Perspective on Constitutional Carry Progress (Moved from Legal)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig_AR

Craig_AR

Contributing Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
1,193
Location
Arkansas
On January 1, 2023, Alabama will become the 25th of the 50 states* to have legally permit-less (Constitutional) carry of firearms.
Some will cheer that "half the country" has permit-less carry.
However, note a few numbers:
The 2022 total population of the 50 states as estimated by the Census Bureau is 332,615,754
Add 671,803 to include DC for 333,287,567.

The 2022 total population for the 25 CC states is 120,499,343.

120,499,343 / 333,287,567 = .3615 = 36.2%

So, in reality, barely over one third of the population will have permit-less carry.

Adding to those numbers, look at five states & DC as least likely to willingly adopt CC:
California 39,029,342
New York 19,677,151
Illinois 12,582,032 * added to list in edit 12/24/22 per suggestion below
New Jersey 9,261,699
Massachusettes 6,981,974
Connecticutt 3,626,205
District of Columbia 671,803
Total = 79,248,174 => 91,830,206 (adding Illinois)

79,248,174 / 333,287,567 = .2378 = 23.8% (before adding Illinois)

91,830,206 / 333,287,567 =.2755 = 27.6% (now including IL count)

Therefore, over one quarter of the population will never see Constitutional Carry without federal legislation upheld by the Supreme Court.

* North Dakota has CC only for ND residents.
 
Last edited:
However, the truth is still that one half of the states, regardless of population, have enacted some form of Constitutional Carry, and that is incredible news. It is also beyond alarming for Leftists who MUST end this quickly or risk "common use" argument from cropping up in the next CCW case heard by SCOTUS...if they ever do.
"Councilor, I remember you saying that since half of the states recognized gay marriage, the whole nation should do so? Can you explain your hypocrisy in this regard? Has your attitude changed towards Constitutional rights?"
 
It's blatantly obvious, due to the lack of blood running in the gutters, that so-called Constitutional Carry (or even merely permitted carry) is not going to cause a massive increase in shootings.

It could even be argued that the States without Constitutional Carry have had a larger increase in shootings and other violent crime compared to more permissive States.

I wonder what smart gun rights group will start running with that ball?
 
Hooda Thunkit said:
It could even be argued that the States without Constitutional Carry have had a larger increase in shootings and other violent crime compared to more permissive States.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that that is the case. Over the last few months there have been conflicting studies with some saying shootings go up and others saying shootings go down. I can’t find a study that I would have enough confidence in to argue either way.
 
dweis said:
I am not sure that that is the case. Over the last few months there have been conflicting studies with some saying shootings go up and others saying shootings go down. I can’t find a study that I would have enough confidence in to argue either way.
Click to expand...

Shooting of bad guys go up with more good guys carrying guns. The devil of statistics is the detail, I doubt there is reliable data on the priors of shooting victims and shooters, especially considering how few "gang related" shootings ever see an arrest, yet alone conviction.
 
I'm 100% in favor of MOST people being able to carry. But at the same time, I'm concerned about a huge influx of uneducated people carrying guns. There has been an exponential increase in the number of guns left in carry-on baggage at airports. I've personally seen numerous people carrying irresponsibly since GA went to Constitutional Carry.

I observed a woman purchasing a handgun in a local shop 2 days ago. This woman was clueless. The clerk patiently worked with her for nearly 2 hours helping her with the purchase. An hour later she tried to return the gun and couldn't understand why the shop couldn't take it back, but she could sell it on her own.

Being able to carry should be fairly easy and inexpensive. But I still think there needs to be some sort of requirement to weed out those who should never be allowed near a gun. It's just a matter of time until one of those does something to embarrass us all.

And our local LE is already seeing that. Yes, you no longer need a permit to carry in GA, but there are still restrictions on certain places. So far, our officers have done a good job of informing those who are carrying in restricted places and letting them return them to their cars. But it is starting to get old.

Carrying a gun may well be a right, but with rights come responsibilities. If someone can't or won't live up to the responsibilities to learn how to use their gun, and where they are permitted to do so they should have their rights suspended.
 
jmr40 said:
...

Being able to carry should be fairly easy and inexpensive. But I still think there needs to be some sort of requirement to weed out those who should never be allowed near a gun. It's just a matter of time until one of those does something to embarrass us all.

...

Carrying a gun may well be a right, but with rights come responsibilities. If someone can't or won't live up to the responsibilities to learn how to use their gun, and where they are permitted to do so they should have their rights suspended.
Click to expand...

I prefer a somewhat Darwinian approach to this problem: That circumstances will weed out the irresponsible or criminally intending persons.

I suspect, but cannot demonstrate, that although some innocents may be harmed by full recognition of 2A rights, the total harm to innocents will be less than with an unarmed population.

I call this the Billy The Kid Theory. Note that although he killed six or seven people by the time he was 22, at that point he could no longer kill anybody since he was dead by then.

I have met resistance to this theory, but bear in mind that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre removed seven ne'er-do-wells from further criminal activity. This point should be remembered more.

In all, my long-term position is that the benefits to scrupulously observing the Second Amendment far outweigh the so-called "benefits" in infringing on it.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
I applaud those modern thinking states that recognize that the vast majority of adults are mature and responsible enough to be "allowed" to exercise an enumerated right.
I fear my state is not one of them and should be near the top of your "non" list.
Illinois is poised to become oppressed by a horrible set of gun laws, worse than what we already have.
We do have cc. We also have the FOID. We have red flag.
We have Chicago.
Nuff said.
 
While I support the right of people to carry guns, I don't think that, on a practical level, a lot of people carrying is a good idea. Carrying guns responsibly requires a cool head and steady nerves, and too many people lack those characteristics. And even licensing can't effectively weed out those who shouldn't be carrying. Frankly, this is an insoluble problem.
 
armoredman said:
It is also beyond alarming for Leftists who MUST end this quickly or risk "common use" argument from cropping up in the next CCW case heard by SCOTUS ...

"Councilor, I remember you saying that since half of the states recognized gay marriage, the whole nation should do so? Can you explain your hypocrisy in this regard? Has your attitude changed towards Constitutional rights?"
Click to expand...
And Operation Blazing Sword/Pink Pistols just added their support for lawsuit against Oregon's Measure 114 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12498160

... gun rights are queer rights because lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms defend queer lives, and that self-defense is a human right. Therefore, any measure which inhibits, delays, or prevents the ability of queer people to defend themselves is inherently homophobic and transphobic, and violates both civil and human rights.

... Measure 114 is a profoundly discriminatory law that ultimately will not pass muster with the courts, especially in light of the recent NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling.​

Their compelling statement should ring true with AARP, women's rights, minority and ADA advocacy groups for self defense. ;)

Heck, one could even correlate carrying firearms prevention for crime/victimization of people similar to vaccines prevention for Covid hospitalization/death of people ... my two cents before morning coffee ... :)
 
Last edited:
jmr40 said:
I'm 100% in favor of MOST people being able to carry. But at the same time, I'm concerned about a huge influx of uneducated people carrying guns.
Click to expand...

AlexanderA said:
While I support the right of people to carry guns, I don't think that, on a practical level, a lot of people carrying is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Which leads to the idea that "training" is necessary and that the proposer doesn't think you would have to look far for someone to administer it.
 
I've long thought that any lawmaker or rulemaker who proposes or supports any measures which are ultimately found to be unconstitutional should be subject to civil penalties. Most usually, perjury for violating their oaths to support the constitution.

Just a long-abiding thought of mine. Has its weaknesses, but it keeps springing up in my mind.

Terry, 230RN
 
Jim Watson said:
Which leads to the idea that "training" is necessary and that the proposer doesn't think you would have to look far for someone to administer it.
Click to expand...
Training, while worthwhile, still doesn't address the issue of temperament. You can't train your way out of innate personality traits.
 
Jim Watson said:
AlexanderA said:
Training, while worthwhile, still doesn't address the issue of temperament. You can't train your way out of innate personality traits.
Click to expand...
True. I have seen proposals for psych profiles to get a license.
Same deal, who gets to set the standards?
Click to expand...
And I think that's why Supreme Court's "text and history" approach is relevant.

Just as there is push for majority mob rule by larger coastal city states in 2022, back in 1776 there was also push for majority mob rule by larger coastal city states and certainly there were those who were anti-gun who wanted to take guns away from colonials.

How did the founders decide who got to carry firearms and who didn't by the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were ratified?
 
LiveLife said:
And I think that's why Supreme Court's "text and history" approach is relevant.

...

How did the founders decide who got to carry firearms and who didn't by the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were ratified?
Click to expand...
I guess they were following the "Billy The Kid" theory long before Billy was even born.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12499265/

The effects of selective breeding had been known and in use for thousands of years before the ratification.

It's been a long time, but I think even Louis L’amour made some comments about how the west wasn't such a "wild west" because of the armed politeness idea.

Guns don't cause crime. But they can sure slow it down.

Terry, 230RN
 
PapaG said:
I fear my state is not one of them and should be near the top of your "non" list.
Illinois is poised to become oppressed by a horrible set of gun laws, worse than what we already have.
Click to expand...
I agree; good suggestion. I have edited the OP, indicating so, with the updated numbers including IL.
Now the count shows ~27% of the population is in solid gun-grabber holdout states.
 
LiveLife said:
How did the founders decide who got to carry firearms and who didn't by the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were ratified?
Click to expand...
I have read a couple of historians who said the original draft did not include what became the Bill of Rights (#1-10) because many assumed that those protections, already found in many state constitutions, were so obvious the federal Constitution did not need them. Some wise folks opined that in the long run politicians in general could not be assumed to hold to them, so insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition for voting in their states to ratify the basic document, rights amendments to follow. Good call!

As for the 14th, that is a very different story. 14th was about both punishing the South for their rebellion, and guaranteeing all the national rights are to be observed fully by the several states, also. Of course, we also have the history that as soon as the residual powers (i.e. Democratic Party) regained control from the Federal forces and carpetbaggers in the southern states, they created the first serious gun control laws to subjugate the population of former slaves. Gun control in the US is, was, and has been a racist effort. So sad how few today realize or acknowledge that history.
 
AlexanderA said:
And even licensing can't effectively weed out those who shouldn't be carrying. Frankly, this is an insoluble problem.
Click to expand...
The above bears repeating.

We license drivers and require minimum levels of training for that activity. The evidence of how that fails to "weed out" the dangerous is all around us.

As noted above, there needs to be an appreciation of the terrible swift power in that carried firearm. It's not a magic talisman.

And, if we look to all the several States with unlicensed carry, the amount of "carrying" has not much increased. Some of that are dizzy notions of "good" and "bad" areas, some with the fact that carrying is a pain, if a reassuring and necessary pain.

Reading books is inconvenient, you need to focus on what you are doing, flips the pages, retain what you have read. And the government ought not limit my ability to carry or use a book, either.
 
Craig_VA said:
LiveLife said:
How did the founders decide who got to carry firearms and who didn't by the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were ratified?
Click to expand...
Some wise folks opined that in the long run politicians in general could not be assumed to hold to them, so insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition for voting in their states to ratify the basic document, rights amendments to follow. Good call!
Click to expand...
Good thing that Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution after 3 years (Jump to 2:00 minute of video)

 
Jim Watson said:
True. I have seen proposals for psych profiles to get a license.
Same deal, who gets to set the standards?
Click to expand...
I would be against psych tests for gun licenses. Too much potential for abuse. Come to think of it, I'm against gun licenses in general. They don't work, because unlicensed people have no problem getting guns. We are already oversaturated with guns.

So where does that leave us?

The answer, I think, is self-regulation by the gun community. Dealers, for example, should put aside the profit motive and refuse to sell to questionable individuals. Screen the customer beyond what is required by the Form 4473. (In many cases, the fact that an individual is disturbed can be discerned through his appearance and behavior.) And if certain dealers are known to be abusive, buyers should boycott them.

And families should monitor their members. We all know members of our families that should not have guns. Just as Grandpa, at some point, needs to have his car keys taken away from him, the same could apply to his guns. And children / guns need to be monitored even more.
 
Craig_VA said:
On January 1, 2023, Alabama will become the 25th of the 50 states* to have legally permit-less (Constitutional) carry of firearms.
Some will cheer that "half the country" has permit-less carry.
However, note a few numbers:
The 2022 total population of the 50 states as estimated by the Census Bureau is 332,615,754
Add 671,803 to include DC for 333,287,567.

The 2022 total population for the 25 CC states is 120,499,343.

120,499,343 / 333,287,567 = .3615 = 36.2%

So, in reality, barely over one third of the population will have permit-less carry.

Adding to those numbers, look at five states & DC as least likely to willingly adopt CC:
California 39,029,342
New York 19,677,151
Illinois 12,582,032 * added to list in edit 12/24/22 per suggestion below
New Jersey 9,261,699
Massachusettes 6,981,974
Connecticutt 3,626,205
District of Columbia 671,803
Total = 79,248,174 => 91,830,206 (adding Illinois)

79,248,174 / 333,287,567 = .2378 = 23.8% (before adding Illinois)

91,830,206 / 333,287,567 =.2755 = 27.6% (now including IL count)

Therefore, over one quarter of the population will never see Constitutional Carry without federal legislation upheld by the Supreme Court.

* North Dakota has CC only for ND residents.
Click to expand...

Add Michigan to those states least likely to willingly adopt CC, especially after the last election. Rather, we will likely see a lot of gun control legislation being enacted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top