Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[RetiredUSNChief]

The founding fathers in the 2nd amendment, intended for every citizen to bear arms for their own personal home and defense needs, and every citizen to be part of an always ready citizen militia when needed.

Point of fact:

The "founding fathers" did no such thing.

The Bill of Rights was penned in the First Congress (first session) under the new U.S. Constitution and copies sent out to the states to be ratified (second session) and was ratified during the Second Congress (first session). That was when Virginia became the 11th state to ratify on 12/15/1791, meeting the 3/4 requirement.

(There's more history to the remaining states who ratified it, but that's for another time.)

While some members of the First Congress were, in fact, founding fathers, not all of them were. And some of those founding fathers in the First Congress (and outside the First Congress) were very much AGAINST a Bill of Rights for various reasons, such as feeling it wasn't necessary or because they feared enumerating rights would lead to people believing ONLY those enumerated were rights and no others.

It was actually the STATES who pushed for a Bill of Rights during the ratification process for the U.S. Constitution. In fact, at least two of them as I recall made a Bill of Rights conditional on their ratification as a priority during the First Congress...and if the First Congress didn't resolve this, those two states made it plain that they would WITHDRAW from the Union.

Those two states were NC and NY, and one of their major concerns was, in fact, the RKBA. (Pretty ironic that NY placed that much weight on the RKBA, as we know them today.)

So it wasn't the "founding fathers" who were responsible for the Bill of Rights, it was the states forcing the First Congress to take this up for action.

And so ends this bit of historical trivia!

 

[Insignificant bill]

Right now they don’t provide anything unless you take the training for the permit. That’s why I'm advocating for making them available to everyone since they were already developed at taxpayer expense.

So your state doesn't provide information on their gun laws?

 

[AlexanderA]

An advantage of permitless concealed carry is that it's always available for occasional use, on an as-needed basis, with minimum formality and government oversight. Sort of what we have now in Virginia for open carry.

If one is going to carry habitually, the case becomes stronger for a permit system with formal training requirements, etc.

This is the same reasoning why a person who only sells a few guns a year, from a personal collection, should not have to get an FFL.

As far as I know, no state is making the decision of permitless carry versus licensed carry, based on the amount of carrying. It seems a worthwhile distinction.

 

[Elkins45]

So your state doesn't provide information on their gun laws?

Define “provide.” The laws are available if someone knows where to look and how to search. And how to interpret nested and unintuitively structured legal prose. And to realize that the laws relating to firearms aren’t in the same part of the KRS as the laws relating to the use of deadly force.

They are, however kind enough to distill all this information into a couple of very informative video presentations. Unfortunately in the current state of affairs one must pay a state-sanctioned trainer to be shown these nifty videos. I think these training materials should be freely available to the public now that a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Define “provide.” The laws are available if someone knows where to look and how to search. And how to interpret nested and unintuitively structured legal prose. And to realize that the laws relating to firearms aren’t in the same part of the KRS as the laws relating to the use of deadly force.

They are, however kind enough to distill all this information into a couple of very informative video presentations. Unfortunately in the current state of affairs one must pay a state-sanctioned trainer to be shown these nifty videos. I think these training materials should be freely available to the public now that a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons.

So they make it difficult to find this important information. I would let your state congressional members know that it is important to provide this information in an easy understandable format.

 

[bearcreek]

Right now they don’t provide anything unless you take the training for the permit. That’s why I'm advocating for making them available to everyone since they were already developed at taxpayer expense.

You might try calling the sheriff's office and asking. In Ohio they were available to anyone who asked. Didn't have to be taking the class.

 

[General Geoff]

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.

Safety is not a right, no.

Even if it was, bona fide gun-related accidental deaths are shockingly rare and when they do happen, even the most seasoned firearm enthusiasts with the best of practices are not immune to misfortune.

Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Yes. Formal training is great and even ideal for most folks, but it should not be mandatory.

 

[Robert]

Hate me if you want, but I'm pulling the plug on this. We are stuck in a make training mandatory, no don't, feedback loop. We are going around in circles and I'm not sure what will be gained from letting this run another 12 pages. Let's push back from the table and take some time to reflect.