costitutional carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

V-fib

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
751
Location
michigan
A couple Questions:

Over a period of time I read where some states recently passed "constitutional carry" and then another state passed it.

What exactly is this?

also, do any members from MI know if we have "constitutional carry" in our state? What are the benefits to the states that pass this legislation?

thanks
v-fib
 
"Constitutional Carry" is more correctly describes as "Permitless Carry". Meaning that some states have removed the permit requirements to carry.

In some states anyone who is of age and is not a "prohibited person" can legally carry without a permit.
 
No, Michigan does not have this. You are still required to get a permit for concealed carry. Open carry is legal, which apparently satisfies the RKBA clause in our state Constitution, just don't try it in certain urban centers.

A Constitutional Carry bill was introduced, but then the sponsor of the bill got booted (Rep. Gamrat, Allegan). I don't know what happened to the bill after that, but it really didn't stand a chance to begin with.

The benefit is that you don't need to ask permission from the state to carry a gun. You get to keep your money and keep the state out of your business. We have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The 2A is considered the carry permit with those states who've adopted Constitutional Carry.
 
In Michigan open carry is ONLY legal because there is no law against it. You will get harassed in some urban areas but usually not have an issue. CC still requires a permit but they are much easier to obtain now than in the past.
 
USAF Vet wrote:

The benefit [of constitutional carry] is that you don't need to ask permission from the state to carry a gun. You get to keep your money and keep the state out of your business.

In Virginia, "permission" to carry concealed is relatively easy to get. But, it puts you in a police database, and any cop that pulls you over (for a traffic violation or whatever) can instantly know, based on your car's license tags, that you might potentially be carrying. (And the same police thinking might apply to anyone else who might be driving a car that's registered in your name, whether they have a gun license or not.) This could lead to some drama that, frankly, I don't need. I wouldn't routinely carry a gun anyway. Virginia has permitless open carry.

This would be the biggest reason that Virginia should adopt constitutional carry. Either that, or decouple the gun permit database from the car tag database.
 
Kansas has recently approved concealed carry w/o any permit or license for residents who can legally own the gun.

Time may tell us how popular it is.
 
We, Arizona, were the third state to pass "constitutional carry", which was made law in 2010.

One of the numerous beneficial elements of this law, is that those who may be unable to obtain a CWP because they can't handle the financial, as well other imposing factors, will now be able to do so. Maybe they don't have the time, or even transportation available to get to and from the range. What ever the imposition, it's not fair to impose such regulation that would make carrying a self defense weapon inaccessible to average law abiding citizens.

When this wonderful law went into effect in my state of Arizona, it brought with it long needed changes to our self defense laws, and it brought much needed change to the sentencing laws for violent offenders as well. Prior to the new law, our self defense laws were seriously flawed, which resulted in a number of truly innocent people being sentenced to prison for doing nothing more than defending their life, or that of another. Following the new law taking effect, a number of individuals had their convictions over turned, and as a result, they were subsequently released from prison.

So IMHO, in order to achieve it's full potential, "Constitutional carry" is an entire process, not just a single revision in state law concerning who can carry, and in what manner.

GS
 
My comment was posted to point out that unlike something that has a specific law allowing an activity, CCW for example, there are a lot of gray areas for open carry in this state. And because of that, there are local jurisdictions that seem to harass open carriers.
But sorry for being silly.
 
"It seems a little silly to state this [ie. lack of a law against open carry] as the lack of a law restricting something is the definition of Legal"

Silly or not, it is often preemptively stated because people often ask for a citation of the law permitting open carry. There is none. Saying so up front avoids the question being asked. It would also be more silly to state that because there is no law against spitting in one's own bathroom basin, it is legal. There is no such law, but no one ever asks what law makes it legal do so, so absence of such a law is not mentioned
 
Rhode Island is shall issue but it's listed as yellow. Odd since we've been shall issue since 1927.
 
^ I don't feel like updating the map.

Anyway, we've come a long way the past 30 years with carry laws.

Carry_laws_1986_2015.jpg
 
The Constitutional Carry Map Wars! Better by far than Fantasy Football! :D

It should be noted for non residents in Wyoming, a permit with WY reciprocity is needed for concealed carry.
 
It seems a little silly to state this as the lack of a law restricting something is the definition of Legal
I actually think it was worth pointing out. Texas has (or will come 2016) open carry. It will only be legal because there is a law, and restrictions, permitting it. Texas isn't the only state that legalized OC, because it was once illegal. Michigan never made it illegal, thus there is no law to overrule to allow it. It's might be semantics, but there is a difference.
 
Michigan never made it illegal, thus there is no law to overrule to allow it. It's might be semantics, but there is a difference.
I agree it is more than semantics.

An act is legal unless there is a law prohibiting it. So there doesn't need to be a law making an act legal.

However, if a law is passed making an act illegal, there needs to be a follow on law passed to make it legal again

However, taking the above into consideration, the original quote that I cited is factually incorrect.
In Michigan open carry is ONLY legal because there is no law against it.

It was always legal and would remain so, unless there was a law passed to make it illegal

A correct statement would be "In Mich, open carry is legal"
 
Don't be sorry ontarget I value your and all others input on my understanding of the issue.

truthtellers, wow what a difference between 1986 and 2015. thanks for that.

V-fib:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top