Should Constitutional Carry (Permitless CC & OC) Be Extended to All 50 States?

I think eventually we will get to Constitutional Carry (CC) in most states the same way we got to Shall Issue. I don't think it will be through congress as many might think. The district courts and SC has mostly upheld shall issue and will in time uphold CC also. A restrictive state like CA who was just recently mandated by 9th DC to facilitate shall issue will go kicking and screaming and will need another little push from the SC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "extended". There is really only three ways CC could happen.

Congress, the SC or state legislation. I suppose the prez could issue an executive order but it wouldn't be this prez.

Congress won't touch it because of the political divide. They can't even get a budget passed which is a little more important to national defense and my pay check than CC. There's also this little matter of states rights that is sure to torpedo any attempt by congress.

So far the liberal SC hasn't indicated they would rule against states rights to define how we carry, only that we can.

The only practical way to get it is through state legislation, which is what is happening. Some responsible states have already figured out that it's a financial burden to administer and it's the only responsible thing to do. CA is a good example of a state that hasn't been responsible and has 400 B worth of debt. The fed gov't is another example of that. Funny how that mind set will put you in a very deep hole.

Why should a state care how we carry? I can see why they don't want certain people to carry but the law is already pretty clear about that. They aren't going to keep criminals from carrying anyway and most LEO's know that. The state has NO pre liability in the matter of criminals using guns to commit crimes, only to arrest, prosecute and sentence those criminals who do.

So it gets down to who's paying for permits. If people tell their reps they don't want to pay for it anymore it will go away. The funny part of all of this is the state is trying to pass off the cost of permits to those who want to carry as a user fee while the people that want permits in place aren't going to pay a dime for one because they don't carry. I don't think the toll road mind set will hold up given the fact that the state has no legal obligation to maintain a permit system. It isn't a highway system and they don't get federal funds to do it.

When a lawsuit is brought to the state SC, district, and on to fed SC that shows that the financial burden of permits is unconstitutional then we will see some changes at the state level.

It's a nice dream and I'm all for freedom to us all but for it to really work we need all federal gun laws repealed which would essentially allow CC nationwide with the individual states consent. That's the only way freedom can be insured.
I doubt we will ever see universal laws from state to state but if the Fed. Gov would get out of it I can see the individual states aligning over time simply from the pressure of the majority as well as the courts.
So if the question was "should all federal firearms laws be repealed?" my answer would be yes.

It's a nice dream and I'm all for freedom to us all but for it to really work we need all federal gun laws repealed which would essentially allow CC nationwide with the individual states consent.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any fed laws that would stand in the way constitutional carry. If there were the 4 states that practice it would be in violation of US code.

Am I missing something?

I'm curious how people from non-issuing states like Maryland feel about this because they would essentially be bypassed. (I know me is shall issue but it might as well be no permit)

Not in NJ. Would cause too many acute anxiety attacks in officialdom, swamping medical facilities.

New Jersey has had a RINO Governor going on 2 terms now so I don't hold out much hope in the short term.
Some good news is South Dakota's House passed Constitutional Carry as did Colorado's Senate. I suspect the measure will pass in SD but my home state needs at least two more cycles at the polls but I'm confident that CC is the new movement .

Another yes vote.

I voted yes. I believe the 2nd amendment was a good idea. Permits violate it. Pretty simple.

Yes Maryland did. They elected a rep gov that promptly stated that 2a issues are a distraction to his agendas. The biggest hope it's the new MSP head.

I'm kind of surprised 'Yes' is in favor as much as it is. I would expect the 'No' votes would be at least half as many as the 'Yes' based on how open carry discussions typically go around here.

NO.

This is a States rights issue. States have the authority to enter into agreements with other States as is already being done.

The O.P. does not say how universal Constitutional Carry will be accomplished. If this is too be mandated by passing Federal Law I vote no. I am strongly oppose to the Federal Government expanding it's authority.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you on it being a state issue, I would argue that this rule of thinking applies ONLY if you agree that restrictions on carrying of firearms is constitutional in the first place. If individual states put into place constitutional carry, the needs to enter into agreements with other states becomes a moot point anyway.

And if the central gov repealed its firearms laws the way would be paved for states to do as they pleased and honor other states as they pleased without the current oversight and regulation.

Federal or state? I cannot understand how that came to be an issue, but it certainly is. Not only not federal and state, but local. The difficulty I have with the issue is how state and local can have laws contrary to the Constitution, which is FEDERAL. I do not agree with the concept of the states or local jurisdictions having any control whatsoever over my clearly stated rights stated in the 2nd.

I don't look at the U.S. Constitution as a moral fabric. I use God's word and love of His children to dictate what I do. However, since I live in a nation that has a constitution, I am strongly in agreement with its contents. I have a right (not God given, but gov't given) to have and keep guns. "Having" (or keeping and bearing) to me is the same thing as carrying. I can't actually "keep and bear" it if it is somewhere that I'm not. I mean to say I have a lawful right, and so do you.

I'm all for state rights, but not when they are at odds with national rights. I'm with all of you who want less federal government, but the 2nd already exists. It's not something new. It's not a thing to be pilfered with. It is what it is. The position of state politicians, whether they are for or against the 2nd, should not have standing.

That said, if the liberals get the Constitution changed in regards to the 2nd, we are doomed. I for one will not comply. I'm old enough to go down fighting. I've lived free in the realm of self protection for too long to ever give it up. I'll fight to the end to keep my gun, because a gov't who would take them from its own citizens is a dead entity. It cannot stand. Better to go down fighting than to give in, IMO.

The founders believed the Bill of Rights to be God given including the 2A. My point is that federal law is the linchpin of 2A oppression and States still have to honor the Constitution but being smaller and more accountable than the federal gov most of us would see more freedom with fewer laws from a centralized gov.
That was the design of our Republic.

swopjan said:

I'm kind of surprised 'Yes' is in favor as much as it is. I would expect the 'No' votes would be at least half as many as the 'Yes' based on how open carry discussions typically go around here.

Click to expand...

Not surprising. Most people even remotely pro 2nd understand that OC is the very essence of the 2nd Amendment. The problem comes in with the practice. FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt) is very powerful.

All States should enact Constitutional carry. Feds stay far far away.

Click to expand...

Big +1 Keep feds away from the carry laws. Get a anti gun president and congress were sunk

Yes, and also the single most pertinent reason why I choose to live in Arizona.

I've had the privilege of living in Az. since about 1971, and even though we didn't drop the required permit for CC until just 5 yrs. ago, we have always had OC without a permit. Since that first move, we've seen one after the other Constitutional gun laws enacted, making us pretty much hands down the best of constitutional carry states to date.

GS

I see some really dumb things at the range, performed by some very questionable individuals. I still feel there has to be some form of safety training. Whether they choose to heed it is their perogative, but at least the previously ignorant (uninformed) now know how to properly handle a firearm.

These are easily lethal weapons we are talking about here. Knives and pencils can be lethal weapons too, but not from 200 yards out. I had to take a driver safety course that opened my eyes to the lethality of a 3000# vehicle travelling at 70mph, should be necessary for an individual that carries a weapon capable of killing someone at a distance if they don't know to NOT shoot if there are people in the way.

It's just a matter of responsibility. Sometimes it's sorely lacking.

I had to take a driver safety course that opened my eyes to the lethality of a 3000# vehicle travelling at 70mph

Click to expand...

Most states only require drivers training to minors. If you wait til you are 18, you can get a driver's license with zero training, so as long as you pass the course as an adult, you are granted your license to drive.

While I don't think anyone will turn their nose up at training, or the need for it, I generally believe most of us balk at the idea of giving that authority to the state. Each state can set their own driving standards as they see fit. Currently, each state does the same for carrying a concealed firearm. Just imagine for a minute if your state decided to make getting a drivers license as hard as a New Jersey carry permit. Better hope you live close enough to work to walk.
Point is, if the authority is yielded to the state, they can make the mandatory training standards as easy or as hard as they see fit. We already have this in states with draconian and idiotic gun laws. The authority needs to stay with the people.

Would I be in favor of Constitutional Carry...Definitely Yes.

Do I think it will ever happen...Definitively No.

I voted NO.

Having a 50 State Constitutional/Open Carry law is the fastest path to having the Supreme Court address and define the 2nd Amendment. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court I do not want this question addressed.

It also seems when we push the envelope we don't always get back a positive outcome. Example; AK pistols and that ammo ban and AR pistols and the proposed M855 ban. Perhaps if we hadn't pushed the SBR boundaries there would be no proposed ban on M855.

Steadfastly rejecting any permit or restriction as an infringement is a weak argument in my opinion. Take that argument to the extreme and not allowing criminals to own and/or carry is an infringement of their rights. There will always be some compromise. I think what we have now is an acceptable compromise.