Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[DeepSouth]

is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

No that’s not a good idea. However, “the government” (whoever that is) deciding what criteria is mandated is a worse idea, imo.

In short is it a good idea? No.
Should it be illegal, and therefore a crime punishable by whatever means the government determines? Absolutely not!

Sometimes, risk is the cost of freedom

That is the answer, Liberty is dangerous.


At least that’s my 2¢

ETA: Your question can, and has been, asked of the second amendment itself, so be careful where the logic can lead.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

WisBorn said: "↑.I went through hunter safety...I took boater safety...I took drivers education...."

While I strongly recommend gun safety training and for self-defenders learning the law, there are folks who believe that guns are unsafe in private hands so their "gun safety" proposals are more about suppressing [legal] guns than about promoting safety.

 

[Archie]

In general, life is dangerous. One can carefully step off a curb, encounter an unseen slick spot and break one's neck or shatter one's skull. Just watch a couple You Tube videos for all the dangers polite society in traffic presents, let alone those on various chemicals.

Yes it is somewhat hazardous to life and limb living a life of freedom - even freedom with certain limits.

However, providing any government with the ability to disarm the population is a sure path to slavery. Doesn't matter what faction is in power.
I'm for taking my chances with relative freedom to be armed. (Convicted violent criminals and the medically certified mentally unstable perhaps limited.)

 

[jdc1244]

1st don't shoot the messenger.

I have been a 4H shooting instructor, range RSO, and have taught many new shooters and gun owners gun safety.
In doing so I have had to correct bad habits and teach what most of us would consider common sense. I have also completed CCW requirements for 4 different states.

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

I went through hunter safety even though I followed my Dad starting at six.
I took boater safety even though I fished in one for longer than I can remember.
I started driving a car/pickup when I was 12. If somebody needed help I had tobe able to get to help. But I took drivers education at 16 and and had to test for a license.

I believe anyone that lawfully can own a gun should be allowed to buy one, but don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe also. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

My opinion, it’s not so much about the training as it is the benefits of possessing a concealed weapon license.

In Florida, for example, license holders are exempt from the three-day wait when buying a gun from an FFL.

License holders are also afforded protections by law with regard to possession of a gun on private property and employers hostile to employees who carry guns.

I’ll continue to renew my concealed weapon license although no longer required to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Elkins45]

And I think you're being overly authoritarian and awfully free with my tax dollars.

Why should you be taking my tax dollars to pay for it on an involuntary basis? If you think it's that important start a Gofund me.

These training materials already exist. It would cost exactly $0 to post them to the state website. Your objection is therefore invalid.

 

[21H40]

1st don't shoot the messenger.

How dare you question this decade's preferred RKBA fundraising cause!

There is a difference between "good ideas" and "necessary risks" and I think allowing people to own and carry a firearm counts as a necessary risk. There is too much history in America of using things like permits or skills tests to disrupt the freedoms of minorities already. I have no hopes that anything like a national permit would be different.

I wish there was a more general training for everyone that just promoted the "Don't be an jerk on purpose" way of life. Ask yourself, is shooting at a car of teenagers something an jerk would do? Maybe don't do that. Angry at your neighbor? Is there an alternative to shooting him in the head?

I know that it is too much to dream, but so many issues would be solved if people just tried to do the non-jerk thing once in a while.

 

[lead-inspector]

Well there is one point I would make about your statement. We don't have the right to be safe. We do have the right to protect ourselves. I strongly advocate pressuring people to seek training in a friendly manner. I do not advocate forcing it on people.

In another Idea, as much as I dislike the bloated government spending, and well ect...since it's such an epidemic anyway why not incentivise training? If a customer looking to buy a firearm can provide proof of a safety course taken or a coupon given to them in exchange for completing the free safety course, FFLs give them a discount on a firearm purchase, and can send in the coupon and get reimbursed for the discount given by the general public safety fund.

THAT is a VERY good idea!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

To coin a phrase from a favorite YouTube channel:

"Freedom is scary. Deal with it."

The problem with "...not everybody should..." is that there's ALWAYS someone willing to expand the list of those that "shouldn't" until it becomes an outright prohibition. Prohibition, of course, which coincidentally does not include those in power.

Either people are responsible...or they're not. Until they DEMONSTRATE they're not responsible, they have nothing to be held accountable for.

I'm seeing FAR more damage being done these days in the name of "freedom of speech", and yet here we are.

 

[The Night Rider]

These training materials already exist. It would cost exactly $0 to post them to the state website. Your objection is therefore invalid.

You'd have to pay somebody to do it, my tax dollars at work

 

[AlexanderA]

That opinion is like the anti-gun politicians in NY (for example) that try to make it where lawful people can't carry but criminals will anyway.
Need? That may or may not ever happen. You don't "need" the handgun until somebody(s) decides to attack with potentially lethal force.
I want to be able to defend myself if attacked by criminals or a psycho is all the "need" that is "needed".
Thank God I live where I don't have to prove a "need" to exercise my right to carry a handgun for self defense.

I said that I'm in favor of the right to carry. I also said that too many people (possibly without suitable training or temperament) are carrying, and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat. These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns. Yes, I understand the need for personal self defense. I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this.

Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely. This is how backlashes work. Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

 

[Kleanbore]

also said that too many people .... are carrying,

How would you know how many people are carrying? I know a lot of people with carry permits, but only a couple of them carry.

I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat.

Come now! If one knows of a "specific identifiable threat", one should stay away from it. The gun is not the answer.

These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns.

What does that mean? I "restrain" myself, but I do carry.

I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this....Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely.

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. There are criminal acts involving guns almost every day in each of the major cities, and they do not involve lawful carry.

 

[Elkins45]

You'd have to pay somebody to do it, my tax dollars at work

That position (webmaster) already exists and that person is already being paid.

You’re just engaging in virtue signaling at this point: “Look how conservative I am, this is how much I hate the government.”

 

[Stefan A]

I've thought about this a lot. On one hand, there's nothing in 2A that says anything about training. Every time I hear another state has adopted Constitutional Carry, I celebrate that fact. I think people absolutely have the right to carry a firearm in public if they wish. On the other hand, carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. You can be a danger to yourself or others if you don't know what you're doing. Not only gun handling, but knowing the law. I've decided that I think people ought to take a training class. I am not going to argue against CC and I actually hope more states get it. But I won't complain against a reasonable training requirement.

 

[Elkins45]

Either Vermont or New Hampshire (can’t remember) has had permitless carry for years. Were they statistically more dangerous than places that didn’t?

 

[Poper]

You’ve never met people who run their mouths about shooting car thieves or trespassers?

Of course. But, to date, every single one of them was a blowhard bag of gas.

I live in a major metro area of AZ. I have a gun with me wherever I go and have had for many years. I have never had need of it, but it is a comforting thing to know it is with me in the event it is truly needed.

 

[wayneinFL]

1st don't shoot the messenger.

I have been a 4H shooting instructor, range RSO, and have taught many new shooters and gun owners gun safety.
In doing so I have had to correct bad habits and teach what most of us would consider common sense. I have also completed CCW requirements for 4 different states.

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

I went through hunter safety even though I followed my Dad starting at six.
I took boater safety even though I fished in one for longer than I can remember.
I started driving a car/pickup when I was 12. If somebody needed help I had tobe able to get to help. But I took drivers education at 16 and and had to test for a license.

I believe anyone that lawfully can own a gun should be allowed to buy one, but don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe also. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

Since at least the 50s anyone in Florida could go to the store, buy a gun and carry it in the glovebox, at their home, or at their business. Do you think that's a good idea?

I don't know. But I do know that statistically, the guy who gets a gun for the first time, loads it, and puts in his glovebox without even reading the owners manual is far, far more likely to hit me with his licensed, registered, and insured vehicle than shoot me with his gun. I see a licensed driver every day sitting outside his registered bent up car on the interstate, but never seen one shoot somebody.

All the training requirements in the world don't make an idiot safe. Anyone who isn't an idiot is going to seek training, and probably would have been safe anyway.

"Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?"

Yes.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

No.

You can do that if you like, however.

The reason I carry is for when the unexpected happens. If I could see it coming I would be somewhere else.

 

[Hokkmike]

I believe anyone that lawfully can own a gun should be allowed to buy one, but don't the rest of the people have a right to be safe also. Is a simple gun safety test to much to ask?

Just a thought....

What kind of test do you propose for voting? After all some people there are terribly misinformed and confused. What about the practice of religion? Should one be forced to comply with some sort of reasonable standards? Lots of weirdo beliefs out there. Free speech - shouldn't that be monitored as well? In the case of gun ownership what standards do you seek and who would administer the test and give the OK? The little lady in office that I know down the street who hates the NRA because all guns are evil? The judge that believes that AR-15s spray and spray bullets in an unending stream. A right, is a right, is a right - put conditions on it and it is NOT.

 

[Hokkmike]

No.

You can do that if you like, however.

The reason I carry is for when the unexpected happens. If I could see it coming I would be somewhere else.

Right you are Corporal. The BAD guy picks the time and the place. We don't.

 

[JohnKSa]

Constitutional Carry is a good thing.

Are there people out there who abuse good things? Always.

 

[tws3b2]

I said that I'm in favor of the right to carry. I also said that too many people (possibly without suitable training or temperament) are carrying, and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat. These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns. Yes, I understand the need for personal self defense. I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this.

Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely. This is how backlashes work. Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

How do you know When there is a "specific threat"? Do you get a letter?, advertised on tv?, posted on the bulletin board?
"Identifiable". How do you Identify? A sign? ID? Color of shoes? If you can't identity before hand does that mean there is no threat?
So, You don't know about that dope head hiding in the bushes, about to jump out and cut your throat for the change in your pocket. Or, that freak hiding outside your bedroom window waiting for you to go to bed to break in to do their will? You don't know so everything must be good.
You must live in a wonder wonder land not of this world.

 

[The Night Rider]

Either Vermont or New Hampshire (can’t remember) has had permitless carry for years. Were they statistically more dangerous than places that didn’t?

Vermont has never required a permit to carry a firearm.

 

[wayneinFL]

On balance, "constitutional carry" is a good idea. That's mainly because the database of license holders can be used in improper ways -- such as harassing minorities at

I said that I'm in favor of the right to carry. I also said that too many people (possibly without suitable training or temperament) are carrying, and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat. These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns. Yes, I understand the need for personal self defense. I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this.

Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely. This is how backlashes work. Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

First off, every time I have had a specific identifiable threat present itself, it did not give me warning before I left my house. If there was a specific identifiable threat when I left for work that day, I would have called in sick.

You think responsible people should keep their guns at home so that they won't do irresponsible things while they're carrying? Read your post out loud a few times and listen to it in your own voice so that you can fully understand that statement and why it won't work.

 

[sparkyv]

Spoken like a true liberal...more government and no personal responsibility.

Yeah!

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to fight fires. Every person is responsible for their home safety. If the don't want their home to burn down then they should protect it adequately.

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to fund police. Every person is responsible for their own safety. If they want protection then they should arm themselves.

We shouldn't have to spend taxes to build public roads. Every person is responsible getting where they wish to go. If they want easy transportation then let them build their own roads.

 

[AlexanderA]

The people in my social circle would ostracize anyone who was known to carry a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I think this attitude is quite common in northern Virginia. (One of the wealthiest areas in the country, btw.)