Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?

[monotonous_iterancy]

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?

 

[Ks5shooter]

Every state does not have concealed carry.The fascist state of NJ will not issue a carry permit.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Most criminals already ccw. I don't see a problem with law abiding citizens doing the same.

 

[brboyer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes. Constitutional Carry is the goal. Always.

 

[Duckdog]

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.

 

[torqem]

As Harlon Carter said:"That is the price of freedom". yes, a lot of scumbags, and quite a few innocents will get shot, a lot more will get locked up and a whole lot more will have the bejesus scared out of them. So what? The world's over-populated by a factor of 10 as it is.

We already have constitutional carry in AZ, Wy, VT, and Alaska. are those states hotbeds of violence?

 

[LemmyCaution]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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.