Perspective on Constitutional Carry Progress (Moved from Legal)

[Will Munny]

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.

Driver licencing in the US is notoriously lax though, other countries have stricter requirements.

I think OP really hit the nail on the head. Despite the self congratulation of us hitting 25 out of 50 states, we actually have permitless carry for well less than half the population.

And a second issue, even if we had 40 states with permitless carry, we have about 10 that for all intents and purposes prohibit even transporting a firearm through them, let alone carrying one. The existence of those 10 or so states makes legal carry on a significant portion of domestic travel impossible. Getting permitless carry in states that were already permissive about it is not a big victory, as it does not solve the real issue.

Alaskans are also screwed by the fact that Canada does not let US residents transport their firearms by road between Alaska and the continuous US, something that our federal government has failed to address even after tragedies have occurred.

 

[armoredman]

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. [Uh, yeah, when I worked at an FFL that was a requirement, and we took into account manner and attitude - sweating profusely, demanding "I need a gun NOW" with wild eyes, yeah, ain't gonna happen, and every reputable FFL I have been to is the same way. ] 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.

Massad Ayoobs excellent pamphlet Gun Proof Your Kids is an excellent solution. As for disarming your relatives - good luck. Some might take it kinda personal.

 

[Craig_AR]

Massad Ayoobs excellent pamphlet Gun Proof Your Kids

A quick web search indicates this 1986 book, also named Massad Ayoob's Handgun Primer, is out of print; when available, used copies are going for about $20 to $40.

 

[DeepSouth]

It has been said “Freedom is Dangerous” if that’s unacceptable to you get prepared for servitude. It seems some here find that trade off undesirable.

I support permit-less carry and I oppose mandated training. Will bad things happen as a result, certainly. will other bad things be prevented, certainly.
.
.
.
To the point of the OP, it goes to show how important state and local elections are. We should all be supportive of state organizations.

 

[230RN]

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.
(Underlining mine)

Let Darwin weed them out, say I.
See https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12499265/

I have done a thought-experiment where anybody, repeat anybody, who wanted could keep and bear arms, particularly firearms.

My thought-experiment's results are that crime would skyrocket for a month or two, with a number of innocents hurt or killed, then it would drop to near-zero. A. because of the Darwinian "Billy The Kid" effect; and B. because a majority of the un-hurt innocents would decide that well, heck, maybe packing a rod is a good idea after all.

I would like to see this experiment implemented in New York City and the Cities of Denver and Aurora Colorado.

OK, OK, I hear a couple of people shouting "Chicago, Chicago!". So Chicago as well.

Terry, Lead Investigator, 230RN

 

[230RN]

I would be against psych tests for gun licenses. Too much potential for abuse.
...

The answer, I think, is self-regulation by the gun community. Dealers, for example, should put aside the profit motive...

(...ahem, cough, cough...)

....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.) ...

Self- contradictory: "I would be against psych tests for gun licenses. Too much potential for abuse. "

And many of us think the Form 4473 is unconstitutional on its face, just as the "enabling" law which generated it is prima facia unconstitutional.

I'm among the "many." Hey, I read and speak English like a native.

Terry, 230RN

 

[AlexanderA]

Self- contradictory: "I would be against psych tests for gun licenses. Too much potential for abuse. "

A seat-of-the-pants assessment by a gun dealer (which is done all the time, btw) is quite different from a government-mandated formal psychological test. And I would venture to say that a seat-of-the-pants once-over by a layman is probably more useful and accurate than a workup by a professional psychologist (who would probably refuse to be caught up in this process anyway). Dealers have to make snap decisions whether to sell a gun, or not. Psychologists spend their careers avoiding snap decisions.

 

[230RN]

Well, you seem to be setting up a comparison between government-mandated psych examinations versus gun-dealers' on the spot evaluations. Thus the dealers' evaluations are better as being less subject to abuse.

The contradiction (or, perhaps better, the intellectual conflict) lies in the fact that both are subject to gross abuse; the former in terms of political abuse, the latter on the basis of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Both are equally unacceptable, hence the contradiction --or "intellectual conflict."

 

[JohnKSa]

My thought-experiment's results are that crime would skyrocket for a month or two, with a number of innocents hurt or killed, then it would drop to near-zero. A. because of the Darwinian "Billy The Kid" effect; and B. because a majority of the un-hurt innocents would decide that well, heck, maybe packing a rod is a good idea after all.

1. There's a constant resupply of idiots--you will never run out.

2. There are huge numbers of people who will never take responsibility for their own safety and who will, in fact, become aggressively angry at anyone who suggests that they should. They will, instead, campaign tirelessly for the government to restrict everyone who they perceive could be a threat to them with no thought at all to the fact that their liberties will also be reduced by such tactics and that the people who ARE actually a threat are mostly unconcerned with government restrictions.

I'm not arguing against Constitutional Carry, I'm just saying the conclusion of the experiment is badly flawed.

 

[AlexanderA]

The contradiction (or, perhaps better, the intellectual conflict) lies in the fact that both are subject to gross abuse; the former in terms of political abuse, the latter on the basis of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Both are equally unacceptable, hence the contradiction --or "intellectual conflict."

The gun dealer has the financial incentive to go ahead and make the sale, so he's not going to deny somebody unjustifiably. (Of course this is balanced by the downsides to him if the buyer ends up committing a crime with the gun.)

The psychologist, on the other hand, has every incentive not to approve a gun buyer. Why would he stake his career on something going wrong? Most, I imagine, would stay away from this gun-buying thing altogether.

Another key difference is that gun dealer scrutiny is voluntary. Any involvement by psychologists would be government-mandated.

 

[JohnKSa]

The gun dealer has the financial incentive to go ahead and make the sale, so he's not going to deny somebody unjustifiably.

People tend to be a bit more complicated than that in real life. I've been in a gun shop and seen a gun dealer make a potential customer feel unwelcome, then make racist comments about the guy after he left the store without making a purchase.

That said, the balance between the desire for profit and the fear of prosecution probably keeps most gun dealers in line as far as not approving people who shouldn't be approved and not denying people who should be approved.

 

[jmorris]

Therefore, over one quarter of the population will never see Constitutional Carry.

Yeah but they live in places that condone and voted for the people that brought them lawlessness. I guess the theory is if your letting people walk the streets that should be locked up, at least don’t arm them.

They don’t really live in reality though, as they are already strict on guns, that’s why only the criminals have guns in those places now…

 

[Ks5shooter]

Does anyone have stats for CCW shootings for self defense. I mean I dont see alot of CCW self defense on the news.So I imagine it would be low.

 

[theotherwaldo]

A state that criminalizes the means of self-defense creates two things: More criminals and more victims.

 

[Craig_AR]

Does anyone have stats for CCW shootings for self defense.

A much more accurate query would be for use of CCW guns for self defense, as opposed to shootings. I recall seeing statements (which I cannot cite at the moment) that a very high number of CCW defensive uses have been the production of the gun resulting in the miscreants changing their actions, with no gunshots needed.

And, of course note recent (this week) news items stating that the CDC actually has stats on this topic but removed them from public view at the insistence of the gun-controller mob.

 

[The Night Rider]

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.

You hung out in the gun store for at least 3 hours and watched all this happen?

IBeing 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.

Are there any other constitutional protected civil liberties that you would attach training requirements to?

Certainly you'll agree that uninformed voters cause more damages to this country than uninformed gun owners.

Does anyone have stats for CCW shootings for self defense. I mean I dont see alot of CCW self defense on the news.So I imagine it would be low.

How much of that is because a lot of concealed carry permit holders tend to be risk adverse?

 

[230RN]

Well, you seem to be setting up a comparison between government-mandated psych examinations versus gun-dealers' on the spot evaluations. Thus the dealers' evaluations are better as being less subject to abuse.

The contradiction (or, perhaps better, the intellectual conflict) lies in the fact that both are subject to gross abuse; the former in terms of political abuse, the latter on the basis of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Both are equally unacceptable, hence the contradiction --or "intellectual conflict."

1. There's a constant resupply of idiots--you will never run out.

2. There are huge numbers of people who will never take responsibility for their own safety and who will, in fact, become aggressively angry at anyone who suggests that they should. They will, instead, campaign tirelessly for the government to restrict everyone who they perceive could be a threat to them with no thought at all to the fact that their liberties will also be reduced by such tactics and that the people who ARE actually a threat are mostly unconcerned with government restrictions.

I'm not arguing against Constitutional Carry, I'm just saying the conclusion of the experiment is badly flawed.

Well, that's the reason for experiments: to test the validity of theories.

While what you say about personality traits may be true, you're missing the thesis of the thought-experiment: That the proposed Darwin/Billy The Kidd effect predicts that all those folks you decry will either be killed off by other folks you decry, or by the now self-defending citizens whom they attempt to violate. The assumption is that whether they are the idiots you describe or careless "regular folks," the Billy The Kid effect will reduce their numbers, viz., the example of the Valentine's Day Massacre and Billy the Kid's killing at age 22.

Witness as well, the street gang violence we are seeing now.

All of which would result in the rise and then drop in violent crime and reducing the "endless supply" by attrition and seeing the results.

However, this was only a thought-experiment and your thought-results differ from mine. I would like to see the experiment performed in the aforesaid locations.

But, we're running off OP's topic here.

Terry, 230RN

 

[JohnKSa]

That the proposed Darwin/Billy The Kidd effect predicts that all those folks you decry will either be killed off by other folks you decry, or by the now self-defending citizens whom they attempt to violate.

You will never kill off all the idiots/criminals--there is a never-ending supply that is constantly being renewed. You will never kill off all the victims either--while society gets excited and upset about the number of innocents killed, the number is always vanishingly small compared to the overall population.

This is not a problem that will solve itself if everyone is merely left alone. You can look around the world and see that in places where everyone is armed and there's no real rule of law--people have to protect themselves, it doesn't get better, it gets worse and when it finally reaches a steady state, it's nothing close to anything any sane person would be happy with--except maybe the warlords that end up in power and their chosen few.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Constitutional Carry will lead to anarchy, I'm merely addressing the thought experiment.

 

[westernrover]

Constitutional Carry is recognized as lawful in 2,343,088.41 square miles of US States. That is about 62% of the total 3,805,943.26 square miles of US States, DC, and US territories. The other 38% are ruled over by despots and tyrants put in place by people who think someone else, other than themselves, should be responsible for their security, but their rulers who don't and can't provide the security continue to enjoy their power for selfish reasons while blaming others for their failure to deliver, and people believe them and agree that it is someone else's fault, because they would rather anything than to be responsible themselves.

 

[usaral63]

You will never kill off all the idiots/criminals--there is a never-ending supply that is constantly being renewed. You will never kill off all the victims either--while society gets excited and upset about the number of innocents killed, the number is always vanishingly small compared to the overall population.

This is not a problem that will solve itself if everyone is merely left alone. You can look around the world and see that in places where everyone is armed and there's no real rule of law--people have to protect themselves, it doesn't get better, it gets worse and when it finally reaches a steady state, it's nothing close to anything any sane person would be happy with--except maybe the warlords that end up in power and their chosen few.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Constitutional Carry will lead to anarchy, I'm merely addressing the thought experiment.

I dunno John, From your perspective then the entire structure of our Constitution is questionable. De Toqueville (sp) commented that what our founders had created was a vessel with all sail and no rudder! Time has most emphatically proven his take wrong. With freedom/liberty/self determination..........whatever you want to call it.........comes risk. If you can't accept that then your bet is to move to a more controlled environment........lotta those in the "old countries" that our ancestors chose to leave for good reason.

Wish I could find the quote I read many, many years back that began with the phrase: "I do not choose to be a 'kept' American"..........the rest escapes me, but it left a profound impact on my thinking!

Choose what you will, I know what route I'll go.

 

[AlexanderA]

Constitutional Carry is recognized as lawful in 2,343,088.41 square miles of US States. That is about 62% of the total 3,805,943.26 square miles of US States, DC, and US territories. The other 38% are ruled over by despots and tyrants put in place by people who think someone else, other than themselves, should be responsible for their security, but their rulers who don't and can't provide the security continue to enjoy their power for selfish reasons while blaming others for their failure to deliver, and people believe them and agree that it is someone else's fault, because they would rather anything than to be responsible themselves.

Vast oversimplification. Here in Virginia, we don't have "constitutional carry," but permitless open carry is legal, and concealed-carry permits are easy to get. Just because someone chooses not to carry, that doesn't mean that they're abdicating their responsibility. We have a Republican governor. Is he a "despot" or "tyrant"? Are all shall-issue states "tyrannies"?

Sounds to me like you would require everyone to carry 24/7, or else be labeled "irresponsible." That would be tyranny too.

 

[JohnKSa]

I dunno John, From your perspective then the entire structure of our Constitution is questionable.

Let's see what I said about my comments and how they should be interpreted.

I'm not arguing against Constitutional Carry, I'm just saying the conclusion of the experiment is badly flawed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Constitutional Carry will lead to anarchy, I'm merely addressing the thought experiment.

Interesting. Seems that I tried to make it quite clear that my comments were addressed to the conclusion of 230RN's thought experiment, they were not a commentary on Constitutional Carry.

To clarify even further, they are also not a commentary on the Constitution in general, but rather observations about human nature and criminal activity.

Time has most emphatically proven his take wrong. With freedom/liberty/self determination..........whatever you want to call it.........comes risk.

Of course it does.

The thought experiment conclusion was that if you just give everyone guns and let them alone that things will get really good because the bad guys will get killed off by the citizens who take responsibility for their own safety. The problem is that there's a never-ending supply of bad guys that is continually replenished and that there's a huge percentage of the population who are not just unwilling to take responsibility for their own safety but who are actually offended by the idea. I'm not arguing against freedom, I'm not criticizing the Constitution, I'm not arguing against Constitutional Carry, I'm not saying that it's possible to eliminate all risk or that trying to is even a good goal, just pointing out that the conclusions of the thought experiment are inconsistent with reality.

 

[westernrover]

Vast oversimplification. Here in Virginia, we don't have "constitutional carry," but permitless open carry is legal, and concealed-carry permits are easy to get. Just because someone chooses not to carry, that doesn't mean that they're abdicating their responsibility. We have a Republican governor. Is he a "despot" or "tyrant"? Are all shall-issue states "tyrannies"?

Sounds to me like you would require everyone to carry 24/7, or else be labeled "irresponsible." That would be tyranny too.

You're making an unjustified inference. It might be because your conscience is aware of your own irresponsibility. Isn't it true that you yourself won't carry a gun, but support those who would being required to first obtain permission from their rulers? It's not your unwillingness to carry that makes you irresponsible. It's your willingness to fall down before the wicked. Carry gun the same for the Nightstand gun | The High Road

 

[Hokkmike]

Education, intelligence, and common sense are all different components. It is not in my pervue to decide the rights of others. Nor, do I expect to have to "earn" my rights by gaining approval of others. Losing a "right" by doing something stupid, i.e, committing a serious crime, is another matter. That is the choice and consequence of the bad actor. My state will never have Constitutional carry until the governor, house, and senate are all elected Republicans. Possible, but not likely in the years I have left.

 

[armoredman]

You hung out in the gun store for at least 3 hours and watched all this happen?

There was a local gun shop in my town that had a couch and a couple of easy chairs set up for the good old boys to hang out and BS.