Is Constitutional Carry a Mistake?

[rcurtner]

Hi,

Lots of great discussion here. If I may, I'll add a couple of my profound glimpses into the obvious.

In a perfect world (or if our country was perfect) there would be absolutely no "infringement" on law-abiding citizens carrying whatever non-military firearm we see fit. Call it Constitutional Carry with total reciprocity across all 50 states, open or concealed.

In a perfect world all responsible gun owners would get proper training and education, just because it's the responsible thing to do.

In a perfect world the felonious violent criminals would not be able to obtain firearms.

In a perfect world there would be no government registry of personal firearm ownership. Responsible owners would keep their own inventory records.

I could go on. But we do not live in a perfect world.

So, I will take "Constitutional Carry" or "Permit-less Carry" either concealed or not. In my state it is legal to open carry without a permit but I've yet to see it in the 2 years I've lived here.

I will take applying for a concealed carry permit because it also allows me to carry in reciprocal states. When I moved here and drove across country I enjoyed reciprocity in all but one state that I had traversed.

I will take the "training" requirements for a CCW permit just because I have to in order to carry. Being a responsible gun owner, I would've sought training anyway. In fact, I continue to train and practice regularly.

Responsibility is the key. All citizens have rights and privileges. It is up to the individual to exercise these rights and privileges responsibly. There are too many forces in the world, in this country, that want to take our freedoms away and make us bow to the will of the state. There are too many people willing to give up their freedoms for the illusion of safety, or for a handout, or for false promises of a utopian society. They've become complacent and blind, accepting the propaganda in the main stream media and from crooked/lazy politicians.

It's up to us to seek and speak truth, the whole truth, no matter how unpopular it may be. Tell a friend.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

Very well said.

 

[BassCliff]

Hi,

Yet again another excuse for an arbitrary standard. I always wonder why people can't see that those who would control us will always find a reason to do so no matter what we do or self-regulate. I know, I know, I know we don't need to give them an excuse, THEY DON'T NEED AN EXCUSE! I also always wonder if they ever give thought that they may not meet someone else's Standard. Then what?

Was Mr. @BTB really speaking to an "arbitrary standard"? It sounds to me like Mr. BTB was calling for responsible owners to take it upon themselves to, if I may borrow the phrase, be the best they can be at firearms handling and usage. I can't say "personal responsibility" enough.

When someone misuses a firearm in a criminal or negligent way, then they have broken the law and should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, when this does occur, it's always the tool that gets blamed and not the person using it, not really.

You are correct, the powers that be don't need any excuse to take away our rights and privileges. We must protect them ourselves. Vote properly. Contact your local, state, and federal politicians. Speak your mind. Thanks for letting me speak mine.



Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

 

[BTB]

Yet again another excuse for an arbitrary standard. I always wonder why people can't see that those who would control us will always find a reason to do so no matter what we do or self-regulate. I know, I know, I know we don't need to give them an excuse, THEY DON'T NEED AN EXCUSE! I also always wonder if they ever give thought that they may not meet someone else's Standard. Then what?

Right, they don't need an excuse - but careless, ignorant, and worse kinds of firearm owners give them reasons every day.

All we can do is be the example, not the excuse. Be respectful of the tool, be responsible, trained, and educated in its use, pass on constructive attitudes towards the 2A, and share what you have learned with those who are genuinely eager to learn at a young age.

 

[Bassbob]

Exercising our constitutional rights come with responsibility, especially since they all exist to protect freedoms from government encroachment. Every one of them.

Social media and media monopoly conglomerates amplify irresponsible exercise of the First Amendment, and as a result, there are forces in both left and right who want to restrict free speech as a result. Similarly, there are people who irresponsibly bear arms. These are the people who don't bother to first understand the power of the tool they carry, who don't bother learning how to properly bear it, and are ignorant of the laws that absolutely must be observed in relation to their use while bearing them. Constitutional Carry is indeed a concept that enables and can amplify irresponsible exercise of a constitutionally protected right - if we as a society don't self-regulate in this respect, we can be sure we will lose the right entirely.

In past times, we all pretty much lived where we grew up. Our neighbors and extended family saw us grow up, got to know us in public and in private, and when certain behavior raised eyebrows, someone said something to the family - or to the youth directly. When certain tendencies were exposed, the family was aware and took responsibility for their loved one - restricting their access to firearms where necessary. It wasn't a 100% perfect system, but it prevented in most cases a lot of heartache. We have lost that today. No one knows their neighbors, and to make an effort to do so is often deemed as intrusive, nosy, or viewed with suspicion. It's hard to see how "ideal" Constitutional Carry can work in today's society.

Uh huh. Let's see the statistics that show this is a problem. People have been carrying guns responsibly around here for longer than my 55 years of life, most with only the training their daddies gave them. It really isn't rocket science. It takes about 15 minutes to google your state laws with regards to use of force. In any respect, the way our constitutional rights work is the same way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. Your constitutional rights are a given. Not given to you by the government, but by the mere fact of your existence. When you use those rights irresponsibly or illegally they can be stripped from you via due process.

 

[Bassbob]

Also, I know for a fact that I personally and I'd venture to say a great many of our members here have more hours of training than a lot of cops do. And I have trained and shot with many, many cops who have almost no clue what the hell they're doing. I have also shot with many, many cops that do, but I digress.

 

[Pdiamond]

KillerFord I can include myself as being trained once while in the military with the POS 38 for our flight vests. We had a one-day training course and then range time. That piece of crap couldn't hit a barn door at five yards let alone a man. You were better off using it as a club. If I ever had to use something I would've removed the M-60 from the aircraft and carried ammo belts.

 

[Jack K]

I 100% support constitutional carry. having said that I also think any law abiding citizen should be able to carry a weapon for their, their family, or others protection, (where are the good guys with a gun in some of our recent mass shootings), however anybody carrying should take the next step for basic training, in carrying, handling, law updates, and obtain a CCW permit. Myself as a retired LEO had firearm training several times a year, and i still train on a regular basis. the bottom line training is the key to being able to perform in a satisfactory manner.

 

[Brawny]

Yes there is. Tyrannical autocratic governments and criminals come to mind. I can think of many others. Perhaps you meant to say that you believe training is what responsible people should pursue? As we speak, members of the US House and Senate are attempting to pass legislation that would make training with a group of 3 or more people a felony. Were you aware of that?

I read that law (I'm not a lawyer). I get the intent of the law, but there are unintended and possibly surreptitious consequences. That said, the law has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a 60% vote in the Senate to pass. Even if it were to somehow pass into law, there are serious constitutional questions about this law. Not so much 2A, but more like 1A (right to gather).

 

[Brawny]

On the topic of the original post.....I live in FL, but maintain my CCW license. That way, as mentioned in the article, when I travel I know I'm covered one way or another...except for red states (on the USCCA map/app). In terms of training, I've seen my share of yahoos purchasing firearms and not knowing what they were doing.

Recently, on two consecutive visits to my range, I was muzzled by other patrons. It was likely inadvertent, but disconcerting nonetheless. In one case, a guy was walking around outside the stall with his rifle pointing around nilly-willy. I signaled the RSO and the guy got quite the talking to. The other time was a group of what looked like newbies, and one woman turned around with her pistol to show it to someone in the group....while it was pointing at me. By the time I found the RSO, it was pointing downrange again, but I asked him to keep an eye on the group. I wasn't taking any chances and packed up and left.

 

[Mr. Untactical]

Hi,

Lots of great discussion here. If I may, I'll add a couple of my profound glimpses into the obvious.

In a perfect world (or if our country was perfect) there would be absolutely no "infringement" on law-abiding citizens carrying whatever non-military firearm we see fit. Call it Constitutional Carry with total reciprocity across all 50 states, open or concealed.

In a perfect world all responsible gun owners would get proper training and education, just because it's the responsible thing to do.

In a perfect world the felonious violent criminals would not be able to obtain firearms.

In a perfect world there would be no government registry of personal firearm ownership. Responsible owners would keep their own inventory records.

I could go on. But we do not live in a perfect world.

So, I will take "Constitutional Carry" or "Permit-less Carry" either concealed or not. In my state it is legal to open carry without a permit but I've yet to see it in the 2 years I've lived here.

I will take applying for a concealed carry permit because it also allows me to carry in reciprocal states. When I moved here and drove across country I enjoyed reciprocity in all but one state that I had traversed.

I will take the "training" requirements for a CCW permit just because I have to in order to carry. Being a responsible gun owner, I would've sought training anyway. In fact, I continue to train and practice regularly.

Responsibility is the key. All citizens have rights and privileges. It is up to the individual to exercise these rights and privileges responsibly. There are too many forces in the world, in this country, that want to take our freedoms away and make us bow to the will of the state. There are too many people willing to give up their freedoms for the illusion of safety, or for a handout, or for false promises of a utopian society. They've become complacent and blind, accepting the propaganda in the main stream media and from crooked/lazy politicians.

It's up to us to seek and speak truth, the whole truth, no matter how unpopular it may be. Tell a friend.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

Thank you for your thoughts, Cliff. I did wonder when I read, "... non-military firearms..." if that included AR-15 style rifles, which so many consider "military" firearms. You may just be saying, folks shouldn't be going about their daily lives with a semi-auto rifle slung across their back and I tend to agree. If things get bad enough that we need to start open carrying long guns, we've got big problems! That said, AR-15s and the like are absolutely covered by the Second Amendment for me to own. Have a great weekend!

 

[Mr. Untactical]

On the topic of the original post.....I live in FL, but maintain my CCW license. That way, as mentioned in the article, when I travel I know I'm covered one way or another...except for red states (on the USCCA map/app). In terms of training, I've seen my share of yahoos purchasing firearms and not knowing what they were doing.

Recently, on two consecutive visits to my range, I was muzzled by other patrons. It was likely inadvertent, but disconcerting nonetheless. In one case, a guy was walking around outside the stall with his rifle pointing around nilly-willy. I signaled the RSO and the guy got quite the talking to. The other time was a group of what looked like newbies, and one woman turned around with her pistol to show it to someone in the group....while it was pointing at me. By the time I found the RSO, it was pointing downrange again, but I asked him to keep an eye on the group. I wasn't taking any chances and packed up and left.

All the more reason we're saving up for some land on which we can establish our own range without concern over who's going to sweep us. Some people treat a firearm range with about the same sense of responsibility as Top Golf.

 

[BigEwon]

Let me offer an Alternative view / title.

"Constitutional Carry Comes with Responsibility of Training, How can the Government (who protects our rights) help?"

Instead of a permitting body, change it to a training body. The Gov't could povide tax rebates (or incentives) to gun owners who seek training at Ranges, Lessons, etc..... Hell, you could allot $25 to $50/month to the 100M gun owners and cost about $30B t0 $60B/year; in the Federal Budget. For a trained Populous, this is a steal!

The key to all Freedoms is responsibility and training. If we offer it, most (no all) will seek it out. The criminals, mentally ill, and irresponsible people may not. However, Good Training / Education always pays dividends and I believe that private industry delivers better than the Public state (who sets the standards)....

$0.02

 

[KillerFord1977]

All the more reason we're saving up for some land on which we can establish our own range without concern over who's going to sweep us. Some people treat a firearm range with about the same sense of responsibility as Top Golf.

You mean its not good manners to shoot at the guy driving around in the caged cart ??

 

[BassCliff]

Hi,

Thank you for your thoughts, Cliff. I did wonder when I read, "... non-military firearms..." if that included AR-15 style rifles, which so many consider "military" firearms. You may just be saying, folks shouldn't be going about their daily lives with a semi-auto rifle slung across their back and I tend to agree. If things get bad enough that we need to start open carrying long guns, we've got big problems! That said, AR-15s and the like are absolutely covered by the Second Amendment for me to own. Have a great weekend!

Pardon me if I was unclear. I do not consider an AR-15 a "military" type armament. I believe the 2A covers all our modern sport and hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns.

I was thinking more along the lines of shoulder mounted weapons and larger. Although the pure, simple wording of the 2A makes me think that the Founding Fathers wouldn't mind me having a few bazookas, Stinger or Javelin missles.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

 

[BassCliff]

Hi,

...As we speak, members of the US House and Senate are attempting to pass legislation that would make training with a group of 3 or more people a felony. Were you aware of that?

Yes, it seems a certain faction of the government wants to discourage what they see as radical right wing paramilitary groups. But the 2A protects a "well trained militia" without any mention of government oversight or control, only that it is "necessary for a free state". Granted, there are some bad players in this world, real terrorist types, but responsible good guys should and need to train. I can't see this legislation passing or passing muster with the SCOTUS. But the world has gotten very weird lately.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

 

[BTB]

Uh huh. Let's see the statistics that show this is a problem. People have been carrying guns responsibly around here for longer than my 55 years of life, most with only the training their daddies gave them. It really isn't rocket science. It takes about 15 minutes to google your state laws with regards to use of force. In any respect, the way our constitutional rights work is the same way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. Your constitutional rights are a given. Not given to you by the government, but by the mere fact of your existence. When you use those rights irresponsibly or illegally they can be stripped from you via due process.

Do you watch the news? Are mass shootings a concern to you? Do you see news reports of gun owners behaving badly (brandishing firearms in situations where it's not required, firing at a person well after they have ceased to be a threat and in at least one case I can name, actually executing a person after they were down) promoted over news of responsible gun owners who are legitimately defending themselves? And do you not see how this impacts legislation and the anti-gun lobby? I do.

There are some people who should not carry a gun, period. But I believe the breakdown in society - the tearing down of the family, social media algorithms that are designed to amplify negative engagement, the reduced emphasis on absolute morality underpinned by spirituality - has led us to ignore danger signs in people we know. "It's not my problem/business," etc - we literally do not love our neighbors enough any more to care whether they are dangerous or not. So while yes, due process should be exercised before denying anyone a constitutional right, the process must be started by someone.

Anyway, I think we are saying the same thing. But before the law reached deep into our personal lives, Americans emphasized and practiced personal responsibility and cared sincerely for their neighbors and family - we need to get back to that.

 

[Bassbob]

Do you watch the news? Are mass shootings a concern to you? Do you see news reports of gun owners behaving badly (brandishing firearms in situations where it's not required, firing at a person well after they have ceased to be a threat and in at least one case I can name, actually executing a person after they were down) promoted over news of responsible gun owners who are legitimately defending themselves? And do you not see how this impacts legislation and the anti-gun lobby? I do.

There are some people who should not carry a gun, period. But I believe the breakdown in society - the tearing down of the family, social media algorithms that are designed to amplify negative engagement, the reduced emphasis on absolute morality underpinned by spirituality - has led us to ignore danger signs in people we know. "It's not my problem/business," etc - we literally do not love our neighbors enough any more to care whether they are dangerous or not. So while yes, due process should be exercised before denying anyone a constitutional right, the process must be started by someone.

Anyway, I think we are saying the same thing. But before the law reached deep into our personal lives, Americans emphasized and practiced personal responsibility and cared sincerely for their neighbors and family - we need to get back to that.

Well none of those people are law abiding citizens are they ? If they were unable to legally get a gun do you think they would just say, " Aw the hell with it, I'll watch a movie instead ?"

Besides, mass shootings and accidental shootings by dumbasses or shootings where people thought they were legal, again because they are dumbasses, are less than 1% of all gun crimes.

And personally I am not cool with giving an inch to dissuade the anti gun lobby from getting their panties in a wad. Because if it wasn't this thing you can bet your life it would be the next thing.

 

[Jfal]

I sure must be missing all the thousands of stories of irresponsible gun carriers shooting up the public accidentally for lack of training. I would have thought the gun hating media would put these stories front and center....but they seem rare to me. Hmmmm.

 

[Bob Henry]

I agree with constitutional carry, we have the right, however if you live in Texas you have seen the signs posted at convenience stores, businesses, etc, that say "The UNLICENSED possession of a firearm on this premises is against the law". I interpret that to mean that you cannot carry on that property without a license, and constitutional carry would not be a defense to prosecution. Just an observation. I have a license, I trained, and I can carry anywhere legal. Think about it when deciding to only go with constitutional carry.

 

[Old Airborne Dog]

Overriding all of the article is the patchwork quilt of gun laws across this country. If you don't want to potentially experience the joys and cost of court time... know before you go.

Here in Montana, I can open carry or carry concealed. Sometimes I do open carry but mostly I do not. In the warm months, a shirt over an OWB holster; occasionally some may see parts of the muzzle - this is Montana, I don't care. Outside of Montana where there is no open carry, then I will very much care and ensure complete concealment.

I do have a CC license - but it is from Washington state were we occasionally go to the eastern parts bird hunting. I don't need that permit with my usual life here in Montana or next door about an hour away in Idaho... but my common sense says having that CC license from WA is a good thing. And the Washington CC license is accepted in all but the most draconian states that allow CC - Montana's isn't.

Do I believe the author that having that Washington CC permit will magically get LEOs to cut me some slack? No, I do not. Not more than they're going to cut me slack because my license plates show I'm a paratrooper veteran. Might get me a nice parking spot close to the front doors of some businesses that they reserve for veterans, but that's about it.

I spent 40 years divided between street policing and jumping out of airplanes for a living. I was assigned as a small arms trainer and RSO most of that time in both uniforms. And like mostothers like me, that happened because those running the circus knew I enjoyed shooting, didn't cry about teaching, and did a good job of teaching and training my brothers and sisters in uniform.

That said, I am not impressed when anyone starts lauding military/police training as somehow or better than a lifetime civilian who never spent the money on a CC style course when that was not required, or before open carrying.

Like most in my position, I could probably write a book on the stupid, dangerous, and completely irrational things I have seen trained LEOs and military do in my view, on and off the range and at work with fangs out due to a threat. Two of them had negligent discharges that came close to hitting me. That has yet to happen to me at any public range I have gone to. Of course they happen at those ranges - but they happened to me while in uniform, not at a public range.

In short, a LOT of assumptions are being made here and there, as well as a lot of attempting to use the exceptions to prove the rule. Including what seems to be an assumption that if a person is in the military or police, their training is good and they are current in that training. There are many situations where the training is weak and they rarely are required to go to the range. The only certainty for those armed and in uniform is that when their job definitely requires them to go into harms way in places that are known to be dangerous, the required level of training and currency on training goes up for both police and the military.

In general, the gun carrying law abiding public is responsible and no more likely to negligently or deliberately harm an innocent person with a firearm than the cop or military person you could be working beside the rest of the time.

If that gun carrying law abiding law abiding gun owning public had the same rate of carelessly/criminally injuring and killing others as Americans do exercising their driver's license rather than Second Amendment, the indifference to mandatory training we show for driving would disappear to have mandatory firearms training as fast as politicians could make that happen.

I am pretty enthusiastic about self-initiated voluntary firearms training for myself and for others. Why would you NOT want to do something that is fun like shooting? Why would you NOT want to train; I assume the reason you carry is because you believe you may have to use that gun to defend your life?

That said, I would love to see governments offer inducements to obtain meaningful quality training/qualification and would adamantly oppose any government requirement for training before exercising ANY constitutional right.