Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[AlexanderA]

You think responsible people should keep their guns at home so that they won't do irresponsible things while they're carrying?

It is not you or I that would do the irresponsible things, but the other guy, right? It's always that way.

 

[wayneinFL]

It is not you or I that would do the irresponsible things, but the other guy, right? It's always that way.

So you're position is that I am an irresponsible gun owner? Or that all gun owners are just an accident waiting to happen?

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

The people in my social circle would ostracize anyone who was known to carry a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I think this attitude is quite common in northern Virginia. (One of the wealthiest areas in the country, btw.)

I don't care about your social circles. I don't think your social circles should have any bearing on my rights.

And don't forget: concealed means concealed

 

[GEM]

Just for info. I already said that most permit holders never train. 95% don't. As far as carry, a TX survey (TX, By God) that 85% don't carry except rarely, if at all. Permit holders are not a problem. Some studies suggest states with high permit rates have more gun crime BUT they have never shown that the rates are from permit holders. They usually have 1/10 the crime rate of the general population.

Not to pile on, but you can't predict when you might need to defend yourself.

 

[Elkins45]

Vermont has never required a permit to carry a firearm.

I knew it was one of the two. I don’t think anyone has ever used Vermont as an example of rampant gun violence due to unregulated carry. Comparing violent crime statistics between Vermont and New York or Illinois should present a fairly convincing argument that a rigorous permitting requirement doesn’t make anyone safer. Vermont never had a training requirement and it doesn’t seem to have been a problem.

 

[Atavar]

I am on the fence with this one. While I do believe we (ok, I) should be able to carry when/wherever we (I) want there are a whole lot of sketchy untrained and ignorant people out there that really make me uneasy if they are carrying.
The quandary comes in who gets to decide.
Overall I would favor tax supported (income based subsidy?) regular training and proficiency testing to try and weed out the yahoos.
Tie that in with stronger enforcement of existing firearms crime laws with mandatory sentencing for use of a firearm in a felony (like 20 consecutive years first offense) and we might make a dent.

 

[Skribs]

Most of our current gerontological politic set are the same folks blazing away at lost folks on the drive way, kids looking for their brothers, guys with weed whackers, etc. So the tests might be a good idea for both. However, our view of rights preclude this, currently.

This goes for both sides of the aisle, so I don't think I'm dipping too much into politics when I say this. But if a politician needed a competency test, there are two ways I can see this failing:

• A doctor affirming competency when it isn't there, because he supports the candidate, or the party, or is threatened/coerced/paid into doing so.
• A doctor or system denying competency to a certain party, because if you say [insert politically divisive talking point here], that obviously means you're insane.

 

[CapnMac]

there's nothing in 2A that says anything about training.

If we wished to get into pedantic linguistic nitpicking, in 1795, "well regulated" had a connotation of "sufficiently trained & disciplined."

It was a term used to describe the minimum standards for both the English Militia, and the Royal Army. The term was used to define the difference between the English Commonweal and those qualified as the Militia. It's a distinction the Founders turned on its head by defining the US Militia as the whole body of The People (barring some politicians and public officials and such clergy as required that).

Now, that connotation was, at the time in, 1795, less about accurate shooting as competent shooting; far more emphasis was on close order drill and small unit tactics ("...[E]very terrible implement of the soldier..." indeed)

And, this is something we can turn upon the antis, should they want to "go there." The number of people who imagine they are competent as a result of exposure to TV, movies, games, etc. sounds like a clear failure of those media to provide suitable and accurate training. After all, we are constantly berated that our entertainment media ought not show vices like smoking or drinking, lest those lead our youth astray. Imagine if we had a requirement that entertainment media were required to show accurate and competent use of firearms . . .

 

[Ironicaintit]

Seems to me that Constitutional carry is/was the default setting as the country was founded. That didn't change until men started fiddling with the laws of the land to suit their aims (to disarm those they don't like IE- blacks)

so yeah, I think reverting back to the armed principle as originally intended is a marvelous idea.

the problem with the way people generally think about this comes down to one thing: extending trust to anybody else.
"Surely I'm not going to screw this up, but that guy will"

 

[JohnKSa]

Or that all gun owners are just an accident waiting to happen?

There's a lot of truth to this.

All gun owners are an accident waiting to happen.
All people with functional sex organs are an unplanned pregnancy waiting to happen.
All drivers are an accident waiting to happen.
All people who drink alcohol are an accident waiting to happen.

Does that mean that all gun owners WILL have an accident, or MUST have an accident? No, of course not, but it does mean that it's a possibility. Drivers don't have to cause accidents, people don't have to have unplanned pregnancies, people who drink don't have to cause accidents while drunk.

People can drink in public without being a problem, people can drive safely, people can use birth control/self control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Sure, people sometimes screw up, and bad things can happen as a result, but society accepts that as the cost of allowing people to live their lives with freedom. Sometimes people intentionally misuse alcohol, cars, their sex organs, etc. and then they are punished, if they are caught and convicted. Why should firearms be any different?

I find it interesting that the general perception is that for drivers, the solution is education and responsible use. For alcohol use the solution is education and responsible use. For unplanned pregnancies, the solution is education and acting responsibly. For criminal misuse, the solution is to punish those who break the law. But for some reason, when it comes to guns, many people want to propose abstinence as the solution for preventing accidents and want to "pre-punish" gun owners by restricting their actions.

And yes, in case it's not obvious, I am in favor of educating people so that they can be safe and act responsibly. I'm not in favor of making that education mandatory in the case of things that are rights and not privileges because of the potential for government to use that mandatory education as a tool to restrict rights. But I do think that it's very important for people to voluntarily take whatever steps are required to insure that they have the knowledge to act responsibly and safely. And I understand that there are some people out there who need to but won't. That's just life...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I said that I'm in favor of the right to carry. I also said that too many people (possibly without suitable training or temperament) are carrying, and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat. These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns. Yes, I understand the need for personal self defense. I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this.

Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely. This is how backlashes work. Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

There's a lot here that doesn't sit well with me...or with common sense.

I'll pick just one for this post:

"...and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat."

The problem is that if one knows ahead of time that there's going to be a specific threat, then avoidance is the name of the game. Not arm up and head into it anyway.

But of course, it's the very fact that so many threats aren't predictable that people carry as a rule, not the exception.

 

[AlexanderA]

So you're position is that I am an irresponsible gun owner? Or that all gun owners are just an accident waiting to happen?

I didn't say that.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't care about your social circles. I don't think your social circles should have any bearing on my rights.

I didn't say they should. I was just making an observation. If you lived in northern Virginia you'd know what I was talking about.

 

[Lo-Profile]

I am a proponent of Constitutional carry. Everyone who can legally buy a firearm should be allowed the Right to Carry and Defend themselves without question.
Yes, I would recommend training. I would not require any training.

 

[RikSors]

Shall not be infringed…

 

[herrwalther]

I have taught around 200 people to shoot. Most of those were in a Constitutional carry state. There was no law or stipulation in getting a carry permit that they must have instruction, they all sought me out themselves. They all felt carrying a firearm was a big responsibility they could not handle on their own without some instruction. And that is how Constitutional carry should be. New shooters should feel compelled to get instruction from someone who knows what they are doing. But they should never be forced to by government as part of the permit. When government starts getting involved in how someone must be trained to get a permit, you start infringing on the right itself.

 

[captain awesome]

So you want to put a backdoor tax on firearms ownership?

Please explain to me how this idea would be a backdoor tax on owning a firearm? I have looked at it from every angle I can think of and don't see how providing people with tax funded discounts on firearm ownership is taxing firearm ownership. If anything it is taxing those who don't take advantage of it. This would be funded by the general public tax funds, the same funds that pay for schools, police, military ect....Which I can see some people not being on board with, but I can think of a lot of far worse ways our tax dollars are spent regularly....our taxes already pay for police and military...I don't see how making our civilians more safe, and competent with firearms and promoting more firearm ownership through publicly funded optional/voluntary and incentivised safety courses is all that different.

Everybody wins. Pro 2a people get discounts on guns and free training. FFLS gain more income. Antis feel safer because potential gun owners have a real motivation to seek training who otherwise might not, money talks. No one is forced to do anything to exercise their rights, nor are they punished by doing so if they don't take advantage of the safety programs...what's the downside here?

 

[JmacD]

I didn’t read every comment. But, I think there are two unwavering principles: the first is that mighty clear “shall not be infringed” that grows so unnecessarily political so fast. The anti’s HATE it… it eliminates the victim. It makes a “target” able to shoot back. And it’s yet another “check and balance” that some very smart(even if the modern take on history doesn’t agree with my opinion) people wrote into our founding documents having had a government try to disarm them (that’s how Lexington and Concord with the “shot heard round the world” came about…)
The second is the rapidly disappearing principle of this thing called “personal responsibility”… if your gonna carry, train train train!!! Muscle memory is a must. Motor skills fall apart in an adrenaline dump. You better be able to do some things without thinking. Paintball, air soft or xyz computer game won’t teach you anything, might even teach you some very bad habits. A gun and holster will not make you xyz actors portrayal of a hero with a gun.
It’s your Right to own all te guns you want. But now it’s your Responsibility to know how to use it! TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING

 

[film495]

they should teach basic safety and education about this in public schools starting in middle school, and each year until graduation. I think it was a couple years ago, some community had to institute a mandatory safety/training class, so many new owners were having negligent discharges in public, the community had to come up with something. maybe they should have started earlier. nuts, thinking as a society we'd consider educating kids about their rights and how to use them. such a crazy notion.

 

[trackskippy]

Training should start at home before they ever get to school. At the very least, it should start in kindergarten.

What I find telling, and a bit scary here is, are some of the replies in this thread. Along with gun safety starting in kindergarten, they should go back to teaching the Constitution again.

 

[AlexanderA]

I am a proponent of Constitutional carry. Everyone who can legally buy a firearm should be allowed the Right to Carry and Defend themselves without question.
Yes, I would recommend training. I would not require any training.

I actually agree with all of this. The next step, however, is once you have the right, do you exercise the right? Why does it follow that you must carry if you can carry? It would be better for society if fewer people, rather than more people, are walking around carrying. We are currently seeing the results when every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going around armed. Simple arguments -- or simple misunderstandings -- escalate into deadly encounters. The presence of the gun is the key to that escalation. Please, leave the guns at home.

I used to sympathize with the idea that "an armed society is a polite society." But that rubric presupposes that everyone is a rational actor. As we have seen, sadly, a certain percentage are not rational actors. Human emotions are unpredictable things. So, we have to calibrate not according to the majority who are rational, but according to the minority who are prone to going off the rails. And you can't necessarily predict which is which ahead of time.

Enacting more laws is not the answer, since they can't be enforced. The country is awash with guns, and they aren't going to magically disappear. What we need is an "attitude adjustment" regarding guns. They are not the panacea that some people think they are. We as gun owners need to be at the forefront of this attitude adjustment.

Yeah, enough of this rant.

 

[Robert]

Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

That's just it, you won't know. Your entire argument is predicted on the belief that gun owners are not to be trusted. You say you are all for the exercise of a right and then in the next breath you say we should do that very thing because someone may try to take away our guns. Guess what, we've played all your games and made all your compromises and you are still coming for our guns.

IL, CA, NY, CO, WA...all have banned or are trying to ban firearms across the board or make it nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. And you want me to temper what I do in the exercise of MY rights? It is mindsets like that that will lose this fight. If we just give them one more thing they will leave us alone. If we give them permitless carry they will leave us a lone... Nothing could be more misguided.

The whole, I support the 2nd Amendment but stance is tiresome and weak. You either support it or you don't. And if you don't, that's fine, just be honest with yourself. You like guns, but with restrictions and only if the right people have them and they are used under strick guidance. That's not freedom and that is not a right...

 

[bearcreek]

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.

I absolutely agree that classes can make a huge difference. It is my firm belief that new gun owners should be spending around twice as much on training, in the first couple of years, as they did on their weapon. The problem is that none of the classes that only meet state minimum requirements (which are the classes that most handgun carriers are taking) do much good.

 

[buck460XVR]

Have you seen any evidence that the mandatory CCW classes make any difference in accidental shootings, non justified homicides, brandishing, etc? I haven't.

Back when Hunter Safety became mandatory for individuals in Wisconsin, there was a huge amount of backlash. But evidence since that time has shown a huge reduction is firearm deaths and accidents from hunters in the field. Being a instructor for years, I was always amazed at the ignorance of firearms and their respective ammo, from folks that had hunted their whole life. Most of these folks were the dads or grandparents of the students we were instructing. and were "grandfathered". So, I don't have an issue with folks being educated. I truly believe, that if we want to beat our chest and cry "shall not be infringed", we need to teach gun safety in schools. At least the basics of how to safely handle/operate firearms and the amount of damage they can inflict. This, like with sex education will result in folks claiming it will lead to "more", but that is just another incorrect statement.

 

[bearcreek]

Back when Hunter Safety became mandatory for individuals in Wisconsin, there was a huge amount of backlash. But evidence since that time has shown a huge reduction is firearm deaths and accidents from hunters in the field. Being a instructor for years, I was always amazed at the ignorance of firearms and their respective ammo, from folks that had hunted their whole life. Most of these folks were the dads or grandparents of the students we were instructing. and were "grandfathered". So, I don't have an issue with folks being educated. I truly believe, that if we want to beat our chest and cry "shall not be infringed", we need to teach gun safety in schools. At least the basics of how to safely handle/operate firearms and the amount of damage they can inflict. This, like with sex education will result in folks claiming it will lead to "more", but that is just another incorrect statement.

I don't believe that federally funded public schools should exist at all, so I don't have much to say about firearms safety training in them. Mandatory classes for CCW are a very different thing than ones for hunting, but I certainly get what you're saying about ignorance from long time hunters. Those were usually the worst folks to have in classes because they thought they already had it figured out and so were often less inclined to listen to what we were trying to teach them.

So, I don't have an issue with folks being educated.

Oh I don't either. Every responsible and physically capable American adult should own and be competent fighting with at least one pistol and at least one magazine fed semi or full auto rifle or carbine. The kind of competence I'm talking about costs at least a couple grand, minimum. in training, not including any weapons or gear.

I am not naive enough to think that most people are going to do that.