Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?

monotonous_iterancy said:

My real problem with permits is that first and foremost, they are a de-facto gun license or registration. Look at the recent story out of Iowa. Second, they require us to ask permission for something that used to be an assumed right.

While it's true, many towns in the old west required guns to be surrendered while inside the limits of it, it used to be common practice even in places like New York, and even London to carry concealed. It used to just be something people did. When did that end?

Click to expand...

CCP is not a de-facto gun license or registration. I've had a permit for 24 years and the state or fed has not collected any information about some of the guns I have carried. Your premise may be true in some states but it is not true where I live. In this state it is possible to purchase a pistol from a private party and the state has no record of that sale or the SN of that gun.

There is a state law requiring a record of the SN of a pistol when the transfer is made through an FFL. That is a recent requirement and will have no effect on private sales until a law is passed here that says all sales have to go through an FFL. These are entirely two different issues.

Constitutional carry is a good idea and something I support. Those of us who have CCP's know that a background check is run when we apply. I also have to have my fingerprints on file. No big deal because I don't have a criminal record and I want to carry concealed. Background checks and CCP's are becoming the norm. Most people want background checks. It makes them feel secure to know that people who buy and carry guns have been certified harmless sort of like the cow they ate being FDA certified. People that pass BGC's and E coli still kill people but the public feels better about it. It won't change anything but their perception.

I'm a proponent of one background check to acquire a National Carry Permit (NCP) good in every state just like a drivers license. I believe in registering the person and not the gun. After all, guns don't kill people. No officer in any jurisdiction is going to be able to arrest or deny you the right to carry unless you commit a crime. The NCP would become the Universal Background Check that the public feels it must have. They say UBC, I say NCP. That simple.

I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

The Lone Haranguer said:

Arizona is the latest state to adopt it.

Click to expand...

Nope. We were before WY and AR. OK now has ConC reciprocity as part of their CC for residents of ConC states but not their own residents!

Mike

PS. Let's turn the map Green!

george29 said:

I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

Click to expand...

Taxation is a factor, but the purposes of licensing are simply the requirement of the King's blessing under the proven false guise of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands." Also, the driving analogy is a false straw-man under the American system as it is not an enumerated right recognized under our Constitution and followed with the words "shall not be infinged."

Defense of self is an inherent human right, and should not be subject to the blessing of the King.

Further, the "idiots on ranges" argument is one of presumptive arrogance. It projects your judgement of a minority of fools onto all of society, yet not once have I heard this complaint followed by an observation that said morons drove 4000lb death machines to the range.

Liberty is not safe. You choose it or you choose false safety at the expense of the liberty of others. Any one of those range idiots is almost certainly capable of passing any CHL course in the country. And at the end of it, they will almost certainly remain an idiot. With a gun. And a car. And access to gasoline which has a relative explosive factor (to TNT) of .4 and is surprisingly toxic.

Permits do nothing to make anyone safer. They merely line some pockets, infringe on our rights, provide a false sense of security for those who believe a murderer needs the King's blessing to carry HIS gun, and unduly burden our exercise of an inherent right.

Permit systems are better than no-carry, but constitutional carry is the right solution.

Not to mention that any one of those "idiots on the range" could also still choose to carry illegally and probably would if he or she couldn't meet the requirements to obtain a permit.

So if idiots and bad guys are going to carry anyhow, what's the point of requiring the rest of us to apply for a permit?

Carry permits should be thought to provide two different advantages. For one, the idea of justification for gun usage is not what un-trained people think and even if their actions would be justified, their description to police after the event may land them in jail. So, this part of education needs to be addressed for all, whether they carry or not.
The other factor is basic gun handling and not endangerment of innocent people. Such as the advice from our VP on warning shots.
We also need to make OC more acceptable to both the general public and police. Many police training is based on the idea that a target of a person holding a gun is the bad guy and if the target does not have a gun then good guy. We need to change the mindset or we will get good guys shot by other good guys.
To be successful, gun training needs to be part of everyone's life, both gun owners and non-gun owners. Public schools and local police classes were be good places to start.

We have the Right to keep and bear arms. We have a Duty to do so responisbly. The sad truth is that most Concealed Carriers will only take the training required to get the permit. If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need any regulations of any kind.

If I had my way, you'd have to deliver a 7 second el Presidente upon demand, but at 5 yds, from ccw, in order to have any benefit from living in our society. To drive, marry, have a kid, have contracts enforced, anything. If you can't even bother to learn/maintain the most basic of responsibilities, (ie, efficient self defense), why should society do a thing for you?

Tcruse said:

So, this part of education needs to be addressed for all, whether they carry or not.

Click to expand...

Education is a good thing, good thing does not mean it should be a law.

Tcruse said:

The other factor is basic gun handling and not endangerment of innocent people. Such as the advice from our VP on warning shots.

Click to expand...

Basic gun handling is another eduction point.

Tcruse said:

We need to change the mindset or we will get good guys shot by other good guys.

Click to expand...

Open carry with or without a permit is perfectly legal in many states and this does not happen. If police are of the mindset that gun = criminal then they are the ones that need to be have their training modified.

Tcruse said:

To be successful, gun training needs to be part of everyone's life, both gun owners and non-gun owners. Public schools and local police classes were be good places to start.

Click to expand...

Not really. The fundamentals can be covered or researched or are even common sense (bad term). This pretty much covers it: lethal force is allowed to counter lethal threat. More education is good but not a requirement.

Schools teaching gun safety would do more to prevent accidental injury from guns than any law but it would also break the mantra of guns are bad. For this reason it won't happen even if it would be a benefit (beyond concealed carry).

I see an assumption of incompetence requiring eduction and permitting. There is evidence now from multiple states showing this not to be the case. The public does not seem to be generally incompetent to carry firearms.

monotonous_iterancy said:

What about the fact that people would no longer be required to take a class on justifiable use of force?

Click to expand...

What are these classes you speak of? All I have ever done to get my carry permits is pay my money to the sheriff.

I'm all for nation-wide Constitutional Carry

If class is required then it is NOT a right you're exercising, but a privilege.

If a class is required then all a misguided legislature (acting in typical knee-jerk reaction to some event) need to do is legislate that the current class is insufficient, and carry is no longer allowed until a NEW class is written. POOF right gone in a matter of a day or two.

If a class is required then all a misguided legislature (acting in typical knee-jerk reaction to some event) need to do is legislate a class requirement that is too difficult or too expensive to pass. POOF right gone in a matter of a day or two.

People who will do stupid stuff with a deadly weapon will still do stupid stuff after a class.

It's a very good thing that the mere sight of the defender's gun usually suffices, and that misses change minds, poor hits suffice, etc. Cause the number of gunowners in the US who can really deliver 'the goods", lots of swift, powerful hits to the chest, in 1.5 seconds, at 10 ft, from realistic concealment, can be counted on fingers and toes of a very few people. Some who can deliver such don't really understand the law or tactics, so the number of those who can actually make the grade, reflexively, is vanishingly small. Fortunately, it's very rare to need that ability.

george29 said:

I'll play Devils advocate; how come you guys agree to take tests to drive a car but not to be proficient with a gun? Think about it. Why do you do really agree to wait at the DMV all day just so that some beauracrat can charge you $ x.xx in order to operate a motor vehicle when Free Passage was a given? You guys think that taking the test to carry a gun is the objective of the Government or taxation of the right to carry is the objective?

Click to expand...

Good question.

The state constitution for my state doesn't have an article that addresses driving, but it does about the right to bear arms and I quote The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. That has been interpreted to mean everyone, not just a person who can pass a test. I believe the reason we have back ground checks for CCP is to comply with a federal regulation that says a felon can't have a gun but I'm not sure about that one. The reason they don't push a test here is because it wouldn't get past the state supreme court, like some of the other "can't carry here" laws that some local municipalities passed. The push here is UBC for a sale that doesn't have anything to do with concealed carry.

So to answer your question, I don't have a constitutional right to drive, but I do to carry a gun. That simple.

So let's examine the arguments FOR requiring permits.

1. The American public is too stupid and uneducated to carry guns without training, thus:
2. Training will magically make them less likely to shoot someone over a parking space or a copper coil from an air conditioner
3. Training will make them less likely to somehow accidentally shoot someone in a public setting via poor gun handling.

Am I understanding the arguments in favor of permits correctly?

To quote Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have."

Well, I'm going to quote my CCW class instructor on this, he made the point that not having a class as a requirement to voting or free speech has arguably caused far more damage to society then gun violence (as much as I hate the term, violence is violence is violence, but it works here). We don't require a class for free speech or voting because it would put a barrier between citizens and what is supposed to be a right.

So should we really have a barrier between citizens and the right to bear arms?

monotonous_iterancy said:

I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was part of the permiting almost everywhere. In some states, those applying for permits are required to have taken a class regarding legal aspects to carrying.

For instance, like this one. Note a student asking questions and trying to understand that you can't shoot someone over property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNE9TBsRpMc

Click to expand...

I know some states make you jump through all sorts of hoops to be able to carry at all, and I won't argue that there are idiots out there, but it doesn't change my opinion on Constituional Carry.

I will state that I do think that anyone who wants to carry a gun for self defense should take the initive to learn when and where it is applicable, but will always oppose any mandatory requirements for it.

Also missed where you had stated the same thing above my post.

I'm totally cool with whatever restrictions the Founding Fathers thought were appropriate.

4 states require no permit. 5 if you count Wyoming being resident-only.

Click to expand...

In Arizona we started out with concealed carry being prohibited - not by law but the state constitution!

Today we have almost no restrictions, and anyone resident or visitor - who is not a prohibited person and 18 or older can carry either openly or concealed, under most circumstances.

Click to expand...

Last I looked at the Az statutes, permitless concealed carry was only for residents. Does anyone have statutes that show visitors can also carry without a permit?

I'm in the "it IS an infringement to require a permit to exercise a right" camp.

Is CC a good idea? Its really the wrong question. The real question is can it be proved to be a bad idea? If it can't and statistically that seems to be the case, then in the spirit of the constitution it should be the law.

I see an assumption of incompetence requiring eduction and permitting. There is evidence now from multiple states showing this not to be the case. The public does not seem to be generally incompetent to carry firearms.

Click to expand...

Most people are capable of living their lives and handling their affairs without government assistance.

This is a hard pill for some people to swallow.