Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?

The optimum scenario is permitless constitutional carry within the borders of your own state, and the retention of some permit system to allow those who wish to take advantage of reciprocity agreements between states.

Click to expand...

Anyone not federally barred may carry open or concealed in VT...No need for reciprocity or a 'permit' from another state...I don't care to travel any longer, so I do not worry about not having a permit that is honored elsewhere...Only time I leave the state is the occasional foray across the deep water line of Lake Champlain into NY waters...Simply have to make sure I do not cross the 'border' while armed...

As for:

The cons are you can have some fellow wander in on their 21st birthday, buy a firearm/ammo/holster and throw it on their belt without so much as glancing at the manual. On several instances I witnessed this happening,

Click to expand...

I have no idea where you grew up in Vermont, but where I grew up, we all had guns before we graduated High School and knew their workings and respect for them...No one I have ever known went to the store to buy a gun when they turned 21 as they already had them...Maybe I am just really old...

21 is the age to be able to buy handgun from an FFL, but private sales are legal at 18 (federally), and 'possession' of a handgun is 16 in VT (Yes, I am aware of the 'conflicts' with the federal age)...


§ 4008. Possession of firearms by children

A child under the age of 16 years shall not, without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, have in his or her possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 52 of Title 33.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=085

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?

Click to expand...

Only if they and their handguns remained over a mile away.

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?

Click to expand...

Yes. What they carry, why they carry, their markmanship skills, knowledge of Wyoming case law, etc. is their business, not mine.

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?

Click to expand...

No, and frankly it is one of the reasons I feel a need to be armed myself.

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?

Click to expand...

I have no choice. They are lawfully allowed to carry here, as am I. There are no classes, no tests. They must trust me, I must trust them.

And regardless of the fact that we have around 800,000 holding the LCTF here, and EVERYONE else is allowed to OC if they want, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Sam1911 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have no choice. They are lawfully allowed to carry here, as am I. There are no classes, no tests. They must trust me, I must trust them.

And regardless of the fact that we have around 800,000 holding the LCTF here, and EVERYONE else is allowed to OC if they want, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
Liberty isn't always comfortable.
Get used to it, or get ready to surrender yours when you make someone else uncomfortable.
Can't have it both ways.

Liberty isn't always comfortable.

Click to expand...

The problem is too many people in too many places wanting to be too comfortable for their own good.

Salmoneye said:

I have no idea where you grew up in Vermont, but where I grew up, we all had guns before we graduated High School and knew their workings and respect for them...No one I have ever known went to the store to buy a gun when they turned 21 as they already had them...Maybe I am just really old...

Click to expand...

I consider VT my adopted state since that is where I attended school. More so lately since my real home state of NY has been destroying the 2A. I saw the unsafe practices I stated a few times at Parro's in Waterbury. Always sent me to the other end of the store and behind something.

Yes to constitutional carry.

Michigan is nowhere near being a free state but those are the hoops I jump through to be able to "legally" cc.

siglite said:

I assume then that you advocate licensing and governmental blessing in the form of a fee and a database check as a prerequisite for posting on THR?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not making the connection here.

If you are referring to a license to carry concealed the answer is yes. I have one, I paid a fee for it, they ran a back ground check and I carry. No problem.

Posting on a forum is a little different then carrying concealed.

With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

CoalTrain49 said:

With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

Click to expand...

The right to vote has evolved with our nation. Originally, you pretty much had to be a property owning male to vote and people had "no problem" with that. Even after the Civil War, schemes like taxes, fees, and tests were imposed on people with skin of the wrong color to discourage their participation.

Kind of like fees, tests, and other buffoonery are imposed on people wishing to exercise their right to keep and bear arms today to discourage their participation.

Just because you have "no problem" paying a fee and meeting whatever training requirement your state may choose to impose on you to carry a firearm for defense, that doesn't mean that those things aren't obstacles to other people. Single parents, elderly people, disabled people - they could all find those things barriers that prevent them from exercising their rights.

I do have a problem with that.

herrwalther said:

I consider VT my adopted state since that is where I attended school. More so lately since my real home state of NY has been destroying the 2A. I saw the unsafe practices I stated a few times at Parro's in Waterbury. Always sent me to the other end of the store and behind something.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply...

As I said, maybe I just grew up in a different time...I also was not considering people that came here for school...I can see where your scenario may indeed be more common than I thought...

CoalTrain49 said:

Posting on a forum is a little different then carrying concealed.

With regards to voting, having to take a test to vote is unconstitutional as I'm sure you are aware. That's just a real dumb idea.

Click to expand...

The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...

Salmoneye said:

The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...

Click to expand...

Well, the 1st has been used at times, by those with a mob mentality, to cause to harm, or worse, a person; often times a young female.


The 2nd, has been shown to, at times, has been used to prevent the harm, or worse, of often times a young female by group with a mob mentality.


Constitutional Carry is not a good idea. Its a GREAT idea.


.

Salmoneye said:

The two rights in your first sentence are enumerated in the BOR...

How exactly are they 'different'...

Click to expand...

OK, I'll try make the distinctions between the two or at least how the courts have defined it. I know some people can't accept it but here it is.

I'm sure everyone has read 2A. Usually when a law is written the terms and conditions are spelled out in the last paragraph or sentence. In 2A the only thing it says is those rights are not to be infringed. That could be defined as activily breaking the terms, which seems to be the case and unfortunately there are no terms defined. If there had been we wouldn't be where we are today.

Now look at 10A.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This one kicks in on 2A because the terms are not spelled out. If you want something to not happen you have to be clear about it or it could go any number of directions, which is what happened to 2A when the courts got a hold of it. Remember that 10A was written and ratified at the same time that 2A was so there is some discussion about the fact that 2A may have been purposely left ambiguous so the states could hammer out their own requirements which they did and continue to do.

Now for your voting rights or 13A

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If you look at it closely you will see that in sec.1 it is specific by the word abridged (to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom) and who may not abridge it. Several states have tried to enact voter ID laws and they have been ruled unconstitutional in the circuit courts. I don't think it has gone to the supreme court yet but my money is on states not being able to require ID when you vote.

That's the difference. If that 13A language had been in 2A we wouldn't be having this discussion. The amendments were written about 100 years apart after a civil war that had a lot to do with federal and states rights.

No charge.

The fact remains that you are apparently OK with requiring fees (sometimes outrageous fees) and other barriers to exercise one right but not to exercise the other right.

I don't understand how that makes sense to you or anyone who agrees with you and I probably never will.
Though I couldn't think you're more wrong about it, I'm going to just let it drop. If we don't let it go now, this whole thing is going to keep escalating until a dozen of us manage to shut down an otherwise decent discussion.

goon said:

Just because you have "no problem" paying a fee and meeting whatever training requirement your state may choose to impose on you to carry a firearm for defense, that doesn't mean that those things aren't obstacles to other people. Single parents, elderly people, disabled people - they could all find those things barriers that prevent them from exercising their rights.

I do have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

There are obstacles in just about everything one does. I could find barriers and obstacles in my way with just about everything I do. I'm sorry if you find that your state statutes create obstacles for you regarding your ability to carry a firearm. My state has no requirements for a test but I have to pay a fee for a back ground check. I could consider that an obstacle but I know how to defeat it, I just pay the fee. I also have to pay the state for a lot of other things like a business license, a drivers license, a hunting license and many more but you get the idea. Some states even have an income tax. By your reasoning a felon may also have a barrier or obstacle that prevents him form carrying a firearm. If you are saying that everyone should have an unabridged right to carry, which I think you are from your line of reasoning, I think you will find you are in a small minority.

But I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

CoalTrain49 said:

By your reasoning a felon may also have a barrier or obstacle that prevents him form carrying a firearm. If you are saying that everyone should have an unabridged right to carry, which I think you are from your line of reasoning, I think you will find you are in a small minority.

Click to expand...

I made no mention of felons. I'm not sure it came up in this discussion at all. That's a discussion for another time.

If I were in some southern states in 1950 and arguing that people of color had the same right to vote and should not be subject to poll taxes or literacy tests, I also would have been in a minority. Does being in a minority make you wrong?

My reasoning basically comes down to this: Once the state is given the power to decide who can and cannot exercise a right based on who can or cannot afford to pay a fee or navigate complex training and testing requirements, that right is no longer able to be exercised by many people. In the case of CCW permits, the people who may be most in need of the ability to protect themselves are those who are likely to have the most trouble complying with ridiculous, pointless infringements that don't make anyone any safer.

As most of us agree, criminals carry guns and commit crimes whether they're permitted to or not. Because they're criminals. They want your wallet or some power trip that comes from raping your daughter, so they do what they do. They won't be applying for permits to carry or attending classes with you, but they'll be armed and committing crimes just the same. Even in prison, with guards watching them all day every day, they victimize other people. If an entire staff of prison guards can't keep even a few hundred of them in check, then a law imposing restrictions on law-abiding people also will not make a difference.

Several states have realized this and taken steps to correct it. My state hasn't, so I pay the fee and deal with the red tape. But that doesn't make it right and I don't fool myself into thinking it is.

So now that I've clarified why I feel Constitutional Carry is preferable, I'm out of this. Maybe you should be too.
This isn't a bad discussion, but the more people like you and I push at it with very diametrically opposed opinions, the more likely it is to get closed. We should just let it be.

When Heller was decided, SCOTUS said the 2A enumerates 2 separate rights, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. It then went on to narrowly address the right ti keep arms (limiting the scope of the decision to the right to keep handguns in the home for protection), but saying nothing about the right to bear arms. This silence on the right to bear was heard loudly in several circuits to say that the right to bear is not a core right of individuals and is subject to regulation. This is the question the court is being asked to address in two cases out of Texas (see this THR discussion).

There are some scholars that believe that the 2A as originally written protects both an individual right to keep arms and a colletive right to bear arms in service to the state. And that the individual right was protected so that the state need for a militia could be served collectively.

SCOTUS silence on the right to bear in Heller is a concern because the Court could easily find that the right to bear was and is a collective right subject to state regulation while protecting the core individual right to keep (own) firearms from state and federal infringement without strict scrutiny. This outcome would please neither side in the end (and there is an old saw that says if neither side is pleased by the court's decision, it is probably the correct one.)

Yes, I support "Constitutional carry". The ONLY intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means to resist the government should the need arise again. This is why "gun control" isn't about guns, but control. Any law or regulation put into place that diminishes the capabilities of that intent only serves to enslave us.

The ONLY intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means to resist the government should the need arise again.

Click to expand...

But which government? Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Bill of Rights was seen to restrain the federal govt, not the states.

What's more, In Heller, SCOTUS clearly found a core right of self-defense against non-government threats, so there is clearly more than just resistance to a tyrannical government involved.

Study the history of the Bill of Rights closely and you find that it was revised several times before passage by Congress. The bill that came out of the House was more focused on absolutely protecting individual rights against encroachment by both federal and state governments. Many of these protections from the states were removed by the Senate (which represented the State governments) because the Senate felt the State Constitutions were the best place to protect individual rights from State encroachment.

What finally came out of Congress for ratification was what generally comes from Congress: A compromise which is not absolutely clear as to just what is intended, leaving it up to the Courts to eventually try to figure it out after sorting through a mish-mash of tradition and differing opinions.

goon said:

So now that I've clarified why I feel Constitutional Carry is preferable, I'm out of this. Maybe you should be too.
This isn't a bad discussion, but the more people like you and I push at it with very diametrically opposed opinions, the more likely it is to get closed. We should just let it be.

Click to expand...

No reason to close it, we're having a civil discussion and you have valid points that many would like to consider. The only difference in our views is your's is from a philosophical perspective and mine from a practical perspective. It helps people see different sides of the same coin.

JRH6856 said:

When Heller was decided, SCOTUS said the 2A enumerates 2 separate rights, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. It then went on to narrowly address the right ti keep arms (limiting the scope of the decision to the right to keep handguns in the home for protection), but saying nothing about the right to bear arms. This silence on the right to bear was heard loudly in several circuits to say that the right to bear is not a core right of individuals and is subject to regulation. This is the question the court is being asked to address in two cases out of Texas (see this THR discussion).

There are some scholars that believe that the 2A as originally written protects both an individual right to keep arms and a colletive right to bear arms in service to the state. And that the individual right was protected so that the state need for a militia could be served collectively.

SCOTUS silence on the right to bear in Heller is a concern because the Court could easily find that the right to bear was and is a collective right subject to state regulation while protecting the core individual right to keep (own) firearms from state and federal infringement without strict scrutiny. This outcome would please neither side in the end (and there is an old saw that says if neither side is pleased by the court's decision, it is probably the correct one.)

Click to expand...

Excellent. That helps this discussion a great deal. Thanks.

he only difference in our views is your's is from a philosophical perspective and mine from a practical perspective. It helps people see different sides of the same coin.

Click to expand...

In many situations, philosophical principles appear impractical to many. And there is a reason that those practicing situational ethics are often seen as unprincipled.

JRH6856 said:

In many situations, philosophical principles appear impractical to many. And there is a reason that those practicing situational ethics are often seen as unprincipled.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Unfortunately my state doesn't give a hoot about my personal philosophical principals. If I want to play I play by their rules, unprincipled or not. If your philosophical principals prevent you from practicing according to their standard then you don't practice or you do it illegally. I hold a professional license from the state. It was very expensive to acquire. I had to take a 16 hour exam to get it and 8 years of school and practice to even apply for the license.

They set the standard. It's their sand box. Your call if you want to play in it.

Life goes on.