JRH6856
Member
In practice, that's a good principle to live by.
Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?
- Thread starter monotonous_iterancy
- Start date
- Status
In practice, that's a good principle to live by.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It is. Unless you're talking about what SHOULD be, rather than what IS now.
Seems what SHOULD be is the focus of the thread.
Seems what SHOULD be is the focus of the thread.
CoalTrain49
Member
Sam1911 said:
Yep. You don't change what's wrong into something right by just sitting there and deciding to live with something that's wrong.
First step - Admit that there is a problem.
And the concept of a permit to exercise a right is a problem.
JRH6856
Member
Well, we're agreed that it should be the focus. But like most threads, things get out of focus now and then.
As to how things should be, that is highly dependent on whether we are starting from where we are, or starting from scratch with a blank slate.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Wait...how is "how things should be" dependent on where we are now? Is there a goal or not?
danez71
Member
You could be right but......
I think SCOTUS didn't address the "bear" part in Heller because the case was about keeping a handgun in the home.
SCOTUS seems to only answer the question asked. The case wasn't about bearing a gun.
Now, cases about bearing guns are making there way to/through SCOTUS.
Incremental steps.
JRH6856
Member
Call me a pessimist. I always try to anticipate the possible negative outcomes just to avoid unpleasant surprises.
danez71
Member
^^^ I understand completely.
JRH6856
Member
No doubt. The Court generally does try to limit their decision to the case before them and keep their ruling as narrowly as possible. They did this in Heller by separating the right to keep from the right to bear. Many have come to consider the two rights as one or at least as so closely connected as to be one and the same. that they are separate. It is good to be reminded that they are separate rights, but that separation may come at a price as I have noted.
Since the Court really does not like to make new law and "upset the apple cart" so to speak, they do try to make the law fit and the Constitution fit the current situation rather then force a change. States have exercised the authority to regulate the bearing of arms for over 200 years. That is a big apple cart.
JRH6856
Member
If there is a goal, where you are starting often determines whether or not you can get there.
If there is not a goal, then this is probably a waste of time.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sounds like the old down-east Mainer saying, "Yah can't get there from heah..."
Fortunately, you CAN get anywhere, from anywhere else, but I think I understand your point in that it is helpful to know where you are to understand better what the path to the end goal will be.
CoalTrain49
Member
In reality what does a permit accomplish?
For one thing it allows someone to pay the LE agency to run a background check. So I guess you have to ask yourself are background checks of any value? I think most LE agencies would rather not have the burden of that task. It's just another administrative duty that they have to find a way to do. Here a lot of it is done by volunteers and PT because the sheriff doesn't have enough FT people to do it. I know because I just got a renewal. I've read where some states have a 90 day delay because they just instituted Shall Issue and they were inundated with apps. I used to work in Gov't so I know how permitting/licensing works or doesn't work in most cases.
Felons can't legally own firearms anyway so a background check really doesn't accomplish much of anything other than keep track of who is legally carrying a weapon. As big gov't shrinks more states will probably go to No Permit Required (NPR) as WY, AZ and AK just did. The Shall Issue with training trend hasn't done much of anything but create a cottage industry for instructors and add additional work for LEO's. If you look at the best well run state gov'ts (those without low or no debt) you will see a pattern. 3 of the NPR states are in the top 10 of that category. AZ didn't make it because of the housing bubble but they are still way ahead of the curve. I will predict that TX, NE, ND, SD, IA, UT and MN will be NPR states soon. It really isn't a matter of constitutions any longer, it's a matter of responsible government.
I know I've been a devils advocate here on some issues. But the fact is I carry, I'm a hunter and a recreational shooter. Being a pragmatist I think these issues should be discussed and the facts examined in full daylight for all to see, which is what this forum does very well.
JRH6856
Member
Exactly. Off the top of my head, it appears to me that there are three possible paths to constitutional carry.
1. SCOTUS decides the right to bear is a core, fundamental right protected by the 2A which McDonald has incorporated against the states. Some states will be fine with that, others, like NY and CA will probably argue that their existing regulations do not infringe there will be a long, hard battle in the courts.
2. SCOTUS decides the right to bear is collective and the authority to regulate belongs to the states under the 10th amendment. Now this path forks.
a. The US Constitution is amended to insure the core, fundamental right to bear arms. There are 2 ways to propose this amendment and 2 ways to ratify. There are no easy options. Getting such an amendment through Congress will not be easy, and getting ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures may be even harder if the goal is unregulated/unlicensed carry (states don't like to give up authority and revenue). Amending or ratification by convention would be even harder as the legality of every convention is sure to be challenged whenever possible.
b. State constitutions are amended to allow/protect the constitutional the bearing of arms. This will not be easy in some states (same problems as in [a.]) and will result in differing versions of what the right to bear arms means.
If SCOTUS denies cert on the two cases in this session, then the options are to look for another case, or take the amendment routes.
Amending the US Constitution is not easy. That is why nearly everyone with an issue tries the SCOTUS route first. It is easier to find an existing protection than create a new one though amendment.
The ease and method of amending state constitutions depend on the state. We amend the Texas Constitution in just about every election.
JRH6856
Member
And responsible government may well be a constitutional matter.
What kind of government do your want? One that recognizes and respects the rights of the individual and exists to serve those rights, or one that sees the individual as a member of a greater whole with rights (really privileges) granted by government to enable the individual to serve the needs of the greater good?
Those that want the former tend to support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Those that want the latter tend to (correctly) see an armed populace as a threat to government which must be controlled or ideally eliminated.
CoalTrain49
Member
And a state constitutional amendment is a direct result of a responsible state government. The fed is broke and has been for some time. That isn't a responsible gov't. Way too many millionaires on capital hill for my tastes. The action is at the state level.
Vote.
Not only that, but the shooter in question was a retired police officer, meaning he could carry in all 50 states (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/0...ater-shooting-allegedly-told-police-dont-get/) regardless of whatever permit laws and/or training requirements that state has.
There was a discussion on Backwoods.com about this, Mass sent out an email the other night about it. I voted onHB-209 By Representative Heather Fitzenhagen (R-Ft. Myers) is a bill to protect citizens from being disarmed and charged with a crime for carrying a weapon or firearm during a mandatory evacuation ordered by the Governor during a declared state of emergency.
Check your NRA ILA Legislative alerts. The FL reps are all there to cut and paste. Let them know why it's a stupid idea to take away peoples guns during an evacuation or emergency. We need your support.
Check your NRA ILA Legislative alerts. The FL reps are all there to cut and paste. Let them know why it's a stupid idea to take away peoples guns during an evacuation or emergency. We need your support.
It's been discussed already and it more than likely will not happen, (ever) but I feel like basic gun safety should be taught in schools. And at a young age.
The reason I feel this way is because if you are familiar with an item then the mystique of it is diminished and therefore children may be less likely to play with found firearms. The training would also encourage proper handling and safe practices while operating firearms, (possibly using blanks ammunition or training aids to begin with until moving into live ammunition training as the education progresses.)
This sort of education and basic safety training would benefit families of pro-gunners and anti-gunners alike, by reducing accidental/negligent discharges.
Start the training young as a mandatory safety program and offer advanced training in latter years as a physical education alternative perhaps and progres to defensive techniques and such in post educational settings.
Constitutional Carry could then be permitted after a generation of school students have graduated.
These are my ideas to solve the situation we are looking at here.
Take them for what they are worth.
The reason I feel this way is because if you are familiar with an item then the mystique of it is diminished and therefore children may be less likely to play with found firearms. The training would also encourage proper handling and safe practices while operating firearms, (possibly using blanks ammunition or training aids to begin with until moving into live ammunition training as the education progresses.)
This sort of education and basic safety training would benefit families of pro-gunners and anti-gunners alike, by reducing accidental/negligent discharges.
Start the training young as a mandatory safety program and offer advanced training in latter years as a physical education alternative perhaps and progres to defensive techniques and such in post educational settings.
Constitutional Carry could then be permitted after a generation of school students have graduated.
These are my ideas to solve the situation we are looking at here.
Take them for what they are worth.
JRH6856
Member
Would that be backwoodshome.com?
Palehorseman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 736
Before no permit CC in AZ the state has always had open carry. People here in AZ are used to public open carry, even in Walmart and are just laissez-faire about it. Now visiting snowbirds from liberal la la states, Canada & etc. are another thing and will often gasp when first seeing OC.
Had some younger motorcycle buds from Fort Lee, NJ (right across river from NYC) who would visit us in WY and AZ. They could never quite get over people being comfortable with strangers openly carrying handguns in public places, they loved going shooting though.
Had some younger motorcycle buds from Fort Lee, NJ (right across river from NYC) who would visit us in WY and AZ. They could never quite get over people being comfortable with strangers openly carrying handguns in public places, they loved going shooting though.
Gun Geezer
Member
Sticking with the Constitution is a good idea in all cases. This one is no different.
CoalTrain49
Member
SCOTUS will make sure we stick with the constitution, no worries there. You just may not like how they decide we should stick with it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
