Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[WrongHanded]

Two of my sons went with me to permit class. They were under 21 and could not get a permit. One remarked to the other, "I didn't learn anything here that I didn't learn in Boy Scouts." And he's right, if yiu have a lick of common sense, there isn't much to learn in the permit course.

My oldest maybe still has the certificate, but he hasn't taken off work a day in 7 years, to go through the fingerprinting, filling out the application and sending $117 off to the state. Now he'll be able to carry without taking time off work.

He's had handguns since he was 18. He has had them at work, at home, or in his car. Not to mention handling multiple handguns as he has taken them out of gloveboxes to change cabin air filters for customers.

What exactly is the fear that he may "feel the need" to carry at some point now that's it's legal? He hasn't shot anyone yet. Why would he start?

Hey that's great. Do you think everyone has common sense enough to know what it is they don't know? Do you think everyone has a father who knows about guns and is willing to teach them?

Some of you are taking this very personally. It's not about you. It's about the general public, who let's be honest, tend not to know very much about guns at all.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

On the other hand, we need to think long and hard about how we use our guns.

Agree. This is "personal responsiblity", to which one should be held personally accountable for.

I don't think that carrying a gun provides much security.

Correct. "Security" is an implementation of a sound mindset towards personal safety. A gun is merely one tool (of many) one may apply towards that security. And it's not even the most important tool in the entire process (at least up until the point where the trigger must be pulled in any given scenario in which the gun is drawn).

But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply. That's just human nature. Road rage incidents, etc., are becoming more common.

These kinds of incidents you speak of do not, in and of themselves, increase in frequency due to the possession of firearms. The circumstances leading up to the actual acts of violence are due to any number of factors of which possessing a firearm is only one...and a small one at that.

Aggressive drivers are aggressive not because they have a weapon, but because they have allowed their aggressiveness to come to the surface and then act upon it. Why this happens has nothing whatsoever to do with possessing a firearm. It happens because of such factors as being raised without having developed a set of core values which engenders positive social behavioral traits such as patience, politeness, respect, honor, compassion, integrity, kindness, wisdom, empathy, fairness, etc.

Yes, there will be the occasional outlier. But those people are a tiny fraction of the violent acts we hear about.

 

[AlexanderA]

Current federal law says the militia is all men over the age of 17; the law can be updated to include females.

The way the current federal law is worded, the purpose is obviously to provide the legal basis for the draft, if and when that is ever reinstated. That's why "unorganized militia" terminates at age 45.

The definitions under 10 U.S.C. section 246 are not relevant to the historical "2nd Amendment militia." For one thing, there was no upper age limit, and the physical standards were simply that you could breathe, walk, and carry a musket.

Conceptually, the 2nd Amendment militia must be "everyone."

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

My question is simple, should we allow public carry of a firearm without any training?

As you have worded this: YES, the public should be allowed to carry a firearm without any training.

As soon as you put restrictions on this, you are infringing on the right of EVERYBODY to keep and bear arms.

If people are going to go down this path, then how does one go about implementing "mandatory training" to exercise the RKBA without infringing on this right?

I would argue that far more people suffer from people exercising their vaunted right to "freedom of speech" than by exercising their RKBA. And that suffering ranges from hurt feelings all the way to death. People don't think of speech as a deadly weapon, but it most certainly can be...and this is proven on a daily basis.

(Quotes used because so many people fail to understand what "freedom of speech" really is. But that's another conversation.)

Freedom is scary. Deal with it.

 

[The Night Rider]

The taxes are going to be the cheapest part of the whole deal, if we can afford billions in Covid relief and monthly billions in Ukraine aid we can afford to fund education.

Given, the United States is at over 31 TRILLION dollars in debt I would suggest that we can't afford billions in covid relief and monthly billions to the Ukraine

 

[The Night Rider]

What he wanted was for me to agree with him. And I don't.

Was that Alexander A? I've had him on ignore for years so be doesn't exist for me on this board and I never see anything he says

 

[AlexanderA]

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

A very flawed opinion. Raises more questions than it answers. And ultimately, not helpful to gun ownership.

If the militia includes everyone, we don't have to worry about whether gun ownership is connected or not connected with militia service. By definition, it is.

In Heller, the types of guns are not addressed, except to say that some (for example, machine guns) can be banned or regulated. Under the "universal militia" interpretation, the public would presumably be able to have all the types of guns in common use by the military.

 

[wayneinFL]

Hey that's great. Do you think everyone has common sense enough to know what it is they don't know? Do you think everyone has a father who knows about guns and is willing to teach them?

Some of you are taking this very personally. It's not about you. It's about the general public, who let's be honest, tend not to know very much about guns at all.

You asked "And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun." I answered. Didn't take it personally at all.

I've addressed the issue of the general public carrying several times in this thread, and you're not going to agree with me on it.

The people you need to control with training and licensing requirements aren't the type who will accept instruction and learn from it.

And , you know, these people are already all over the state with handguns in their homes, businesses, and cars. The streets aren't running red with blood, and they won't be on 7/1. Every inch we've taken from the antigunners, we've been warned by the dire consequences for years and it still hasn't happened.

 

[Elkins45]

Use of force:

Don't shoot someone unless you have to.

Works in every state.

There are significant differences across the 50 states as to what the law considers “have to.” it would be worthwhile for gun owners to calibrate their understanding with that.

 

[Old Dog]

What another convoluted, yet ultimately circular argument.

Some here would appear to hold the belief that government can legislate common sense into being amongst all its citizens. Strange, considering the substantial body of evidence to the contrary,

You know, you also can't legislate morality.

Finally, I find it strangely disturbing that some members here aren't familiar with the slippery slope concept. Those up here are aware. In ten short years, we've gone from one of the gun-friendliest states to requiring backgrounds checks on all firearms transfers, then requiring training just to buy a semi-automatic rifle, now we're gonna need training to buy any firearm after 1 January 2024.

All these changes were established in small increments.

Guess who pays for the training? That's right, it's us. The citizens. Not the government (or the taxpayers). Ten short years, folks.

This is just to purchase a firearm. Even a single-shot .22 rifle.

 

[wayneinFL]

There are significant differences across the 50 states as to what the law considers “have to.” it would be worthwhile for gun owners to calibrate their understanding with that.

Yeah... go to the $35 gun show course, listen to the disclaimer, that "Nothing I say is to be construed as legal advice", and listen to the instructor talk about the law. Then get into a shooting in a public place in a state with stand your ground and no duty to retreat. Nobody knows how that's going to go down in civil court until the last appeal. Same with the no bill. Or the acquittal. Or the last appeal.

Better yet, pay $150/hr. and sit down with a lawyer and try to nail him like jello to a tree with some "can I shoot?" scenarios.

Just don't shoot anyone unless you have to. If you have to ask yourself "can I shoot?" don't shoot. It's a last resort.

 

[wayneinFL]

What another convoluted, yet ultimately circular argument.

Some here would appear to hold the belief that government can legislate common sense into being amongst all its citizens. Strange, considering the substantial body of evidence to the contrary,

You know, you also can't legislate morality.

Finally, I find it strangely disturbing that some members here aren't familiar with the slippery slope concept. Those up here are aware. In ten short years, we've gone from one of the gun-friendliest states to requiring backgrounds checks on all firearms transfers, then requiring training just to buy a semi-automatic rifle, now we're gonna need training to buy any firearm after 1 January 2024.

All these changes were established in small increments.

Guess who pays for the training? That's right, it's us. The citizens. Not the government (or the taxpayers). Ten short years, folks.

This is just to purchase a firearm. Even a single-shot .22 rifle.

So the guy from the state with a training requirement says we shouldn't have training requirements. This should tell us something.

 

[Insignificant bill]

What I advocated for is my state making their CCW course training materials available to everyone online, not just to people who are applying for a permit, now that we have permitless carry. I didn’t advocate for anything else. These training materials already exist and they make the KY self-defense laws much easier to learn as compared to digging thru the Kentucky Revised Statutes to find all the different places where firearms and self-defense are covered.

That’s all I said. No mandates, no restrictions. And yet you and at least one other found this troublesome somehow.

This!!!!

I'm just tired of turning on the news and seeing that a six year old took a gun to school and shot his teacher. Or a three year old shot his mother looking for candy in her handbag.

I want to see everyone that can legally own a firearm have one, if they desire. They just should understand the responsibility that comes with that freedom!

That will never be solved because their will always be bad parents.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I live in a constitutional carry state but I have renewed my concealed carry permit.
It is a convenience when I am purchasing a firearm and a reassurance of sorts.
I lived for too long in California and Oregon, walking, bicycling or riding city buses through south central Los Angeles and downtown Portland with no legal way to defend myself.
The permit reminds me that self defense is now possible.
I know that the permit is no longer necessary, but... .

 

[CapnMac]

And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun.

There is a philosophical argument that State Issue Permits are "registering" the owners rather than their firearms.

How much weight that could, or should, hold is a separate argument, and likely not suitable for THR.

But, there are people I know who are freeper/libertarian enough to cleave to that notion, and were consummately pleased when Texas adopted Permitless Carry.

 

[Insignificant bill]

We are fixing to find out July 1. Folks know I'm a "gun guy" and I've had a few folks out to the range with satisfactory results. On the other hand I've had more than one "yahoo" that "Can't wait to be packing, folks better watch out!" Indeed, and not only because they decline range invites; "I know all about shooting, my uncle took me to the dump once when I was 12." Joe

There are already 26 states that have it nothing has changed in any of them. The criminals are still criminals law abiding people are still law-abiding, ignorant people are still ignorant. I live in a Constitutional Carry State.

 

[WrongHanded]

You asked "And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun." I answered. Didn't take it personally at all.

I've addressed the issue of the general public carrying several times in this thread, and you're not going to agree with me on it.

The people you need to control with training and licensing requirements aren't the type who will accept instruction and learn from it.

And , you know, these people are already all over the state with handguns in their homes, businesses, and cars. The streets aren't running red with blood, and they won't be on 7/1. Every inch we've taken from the antigunners, we've been warned by the dire consequences for years and it still hasn't happened.

I made the comment about taking it very personally because it seems there are a lot of anecdotes about "me" and "my son" or "my wife" being competent and capable. As if the idea of requiring some level of training or education were an insult.

You are correct that we're not going to agree. Although I don't find permitless carry to be something awful that should be repealed. I just believe it would have been better if permitting had been the focus instead. The cat's out of the bag now of course.

 

[SterlingBullet]

The way the current federal law is worded, the purpose is obviously to provide the legal basis for the draft, if and when that is ever reinstated. That's why "unorganized militia" terminates at age 45.

The definitions under 10 U.S.C. section 246 are not relevant to the historical "2nd Amendment militia." For one thing, there was no upper age limit, and the physical standards were simply that you could breathe, walk, and carry a musket.

Conceptually, the 2nd Amendment militia must be "everyone."

Thank you for providing further clarification. The Militia Act of 1792 clearly shows that the founding fathers wanted a militia that included every male from 18 to 45, had specific requirements for weaponry they must provide on their own, set forth an organizational structure and expected proper training and regular exercises.

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.

We are far from fulfilling the purpose of both sections of the amendment.

The point of my original post was that if the every citizen militia was functional today, every citizen would already have been trained on operating firearms safely, ensuring that constitutional carry was also safe.

 

[Insignificant bill]

As you have worded this: YES, the public should be allowed to carry a firearm without any training.

As soon as you put restrictions on this, you are infringing on the right of EVERYBODY to keep and bear arms.

If people are going to go down this path, then how does one go about implementing "mandatory training" to exercise the RKBA without infringing on this right?

I would argue that far more people suffer from people exercising their vaunted right to "freedom of speech" than by exercising their RKBA. And that suffering ranges from hurt feelings all the way to death. People don't think of speech as a deadly weapon, but it most certainly can be...and this is proven on a daily basis.

(Quotes used because so many people fail to understand what "freedom of speech" really is. But that's another conversation.)

Freedom is scary. Deal with it.

Yep and it isn't free it has costs. We are willing to pay it and the problem is we have a lot of people now who aren't willing.

 

[Old Dog]

There is a philosophical argument that State Issue Permits are "registering" the owners rather than their firearms.

How much weight that could, or should, hold is a separate argument, and likely not suitable for THR.

But, there are people I know who are freeper/libertarian enough to cleave to that notion, and were consummately pleased when Texas adopted Permitless Carry.

Very, very good points.

 

[Elkins45]

Yeah... go to the $35 gun show course, listen to the disclaimer, that "Nothing I say is to be construed as legal advice", and listen to the instructor talk about the law. Then get into a shooting in a public place in a state with stand your ground and no duty to retreat. Nobody knows how that's going to go down in civil court until the last appeal. Same with the no bill. Or the acquittal. Or the last appeal.

Better yet, pay $150/hr. and sit down with a lawyer and try to nail him like jello to a tree with some "can I shoot?" scenarios.

Just don't shoot anyone unless you have to. If you have to ask yourself "can I shoot?" don't shoot. It's a last resort.

Or one could just access the resources the state provides to people who get permits. For free.

 

[The Night Rider]

So the guy from the state with a training requirement says we shouldn't have training requirements. This should tell us something.

What does it tell us? I don't like the gun laws in my state either and you can bet your ass I've voted against them and I voted against the politicians who want to implement them unfortunately we lost.

 

[bearcreek]

Or one could just access the resources the state provides to people who get permits. For free.

What resources does your state provide? Only thing I've ever seen provided "for free" was a booklet summarizing the laws.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Or one could just access the resources the state provides to people who get permits. For free.

Yep before I attended the LTC class I had already looked at the Texas gun laws and knew everything that the instructor went over. All I really needed was the shooting part. It's still up to the individual to learn the laws. The only thing the government should be doing is providing the needed information. Oh and arresting criminals

 

[Elkins45]

What resources does your state provide? Only thing I've ever seen provided "for free" was a booklet summarizing the laws.

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.