing versions of what the right to bear arms means.

If SCOTUS denies cert on the two cases in this session, then the options are to look for another case, or take the amendment routes.

Amending the US Constitution is not easy. That is why nearly everyone with an issue tries the SCOTUS route first. It is easier to find an existing protection than create a new one though amendment.

The ease and method of amending state constitutions depend on the state. We amend the Texas Constitution in just about every election.

JRH6856
February 10, 2014, 02:21 PM
It really isn't a matter of constitutions any longer, it's a matter of responsible government.

And responsible government may well be a constitutional matter.

What kind of government do your want? One that recognizes and respects the rights of the individual and exists to serve those rights, or one that sees the individual as a member of a greater whole with rights (really privileges) granted by government to enable the individual to serve the needs of the greater good?

Those that want the former tend to support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Those that want the latter tend to (correctly) see an armed populace as a threat to government which must be controlled or ideally eliminated.

CoalTrain49
February 10, 2014, 03:12 PM
The ease and method of amending state constitutions depend on the state. We amend the Texas Constitution in just about every election.

And a state constitutional amendment is a direct result of a responsible state government. The fed is broke and has been for some time. That isn't a responsible gov't. Way too many millionaires on capital hill for my tastes. The action is at the state level.

Vote.

happygeek
February 10, 2014, 08:36 PM
Its true that people who intend to use guns to commit crimes tend to disregard laws against carrying them. However, all illegal use of firearms aren't done by people who intended to do so. The guy in florida who shot the guy for texting did not wake up in the morning and decide he was going to commit murder. The real question, I think, is if required training regarding the use of CC weapons actually sinks in on the dotes who end up disregarding it anyways.



You cannot 'train' stupid out of folks. Stupid people will ALWAYS do stupid stuff.


Not only that, but the shooter in question was a retired police officer, meaning he could carry in all 50 states (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/07/accused-gunman-in-florida-movie-theater-shooting-allegedly-told-police-dont-get/) regardless of whatever permit laws and/or training requirements that state has.

gym
February 10, 2014, 11:55 PM
There was a discussion on Backwoods.com about this, Mass sent out an email the other night about it. I voted onHB-209 By Representative Heather Fitzenhagen (R-Ft. Myers) is a bill to protect citizens from being disarmed and charged with a crime for carrying a weapon or firearm during a mandatory evacuation ordered by the Governor during a declared state of emergency.
Check your NRA ILA Legislative alerts. The FL reps are all there to cut and paste. Let them know why it's a stupid idea to take away peoples guns during an evacuation or emergency. We need your support.

jutinlee
February 11, 2014, 12:43 AM
It's been discussed already and it more than likely will not happen, (ever) but I feel like basic gun safety should be taught in schools. And at a young age.
The reason I feel this way is because if you are familiar with an item then the mystique of it is diminished and therefore children may be less likely to play with found firearms. The training would also encourage proper handling and safe practices while operating firearms, (possibly using blanks ammunition or training aids to begin with until moving into live ammunition training as the education progresses.)
This sort of education and basic safety training would benefit families of pro-gunners and anti-gunners alike, by reducing accidental/negligent discharges.
Start the training young as a mandatory safety program and offer advanced training in latter years as a physical education alternative perhaps and progres to defensive techniques and such in post educational settings.

Constitutional Carry could then be permitted after a generation of school students have graduated.
These are my ideas to solve the situation we are looking at here.
Take them for what they are worth.

JRH6856
February 11, 2014, 01:22 AM
There was a discussion on Backwoods.com about this,

Would that be backwoodshome.com?

Palehorseman
February 11, 2014, 06:33 AM
Before no permit CC in AZ the state has always had open carry. People here in AZ are used to public open carry, even in Walmart and are just laissez-faire about it. Now visiting snowbirds from liberal la la states, Canada & etc. are another thing and will often gasp when first seeing OC.

Had some younger motorcycle buds from Fort Lee, NJ (right across river from NYC) who would visit us in WY and AZ. They could never quite get over people being comfortable with strangers openly carrying handguns in public places, they loved going shooting though.

Gun Geezer
February 11, 2014, 07:53 AM
Sticking with the Constitution is a good idea in all cases. This one is no different.

CoalTrain49
February 11, 2014, 11:01 AM
Sticking with the Constitution is a good idea in all cases. This one is no different.

SCOTUS will make sure we stick with the constitution, no worries there. You just may not like how they decide we should stick with it.

we are not amused
February 11, 2014, 07:41 PM
What kind of government do your want? One that recognizes and respects the rights of the individual and exists to serve those rights, or one that sees the individual as a member of a greater whole with rights (really privileges) granted by government to enable the individual to serve the needs of the greater good?

Those that want the former tend to support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Those that want the latter tend to (correctly) see an armed populace as a threat to government which must be controlled or ideally eliminated.

This is one of the more intelligent post I have seen on this site for some time.
And it rather cuts to the heart of gun control, free speech, religious freedom, and the rest of the freedoms and rights we were promised in our Constitution.

It also tends to separate the sheep from the goats. Think about it.

By the way, put me down as a firm believer that my rights were granted to me by my Creator, not provisionally granted as a privilege by my Progressive Lords and Masters.

Since four States, (five if you count Wyoming) already allow Constitutional Carry, with no bad results, it seems obvious that other States ought to follow suit.

JRH6856
February 11, 2014, 09:05 PM
Since four States, (five if you count Wyoming) already allow Constitutional Carry, with no bad results, it seems obvious that other States ought to follow suit.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (which recognizes the constitutional right to carry of non-residents) all have relatively low population density. This may or may not be a factor in the lack of bad results, but it will continue to be argued and should be objectively evaluated.

gym
February 12, 2014, 03:06 PM
Yes JR, here is a link to the Bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1908is/pdf/BILLS-113s1908is.pdf
Being what we no longer can teach our kids any of the things that we grew up learning Mr Lee, Hell will freeze over before they start teaching gun safety classes or anything else that should be taught in the Public Schools, "especially pro gun", as long as the current administration is in power. If you have kids or grandkids you know that most of what was taught in History and Social Studies, in the 50's- 70's, has been changed and altered, "the history books re written" to reflect the ideals of those in control. From the Star Spangled Banner, to Who Discovered America.
The laws need to be changed first. Having a Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity act, in place would be a start in the right direction.

jutinlee
February 13, 2014, 12:33 AM
You would think that as concerned with child safety as they claim to be that they would teach children safety habits. They teach sex ed, why not gun safety? It's not advocating the belief so much as preparing them for the event should they stumble upon it.

For what its worth, I'm 25 so I still have a good idea of my school age years and had things like this been taught at my school we all would have been straight A students because most of us grew up with or near guns, (very rural area).
Some schools in the area teach archery in physical education around here and offer bass fishing teams, it seems logical to offer gun safety.
I'm a but of a dreamer though, lol.

AKElroy
February 13, 2014, 12:56 AM
But common sense isn't so common, is it?

No, but that does not mean the government should then assume the role of filling in that gap. Folks seem to get all worked up over the danger of guns in the hands of idiots, yet I rarely hear anyone likewise leery of those same idiots owning flammable liquids, chainsaws, heavy objects, sharp pointy things, caustic pool chemicals, whatever.

The world is full of dangerous objects. People should not be regulated out of owning them, they should simply take responsibility for and be held accountable for their actions.

Is training a good idea for someone carrying a firearm? You bet. Should big daddy legislate it? Lord no. That is a can of worms without end, and we are right smack dab in the middle of the night-crawlers already.

Bottom line, I do not need their permission, or the necessity of qualifying for, the free exercise of my rights.

Tcruse
February 13, 2014, 08:04 AM
I think gun safety and usage being taught in school is a very good idea. Much of the anti-gun push would be gone if the anti-gun people had any experience or knowledge of guns and their usage. Most of the antigun groups are made up of people that only get their information from TV. If you knew nothing about guns, what would you think when you see the new CA senate leader talking about "ghost guns" with a backdrop of police with those serious expressions. Of course, most of what was said was just non-sense "30 caliber clip magazine" and 30 rounds in 1/2 second. (3600 rounds a minute, sure)

ferretray
February 13, 2014, 09:55 AM
Is "Constitutional Carry" a good idea? YES!

NavyLCDR
February 13, 2014, 11:57 AM
I think gun safety and usage being taught in school is a very good idea.

The problem with that is that it would be government "approved" training. It would be "all guns are dangerous and don't ever touch one."

Sam1911
February 13, 2014, 12:26 PM
Well...it COULD be that. Then again, there are many places where guns are still welcomed in schools for educational and sporting purposes, and they most certainly don't stick to a "don't touch!" line.

As a region-by-region thing, yeah, you'd probably get some of that. Maybe a lot. But remember, they teach hunters ed in a lot of schools, so this isn't entirely without precident.

goon
February 13, 2014, 01:15 PM
When I was in school in central PA in the mid-90's, passing a hunter's safety course was part of the curriculum of my sixth-grade science class. Two whole days were set aside for it.
I'd already passed one the summer before, so I ended up with two certification cards.

Not a bad idea really.

claiborne
February 13, 2014, 01:34 PM
Of course it is. What a strange question. :scrutiny:

bratsky
February 14, 2014, 07:41 PM
Being what we no longer can teach our kids any of the things that we grew up learning Mr Lee, Hell will freeze over before they start teaching gun safety classes or anything else that should be taught in the Public Schools, "especially pro gun", as long as the current administration is in power. If you have kids or grandkids you know that most of what was taught in History and Social Studies, in the 50's- 70's, has been changed and altered, "the history books re written" to reflect the ideals of those in control. From the Star Spangled Banner, to Who Discovered America.


As a high school social studies teacher I have a lot of say about what is taught in my classroom. As far as altered history, that is often because new evidence has shed new light on it. As much as an influence as I may be on my students; parents, friends, and other influences have a very large influence on their world view. It is that world view that will be the lenses that they look through when it comes to issues like the 2a

goon
February 14, 2014, 08:47 PM
History isn't always intentionally altered. Any author cannot help but frame past events in the lens of the world he or she lives in. No matter what the subject, when we look back at history, we cannot escape our own world view. It's always been that way.

Pointshoot
February 15, 2014, 09:12 AM
This is how rights are converted to 'privileges'.

The right to keep & bear arms is already Constitutional.

And those who mis-use any object are responsible and will pay the cost of doing so.
Those who benefit from/live off the nanny state, do all they can to keep people thinking as dependent children.

BTW - I don't go to unsafe gun ranges & I let the owners know why.

george29
February 23, 2014, 02:49 AM
When examining the Constitution, I believe that the fundamental argument is not based on facts or fiction but on desire. One side desires less government intrusion, the other desires more. Those that desire government intrusion want to be told how to live their lives and to be taken care of from cradle to grave, thus they don't want others to have the ability to obstruct their "Pursuit of Happiness" which consists of not having to think for themselves. This, IMO, is the core of the problem and not any one particular so called right. These people, are adamant that their right to not have to take themselves seriously supersedes (?) any other right, particularly the thought that they should in any way be obligated to defend themselves. If we fight to defend ourselves this could obligate these lazy cretins to also be obligated to defend themselves and this is intolerable to them, hence the fight to make government bigger and more integrated in our lives. This is what the damn ACA is all about, intrusion into our lives, micro-managing our lives to the point that we no longer have rights. Our fight is not so much with government but with these cretins who would cancel your rights in order that they don't have to make their own decisions.
The second problem is the astronomical non-voting gun owners that I personally know. These people scream about their rights being taken away yet never vote.

Crowcifier666
February 23, 2014, 09:14 AM
Not sure if this was posted here. Found it on another forum. Great read:

A Nation of Cowards (http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html)

rocksolid
February 23, 2014, 04:04 PM
To me Constitutional Carry has been with us since the Bill of Rights was penned via 2A. Permits are a ruse, another hoop to jump through with a tax attached.
JMHO.

SFsc616171
February 23, 2014, 04:51 PM
Point 1. Every state gets their brain wrapped around issuing a concealed carry permit. It is still 'the government' being benevolent, until comes the day when it changes it's mind, without regards as to who voted for whom.
Point 2. The federal government, who is 'supposed' to be the defender of The Bill of Rights, gets it's corporate brain wrapped around every American carrying a concealed firearm, until it is no longer, "in the best interests of the federal government, rights be darned".
Point 3. It is the right of every American to defend their own life from those that would be in action of physically harming that American's life, whether manjack, dame, or sprout.
Point 4. It is the sole and singular responsibility of every American, who chooses to carry a firearm, to seek any kind of available schooling, training, classes, or seminars, that they are able to obtain, with a part of that on an actual firing range, with a range officer present.
Point 5. What should any American do, when it is the government attempting to stop Americans from protecting their own lives?

JRH6856
February 23, 2014, 05:32 PM
Point 1. Every state gets their brain wrapped around issuing a concealed carry permit. It is still 'the government' being benevolent, until comes the day when it changes it's mind, without regards as to who voted for whom.
Point 2. The federal government, who is 'supposed' to be the defender of The Bill of Rights, gets it's corporate brain wrapped around every American carrying a concealed firearm, until it is no longer, "in the best interests of the federal government, rights be darned".
Point 3. It is the right of every American to defend their own life from those that would be in action of physically harming that American's life, whether manjack, dame, or sprout.
Point 4. It is the sole and singular responsibility of every American, who chooses to carry a firearm, to seek any kind of available schooling, training, classes, or seminars, that they are able to obtain, with a part of that on an actual firing range, with a range officer present.
Point 5. What should any American do, when it is the government attempting to stop Americans from protecting their own lives?
Point 2: Originally, it was the state legislatures that were supposed to be the "defenders of the Bill of Rights." The 14th Amendment shifted that responsibility to the Federal government where it was assumed by the Federal courts.

Point 4: It is the responsibility of everyone who chooses to carry a firearm to be proficient with it. Any attempt to stipulate as to how that proficiency is attained risks possible infringement on the exercise of the right.

Point 5: You asked a question. What is your point?

dmazur
February 24, 2014, 08:49 AM
Yes, Constitutional Carry is a good idea.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

Hopefully (when Satan starts lacing up his ice skates), there will be at least as much concern with providing some schooling on this as there is for driver's education.

Together with a justice system which uniformly applies penalties for misuse of a weapon, and maybe the public perception can be shifted from "guns are bad" to "criminals are bad, and criminals with guns are worse."

But neither of these correcting factors is likely to occur overnight. So, less infringement of a right is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps the perception thing can be dragged along to agree with these rights.

chopinbloc
February 24, 2014, 10:30 AM
I'm late to this party but here is my take on it:

Yes, carry (bearing) of arms is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is unjust and immoral to require any testing to exercise a right. We have Constitutional Carry here in Arizona and no uptick in shootings/negligent discharges. That said, it is desirable to encourage people to get training. That's why I believe that the cost of training courses should be tax deductible and gun safety needs to be mandatory in K-12. That's the part where people will complain but it's easy enough to turn leftist "logic" back on them: "If it saves just one life..." "What? You don't want our kids to be safe?" "It's for the children...."

krupparms
February 25, 2014, 02:50 PM
Yes! For constitutional carry! A right! Not a privilege!

P5 Guy
February 25, 2014, 03:11 PM
Well some will argue that having to purchase a photo ID to vote is a poll tax and therefore illegal, but having to purchase a license to exercise the right to keep and bear is not going far enough to keep the world safe.
I'm sure I'm missing something. I must be too stupid to see that logic.

gym
February 26, 2014, 05:58 PM
You really have to be careful when you elect to give the government the power to grant you a license for anything. The same way they gave it, is the same way they can take it away.

JRH6856
February 26, 2014, 06:25 PM
Basically, any law-abiding citizen whose past behaviour has not placed them in a prohibited class (ie. felon, mentally unstable, addictive drug use, etc.) should be able to own and carry firearms with no restrictions. I don't know why licenses or permits of any kand need to be issued or carried except to turn a guaranteed right into a granted privilege.

Since instant BG checks are supposedly no burden and quickely done, LEOs should be able to use the same NICS check as FFLs (or a similar one) for instantly checking the background of anyone they find with a gun and suspect of illegal possession. If, for some reason, the check can't be run, well, it's he government's responsibility to make sure it can be run. The technology exists and if it is going to be used (and it is going to be used) it should be used to support RKBA rather then restrict it.

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