Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[WisBorn]

1st don't shoot the messenger.

I have been a 4H shooting instructor, range RSO, and have taught many new shooters and gun owners gun safety.
In doing so I have had to correct bad habits and teach what most of us would consider common sense. I have also completed CCW requirements for 4 different states.

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

I went through hunter safety even though I followed my Dad starting at six.
I took boater safety even though I fished in one for longer than I can remember.
I started driving a car/pickup when I was 12. If somebody needed help I had tobe able to get to help. But I took drivers education at 16 and and had to test for a license.

I believe anyone that lawfully can own a gun should be allowed to buy one, but don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe also. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

 

[badkarmamib]

Sometimes, risk is the cost of freedom. We can't regulate bad things BEFORE they happen. Minority Report aside, you can't know FOR CERTAIN that something bad will happen, only that it already has happened. Who is the one who should decide if someone else is "safe enough"?

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

Yes I agree entirely that the right to own/buy a firearm is a right.

I myself am at odds with the idea of constitutional carry being the counter to all the new gun control proposals. Of all things, giving more people the right to carry in public isn't doing anything to prevent a registry process, or making us look any smarter.

I think as a gesture of going back to the roots of Keep and Bear arms its a good thing. But I don't have a solid opinion. I personally haven't been around many people who are careless with firearms, in that I suppose I am lucky.

 

[jar]

I would like to see tax funded firearms education available to anyone and everyone and firearm safety marketed rather than the current pointless absurdities presented by the Republicans and Democrats.

But all the evidence seems to say the average driver is a far bigger threat than the new untrained firearm owner.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Knowledge of what the laws of self defense actually are, of what court precedents have been set by adjudication of actual cases in your jurisdiction, are things you should learn from a certified instructor before going about armed for self-defense.

Anyone informed about self-defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine from the news media and politicians are woefully misinformed.

If you intend to carry a cane or walking stick for self defense (even if you do need it for walking) it is considered a good idea to be able show that you have been trained in stick fighting by a qualified martial arts instructor.

 

[starnbar]

Well in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution Congress has the right to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia read Tench Coxe statement Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Militia every able bodied man between the ages of 18-35 that is the militia

 

[bearcreek]

Just a thought. Have you seen any evidence that the mandatory CCW classes make any difference in accidental shootings, non justified homicides, brandishing, etc? I haven't. I was a CHL instructor in Ohio for a number of years and my observation was that many people came to the class, did their time and then promptly forgot everything they'd been taught. If someone isn't interested in being better, and is just looking for a magical talisman, a mandatory class isn't going to make any difference.

 

[AlexanderA]

On balance, "constitutional carry" is a good idea. That's mainly because the database of license holders can be used in improper ways -- such as harassing minorities at traffic stops (which might take place if they have licenses, whether or not they are actually carrying). Contra to that is the lack of mandatory training, which is the best feature of licensing schemes.

There are corollary advantages for carry licenses, such as being exempt from background checks or (for example, in Virginia) being exempt from the one-handgun-a-month purchase limit. The idea is that you want to preserve these advantages, as well as state-to-state reciprocity, by having a parallel licensing system even if "constitutional carry" is adopted.

Now, having the right to carry is a completely different issue from actually carrying. I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

 

[Robert]

I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

Who gets to decide what need is really a need? You won't need to defend yourself until you do. Then what? Hope someone else is better prepared than you? Hope the police arrive before you are killed? Na, I don't need to justify exercising my rights to anyone. Should you be required to articulate your need to free speech?

If someone has passed an background check and all the legal hurdles to lawfully own a firearm why should they not be able to carry said firearm? I will always advocate for proper training and education, but not as a requirement to exercise a right.

 

[starnbar]

25 years on the job I carry where ever I go too many incidents of a person ending up in the right place but wrong time no rhyme or reason for what happened to them other than evil is not on a time schedule I have seen it and so have many in my line of work.

 

[Elkins45]

I wish the states that have instituted permitless carrry would make the educational materials and programs used for their CCW courses available to everyone for free. I know when I took the KY permit class back in 1997 I cleared up some misconceptions and learned very important limitations on the legal use of deadly force.

I realize there’s no way to make sure everyone takes the classes, but if only one person learns it’s illegal to shoot someone in defense of property then it will be worth it. I plan to suggest this to my state legislators for the next session.

 

[captain awesome]

Well there is one point I would make about your statement. We don't have the right to be safe. We do have the right to protect ourselves. I strongly advocate pressuring people to seek training in a friendly manner. I do not advocate forcing it on people.

In another Idea, as much as I dislike the bloated government spending, and well ect...since it's such an epidemic anyway why not incentivise training? If a customer looking to buy a firearm can provide proof of a safety course taken or a coupon given to them in exchange for completing the free safety course, FFLs give them a discount on a firearm purchase, and can send in the coupon and get reimbursed for the discount given by the general public safety fund.

 

[unclenunzie]

It's a good idea for people to train. It's their right not to be forced to do so. In a broader sense I prefer people to take responsibility for their own actions. Freedom means making your own choices - and living with the consequences.

 

[huntsman]

Does 2nd amendment have a skills clause?

My dad was born in 1916 and he could purchase a Thompson sub gun from local hardware store with the only requirement being he had the money. We’ve lost enough freedom, so excuse me for not wanting to hinder the progress we recently gained.

Yeah there’s questionable gun owners but freedom is freedom for all not just the “qualified”

 

[tws3b2]

1st don't shoot the messenger.

I have been a 4H shooting instructor, range RSO, and have taught many new shooters and gun owners gun safety.
In doing so I have had to correct bad habits and teach what most of us would consider common sense. I have also completed CCW requirements for 4 different states.

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

I went through hunter safety even though I followed my Dad starting at six.
I took boater safety even though I fished in one for longer than I can remember.
I started driving a car/pickup when I was 12. If somebody needed help I had tobe able to get to help. But I took drivers education at 16 and and had to test for a license.

I believe anyone that lawfully can own a gun should be allowed to buy one, but don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe also. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

I agree with you, Mostly.
But, You start with one restriction and it will lead to another and another and another until you windup right back where we are now.
The only way it can work is that we have one law. "You can't use it to harm others except in self defence". And enforce that law to the full extent to punish the offender Without harm to the Rights and Freedom of the innocent.
But, Even that won't work because there is always people that won't allow it. Always people so eager to tear down the freedom and rights of others.

 

[I6turbo]

I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

The need has been articulated very clearly. Recently in Nashville it was put into clear language that anyone with ears and half a brain could recognize. There are some sorry folks out there, and having a bad encounter with one of them is just a matter of odds for anyone in the country. And if you haven't noticed, some groups these days are being held completely unaccountable (by authorities in many jurisdictions) for publicly promoting violence up to and including death against other groups for no reason other than the fact that the 2nd group individual is simply a member of that group. I'm a member of that 2nd group, and I expect way more than half of the people on this board are -- not that the groups and individuals promoting violence and death are going to be pausing to check credentials as they're mowing down people with their SUV or their rifle.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

If by "promiscuous" you man "lacking standards of selection; acting without careful judgment; indiscriminate" or ".showing little forethought or critical judgment; casual", I can agree.

But the "articulable need" must be defined by the carrier, and that makes that provision meaningless for everyone else--and therefore unnecessary.

 

[Targa]

Constitutional carry is the way it should be, I would just hope that the majority of people would be responsible enough to become at least somewhat proficient in that firearm.

Disclaimer: Don’t mistake hopeful as naïveté, I know very well that a very large percentage of these people will feel that just having the gun on them without training with it will ensure their safety.

 

[unclenunzie]

Just a thought. Have you seen any evidence that the mandatory CCW classes make any difference in accidental shootings, non justified homicides, brandishing, etc? I haven't. I was a CHL instructor in Ohio for a number of years and my observation was that many people came to the class, did their time and then promptly forgot everything they'd been taught. If someone isn't interested in being better, and is just looking for a magical talisman, a mandatory class isn't going to make any difference.

I was 1 of 4 people in the class my state (TX) requires for a LTC. All passed the classroom content and written test. One of us did not pass the live fire test. We all shot from the line as instructed, and it was very clear that the one person had poor control and was unable to keep their shots on target. I felt a little uncomfortable during the exercise and kept a close eye. But I was sure that this person could take some training and pass at a later date, maybe using a more suitable weapon, and everyone from instructor to all class members encouraged them to do so. I think the outcome was educational for this person, so I think classes can make a difference. At the very least it exposes them to what is expected of a person when they exercise their right to carry.

 

[WrongHanded]

I much prefer the idea of State issued licenses and full National reciprocity between all 50 States. That way we can ensure some minimum standardized safety education, and a basic level of competence with a handgun. Just like with driving licenses and testing.

However, it's clear some States just don't want to play. And until such time as they are forced to do so, Constitutional Carry is the next best option.

 

[dweis]

I would like to see tax funded firearms education available to anyone and everyone and firearm safety marketed rather than the current pointless absurdities presented by the Republicans and Democrats.

But all the evidence seems to say the average driver is a far bigger threat than the new untrained firearm owner.

I agree, and go a step further. Firearms are so much a part of our culture, as are cars. You can take drivers ed in high school. I think a firearms familiarization course should also be available. It could simply a short course, maybe 20 hours, that cover the basics of firearm function and safety. I learned to respect guns at age 7. My uncle taught me how to safely handle a rifle and how to shoot it. It was good to learn. Of course, there would those who would oppose it because they would spread the fear that it would only increase the number of guns in the country. Safety is not their concern. Elimination is.

 

[sparkyv]

Every person is responsible for his own safety. If they want to defend themselves adequately, then they should arm and train themselves with NO government oversight and at NO taxpayer cost.

 

[GEM]

Permit laws have a consequence on police stops. Police would stop folks and look for non permitted carry and thus it was a tool against gang members who did not have a record (preventing owning guns). Now minority advocates have supported freeing up carry as many law abiding people in their areas carried for self-defense. Permitting was expensive and depending on state, they might be denied. Or they might have minor offenses preventing carry.

For example, TX state law allowed rifle carry in cars. San Antonio banned it - in violation of the state constitution. The rationale was that gang members, at the time, were buying cheap SKS rifles and driving around with them. The law wanted to bust them. The same rationale was used for the anti-club laws. People driving around the short ball bats had better be going to a game. Now empirically, have loosening up the carry laws changing urban policing stops. I don't know. Probably a study somewhere.

Last, all the discussion of gun safety classes is nice for suburban and rural kids. It is laughable to think such would be instituted in urban schools or have any impact on gun misuse there. We know that most of the gun violence comes in those areas.

 

[jmorris]

I think it’s a great idea if you keep the bad guys locked up.

I think it’s an even better idea when you don’t. Not like the law breakers are going to follow laws anyway, that should be self evident.

Might as well allow law abiding citizens to, at the very least, protect themselves against the people you either can’t or simply won’t, keep us a safe distance from.

The right for one to protect themselves becomes even more important when you have a revolving door “Justice” system.

 

[dweis]

I am in favor of constitutional carry, although I prefer to call it permit-less carry. I understand the concerns about safety, but I do not believe mandatory training would assure more safety. All of us had to take a test to drive. All were likely instructed by parents or professional instructors. However, that instruction has not gotten bad drivers out from behind the steering wheel. Instruction only is effective if people do as instructed. I am certain there are trained gun owners who have managed to have accidental shootings, and even mange to shoot themselves. So training has value only of you want the benefit of it. If you do, you are likely to seek to be trained.