Should Constitutional Carry (Permitless CC & OC) Be Extended to All 50 States?

Strange...

I was under the impression that it would be the other way round; repealing the laws that are in effect in many states in order to allow unlicensed carry...

You don't make a law to allow something...You repeal laws barring things...

Scotus would have nothing to rule on as there would be no 'law' on the books...

 

Amendments apply to all of the states. Somewhere along the way we have lost our way in this country. The founding fathers of our great country made the rules fairly easy to understand. What part of "the right to keep and bear arms" is hard to understand. Given you are a law abiding person!

 

I want to see concealed carry in all states because it IS constitutional despite what some men in robes said a long time ago when they gave the okey dokey to restricting how you carry your gun. My problem is I don't trust the federal government to not try to heavily restrict carrying laws once they get them all under their umbrella. Just like the new internet control regulations. What might seem like a good idea (making sure ISP's don't limit access to sites) can lead to total control of everything on the net including the right to post opinions and everything else. This government operates like the Bolsheviks on steroids anyway. They never met a control they didn't embrace. And if they gain control over all carrying laws they WILL abuse that power. They always have. They have tried to do it even more. Right now it requires an act of congress to create new laws but with federal control all that would be needed would be for the president to sign a regulation into "law" then swear it isn't a law and we spend 20 years in court trying to stop it. Meanwhile our lives go by without our precious rights.

What I see is that the states are doing a bang up job of things right now. Yes there are the exceptions but I love my state and the states surrounding it. I can live most of my life without worrying one bit about CCW laws. With the feds involved I strongly suspect that will change. Sure they may give us a great big present with a bow and everything (nationwide CCW) and down at the bottom of the box you'll find a little note that says, "Oh BTW we can change anything about this present any time we want and there ain't jack do do you can do about it."

I hope the feds stay OUT of the concealed carry issue. It was the states that saw to it we got our rights back. I'd hate to see them get lost again. Why rock the boat when everything is going our way (almost everything anyway)? If someone had told me 30 years ago that almost every state would have CCW that was actually obtainable and that I would have already had my permit for almost 8 years I would have laughed for a week. Now look. It was the states that did that. The feds have tried and tried to take guns away from us.

Lawyers have a way of convoluting everything anyone can say. That's what scares me.

 

Do a little research on negligent discharge injuries and deaths in states that require training to get a concealed carry permit vs those that don't. You'll find there's not much difference. I'm 100% for people getting good training (I train them myself, I'm an NRA certified pistol instructor), but the reality is that it doesn't reduce overall negligent discharge rates and it is an infringement to require it. Infringe is a not a complicated word. It pretty much means "to make inconvenient". Firearms training is like voting. Do I think people should be informed before voting? Of course. Do I think they should have to take a certain amount of training or reading or study, etc. to vote? No. It's the same with weapon rights.

 

Required training = ANTI-GUN. That's the bottom line. A few hours of training means little to nothing and is simply there as a barrier like any other anti-gun measure.

 

I know I'm swimming against the tide here but there are advantages to permits. Every now and then I come across an armed person in the course of my law enforcement duties. In these cases I love the permit system. A quick glance at a permit and the subject and I can go our separate ways instantly. No permit would mean disarm, detain, ID, and verify - way more hassle than either of us wants. I am all for firearm rights but until we can tattoo the bad guys to make them easy to ID we have to have a way to make the verifiable good guys stand out from the crowd and a permit is the only way I know of to do that. I guess that, ideally, we should offer permits as an option but not require them, as some states already do. As far as "Constitutional" carry, no state has that. The states that allow unlicensed carry still have places that are off limits to armed persons and those restrictions are not Constitutionally permissible.

 

You can quit your job then.

No one is forcing you to do it.


Edit.*

I see your in PRNJ

Makes more sense to me now about your paranoia.

 

I must have missed something here - why would I quit and where are you imagining paranoia?

 

Permit seems to just be a money making thing here... I doubt the guy that broke into my neighbor's house applied for his carry permit. I imagine his drug dealer did not either.

 

No. Put all your eggs in one basket and the feds would have no trouble grabbing it and turning it into scrambled eggs.

Also, Arkansas is not a constitutional carry state, regardless how many trumpet it is.

 

You shouldn't be questioning folks who are carrying anyways. What's the RAS?
At least on the good side of the river you or other LEO can't stop and ID me simply because I have a gun. Thank god for free america. Where mere possession of a gun is not cause for investigation.


Everything you posted is exactly what is wrong with NJ.

 

That's why I made this disclaimer in the OP. Seems to be an Attorney General opinion problem, according to Arkansas poster Spats McGee awhile back.

 

Wow. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Where's your reasonable suspicion? This sort of attitude is one of the biggest problems in American law enforcement today. Police commit crime at around the same rate per capita on average as the rest of the population. Do you disarm and detain each other if you see each other armed? Are you aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for a citizen to use deadly force to resist unlawful arrest? I'm glad once again that I don't live in a communist, police state like Cuba or New Jersey.

 

Why would it mean any of those things if they are not breaking the law?

 

I would not want it extended to all fifty states.

However, I'd like to see it adopted by all fifty states.

 

I guess I haven't explained things well enough. I forget that most of you live in a much freer environment. I can't wait to live there myself!



"You shouldn't be questioning folks who are carrying anyways. What's the RAS?"


When we get a complaint we are required to investigate. That is what we get paid for. RAS is easy in NJ because mere possession is (almost always) a crime. (I don't like it either but that's what we have to deal with.) Among nearly 8 million citizens there are less than 2000 active carry permits and most of those are severely restricted. For instance, most permits issued to security guards are restricted to when they are actually on duty. The one citizen in my town who has one works in NY city and his permit is only valid for travelling from his home to his job. I haven't actually seen it but I'm told it even specifies the route he must take to get there. Only politicians and the rich and famous get unrestricted permits. NJ does not honor any out-of-state permits so the odds that the person I'm checking has a NJ permit is less than 1 in 4000 or 0.025 percent. The odds that he has a NJ permit that is valid - at that moment (due to permit restrictions) - is about one third of that. Most of those that I've checked (about 100 in the past 30 years) were either other cops (about half) or people who were unaware of our (admittedly unConstitutional) laws and were sent on thier way after unloading their guns and securing them in the trunk of their cars.




"Wow. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Where's your reasonable suspicion? "

See above. NJ is a fairly unique situation but you are correct that in most of the country some reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing would be required for a stop to be legal and legit.




"This sort of attitude is one of the biggest problems in American law enforcement today. "

Actually there is no attitude problem here although I can understand how you get that impression listening to all the politically appointed talking head type big city police chiefs. I am probably more pro-gun and pro-freedom than anyone else here and most cops are the same. True, in some areas cops are indoctrinated to be very anti-gun, including many of my coworkers but I find that, on a nationwide basis, those guys are in the minority. In my experience the less a cop knows about guns the more elitist he is about them. One of my coworkers once refused to sign one of the many pro-gun petitions that I had circulated, saying that citizens couldn't be trusted with firearms because of thier lack of training. I was unable to convince him of the errors in his thinking. This guy had well over 20 years on the job, hadn't had a drop of training after leaving the academy, and was only barely able to pass his yearly qualifications. By contrast, by age 12, my children had more training than he ever did, could outshoot him, and knew more about guns than he ever would. Most of us who have substantial expertise are, in my experience, overwhelmingly pro-gun.




"Police commit crime at around the same rate per capita on average as the rest of the population."
Unfortunately true.




"I would not want it extended to all fifty states. However, I'd like to see it adopted by all fifty states. "


I understand the reluctance to let the feds get involved but a citizen has the right to travel without being harassed about their self defense choices. I haven't read the actual wording of the bill but I think you guys are wrong in looking at this case as one where the feds are "taking control". I'm looking at this as a case of the feds doing their primary job of enforcing the Constitution!



Many of you have missed the point of my original post - that a permit saves a lot of time by letting me know that you have already been checked out and are a verified good guy and that I don't need to duplicate that work. As I said, perhaps making the permits optional instead of required would be an acceptable solution. I understand that AZ has already done this and VT, which doesn't require permits, is considering issuing them so that it's residents can take advantage of carrying in reciprocal states.

 

I haven't voted, and don't plan to, but I agree with MedWheeler:

 

c1ogden, thank you for that extended reply. You sound like a decent man doing a tough job in a most difficult state..

Being from Ridgewood originally, I can understand.

 

I voted YES ,

the states should have never had the right to infringe on our rights in the first place , 2nd Amendment is a Fed thing, NOT a state thing .

 

I've already explained in 2 posts (now 3) that I want it done by State Legislature action. But the semantics continue unabated. There are over 200 votes. Most folks seemed to have no trouble comprehending the gist from the get go. Yeah,really! And Cam, you're a Professor!

You two remind me of the famous GlockTalk thread (still running), " I didn't read the thread but I wanted to comment anyway!"

Short rant over. I appreciate all the time everyone has put in to participate in this thread.

 

Actually, reaonable suspicion of wrongdoing is required in all of the country. The problem is that in some places, government officials have violated their oath to defend the Constitution and have passed laws that are in direct opposition to it and other government officials have violated their oath by enforcing those laws. If either of those sets of officials stopped violating their oaths this would not be an issue.

I get that impression primarily from things the police have done, only a small part is things big city police chiefs have said.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. You sound like a decent guy and I don't want to derail this thread so I'm not going to draw this particular rabbit trail out any further. Hope that move to a free state can become a reality for you soon!

 

Yes, because shall not be infringed.

If someone isn't trustworthy enough to have a gun, they are not trustworthy enough to be in public.

 

c1ogden, imagine doing that job in Vermont.

You'd be obligated to respond to a MWAG gun call. Let's say you do, and the complainant meets you outside the hardware store, and points out the man inside with a holstered pistol on his side.

You'd smile, tell the complainant (who's visiting from NJ, by the way) that "Yep, sure looks like he's got a gun to me! Have a good day, sir, and enjoy your stay!"

That would be a stark contrast to doing your job in the difficult way your state requires it, huh?

 

I think he will agree and look forward to a sunny retirement career in Arizona or Florida.

Whatever, my best wishes to him after over 30 years running the gauntlet in the Garden State!

 

I voted yes but technically it doesn't need to be implemented, rather exercised. The right exists. Given by God. Secured in the Constitution. Written in English. Requiring no interpretation.