Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

Everyone having rights is dangerous,
but subjectively restricting them is much much worse.

sparkyv said:

Every person is responsible for his own safety. If they want to defend themselves adequately, then they should arm and train themselves with NO government oversight and at NO taxpayer cost.

Click to expand...

Yeah!

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to fight fires. Every person is responsible for their home safety. If the don't want their home to burn down then they should protect it adequately.

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to fund police. Every person is responsible for their own safety. If they want protection then they should arm themselves.

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to build public roads. Every person is responsible getting where they wish to go. If they want easy transportation then let them build their own roads.

WisBorn said:

Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Click to expand...

What other constitutionally protected civil liberties would you attach a training requirement to?

Who gets to decide what the test is? Who gets to set the standards?

What actual problem are we trying to solve here?

ETA
I posted this and then I went back and read the discussion and after reading through it I've come to the conclusion that we would be better off actually Prosecuting Criminal acts with a firearm and actually putting the convicted felons that we find in possession of a firearm back in prison then we would be worrying about law abiding citizens lawfully carrying a firearm

We know that most permitted folks have no formal training beyond the state mandated class of variable length and content. The number of competitors in the country doesn't break six figures. Training to most folks is spraying a target with a few rounds, close up at a range or shooting at rocks at the 'ranch'.

Thus, the argument for mandated training. Most state training focuses on the law as compared to shooting techniques. Given the current trend of old nuts shooting harmless, mistaken people on their lawn - some legal education might be good.

The restriction on rights arguments is a good one. The permit system evolved to prevent carry from minorities, in part, just as there were various restrictions on who could vote. Also, many in the country don't think owning guns is a fundamental right, unlike voting. However, recall women and minorites and non property owners couldn't vote, so voting restriction freedom is relatively new in the USA.

However, given the idiots of both parties that we elect, one might argue that mandating education of voters might help. LOL.

captain awesome said:

In another Idea, as much as I dislike the bloated government spending, and well ect...since it's such an epidemic anyway why not incentivise training? If a customer looking to buy a firearm can provide proof of a safety course taken or a coupon given to them in exchange for completing the free safety course, FFLs give them a discount on a firearm purchase, and can send in the coupon and get reimbursed for the discount given by the general public safety fund.

Click to expand...

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

Elkins45 said:

if only one person learns it’s illegal to shoot someone in defense of property then it will be worth it.

Click to expand...

Is this actually something that's a problem? I have an idea why don't we just disarm everybody then nobody will shoot each other over property crimes

Robert said:

Well, as with most things, it's not that simple. But we are drifting off course...

Click to expand...

That was as far as I planned on going I'm more than happy to delete my comment

WisBorn said:

...is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm...Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's a good idea; it's the law-or at least it's the law in half of the states. The Bill of Rights is pretty cut and dried on this.

WisBorn said:

I went through hunter safety...I took boater safety...I took drivers education...

Click to expand...

None of which are rights enumerated/recognized/affirmed in the Constitution.

WisBorn said:

..don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe...

Click to expand...

Certainly, but limiting/violating everyone's rights is not the best way to achieve that.

WisBorn said:

Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Click to expand...

Yes it is.

If the courts apply your line of thinking to the 2nd Amendment, it will eventually apply to the rest of the Constitution (I'm sure you're aware of how legal precedents work.) How would you like to have to receive training and take a test on what words are "safe" to use? What speech is "safe speech?" How would you like to only be allowed to engage in conversation with others, petition your government for redress, submit editorials to your local media, or post on this forum, if and only if you have been properly trained and educated to use your words in a safe and responsible manner?" While we're at it, let's have training and testing on how to vote.

The point I'm trying to make with my hyperbole is that the 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd class right, and it should be afforded the same reverence and awe as the remaining amendments in the Bill of Rights. I disagree with the President's assessment that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

Night Rider said:

Is this actually something that's a problem? I have an idea why don't we just disarm everybody then nobody will shoot each other over property crimes

Click to expand...

Seriously? You’ve never met people who run their mouths about shooting car thieves or trespassers? You must not spend much time in gun shops or public shooting ranges.

I think you’re being overly sensitive here. What’s the problem with making legal information available to a broader public audience on a voluntary basis? Should we hide all the laws and then just arrest people after they have broken them?

WisBorn said:

1st don't shoot the messenger.

I have been a 4H shooting instructor, range RSO, and have taught many new shooters and gun owners gun safety.
In doing so I have had to correct bad habits and teach what most of us would consider common sense. I have also completed CCW requirements for 4 different states.

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

I went through hunter safety even though I followed my Dad starting at six.
I took boater safety even though I fished in one for longer than I can remember.
I started driving a car/pickup when I was 12. If somebody needed help I had tobe able to get to help. But I took drivers education at 16 and and had to test for a license.

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. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

Click to expand...

The biggest problem that I have with this (and also with things like competency tests for politicians) is that it's easy to use these as a way of restricting gun rights.

Let's say that today, the requirements for a conceal carry license are:

• Know the 4 rules of gun safety
• Be able to hit a dinner-plate target at 7 yards

But then, someone realizes that there are still plenty of negligent discharges. And maybe we should put additional requirements on shooting competency. So now, the requirements are:

• Know the 4 rules of gun safety, as demonstrated by multiple choice test.
• Be able to hit a dinner-plate target with 5 out of 5 shots at 5 yards, 4 out of 5 shots at 7 yards, and 3 out of 5 shots at 10 yards.
• Be able to demonstrate proper manual of arms in field stripping and cleaning your firearm.
• Be able to answer multiple choice and short-answer questions regarding gun law and use-of-force law.

Okay, this is maybe getting a bit more detailed, but still reasonable. But then someone comes along and now the test is:

• Write the rules of gun safety. If you mix up the order, misspell a word, or use incorrect punctuation, you fail.
• Be able to hit a bullseye at 10 yards with 10 shots. If any shot is outside of the center ring, you fail.
• Be able to detail strip your firearm in a set period of time. If you are unable to completely disassemble the firearm, you fail. If your firearm is not designed to be detail stripped to an acceptable letter of the law, you fail.
• Have a thorough understanding of gun law and precedent.
• Oh, and this class requires a $200 tax, in addition to the cost of the class itself.

Now we're getting into prohibitive territory.

It's pretty simple.

The bad guys don't ask permission to carry guns in public. Why are the good guys?

The constitution lays it out pretty clear.

I'm a firearms instructor. I've seen some wild stuff.
I'm all about training.

But I'm not going to be the one to tell a mother that she can't carry a gun to protect herself and her kids because she hasn't taken the training course.

The dangers of putting the .gov in charge of how we get to exercise our right have been demonstrated over and over again.

competency tests for politicians)

Click to expand...

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.

We did restrict voting until recently, as I said before. Also, Scotus clearly has said the 2nd is not absolute. Their glacial pace on laws like the CCIA and various state AWBs demonstrates they are not committed to clearly adjudicating the 2nd Amendment with alacrity. There's something going on in the court that portends,despite Bruen, we are not going to see decisive removal of carry and gun type restrictions.

Elkins45 said:

Seriously? You’ve never met people who run their mouths about shooting car thieves or trespassers?

Click to expand...

The last time I checked running your mouth wasn't against the law. I read comments like that on this forum all the time but having somebody actually do it seems to be a pretty rare occurrence.

Elkins45 said:

You must not spend much time in gun shops or public shooting ranges.

Click to expand...

I haven't bought a gun in almost 5 years why would I be in a gun shop? And no I don't do public shooting ranges. If I could get away with it I wouldn't do public anything.

Elkins45 said:

I think you’re being overly sensitive here.

Click to expand...

And I think you're being overly authoritarian and awfully free with my tax dollars.

Elkins45 said:

What’s the problem with making legal information available to a broader public audience on a voluntary basis?

Click to expand...

Why should you be taking my tax dollars to pay for it on an involuntary basis? If you think it's that important start a Gofund me.

Elkins45 said:

Should we hide all the laws and then just arrest people after they have broken them?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your entire State's revised code is available online. I know mine is. And as far as arresting people for breaking laws that's great it would be even better if we actually kept them in jail

AlexanderA said:

Now, having the right to carry is a completely different issue from actually carrying. I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

Click to expand...

That opinion is like the anti-gun politicians in NY (for example) that try to make it where lawful people can't carry but criminals will anyway.
Need? That may or may not ever happen. You don't "need" the handgun until somebody(s) decides to attack with potentially lethal force.
I want to be able to defend myself if attacked by criminals or a psycho is all the "need" that is "needed".
Thank God I live where I don't have to prove a "need" to exercise my right to carry a handgun for self defense.

Thread is, "I support the 2nd amendment, but"

Need is difficult to articulate. So let's come up with needs.

1. People of color or other minorities have need because monsters attack them because of their demographics.
2. People of various religions have need because folks opposed their religion attack them such that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. have been attacked on religious grounds.
3. Women need to carry as predators attack them.
4. Older people need to carry as they are seen as more vulnerable to predators.
5. Business folks need to carry because, Teachers need to carry because, on and on.

If you are a law abiding and mentally competent adult (strong legal protections on determining you are not) citizen, you have the right.

Charging for carry permits is constitutionally thin ice at best.
As are "competence tests."

In a free society, we citizens are meant to accept that some risk is inevitable.
That, therefore, we each must needs ensure we each have some skills and abilities to mitigate those risks.

We have to know, for instance, to not throw away 5th Amendment protections by blabbing on social media.
Or that there are cybersecurity technologies to help retain our 4th Amendment rights

It is upon each of us to know enough of the rules of grammar and diction and spelling that our Speech is intelligible and not gibberish. But, we ought not be required to demonstrate this through testing and paid-for permits.

So, too, our RKBA, we, generally, accept that it's a right with risks. We ought feel we are compelled to mitigate those risks both "to" ourselves, and also "by" ourselves, as well.

CDW4ME said:

Thread is, "I support the 2nd amendment, but"

Click to expand...

That kind of says it all

Of all possible systems, I most prefer constitutional carry, risks and all.

Even where concealed carry requires a permit or licensure, and training that varies from state to state, there are those who, regardless of the training offered or mandated, simply cannot or will not be reached.

Once watched a cop in a video taken from the camera, through the windshield, in the cops cruzer. The cop jumped from the car and ran to the front of the car. I couldn't see what she was shooting at. She held her gun in both hands, arms half extended and "pointing" the gun in the direction of the rear of the cruzer. She fired several shots. She was jumping up and down, side to side and back and forth. The muzzle of the gun was jerking up and down, side to side and back and forth. There could have been 2 red barns behind the cruzer and she could not have hit either one unless by pure accident. " Training did her no good".
I'm not against training. But, One restriction can only lead to another and another until ??

^
@Night Rider
Very appropriate quotation.

AlexanderA said:

Now, having the right to carry is a completely different issue from actually carrying. I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

Click to expand...

Oh, so one may possess certain rights, but actually exercising those rights is a completely different issue? And you believe one should have an articulable need to carry a firearm?