Is Constitutional Carry a good idea?

JRH6856 said:

What kind of government do your want? One that recognizes and respects the rights of the individual and exists to serve those rights, or one that sees the individual as a member of a greater whole with rights (really privileges) granted by government to enable the individual to serve the needs of the greater good?

Those that want the former tend to support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Those that want the latter tend to (correctly) see an armed populace as a threat to government which must be controlled or ideally eliminated.

Click to expand...

This is one of the more intelligent post I have seen on this site for some time.
And it rather cuts to the heart of gun control, free speech, religious freedom, and the rest of the freedoms and rights we were promised in our Constitution.

It also tends to separate the sheep from the goats. Think about it.

By the way, put me down as a firm believer that my rights were granted to me by my Creator, not provisionally granted as a privilege by my Progressive Lords and Masters.

Since four States, (five if you count Wyoming) already allow Constitutional Carry, with no bad results, it seems obvious that other States ought to follow suit.

Since four States, (five if you count Wyoming) already allow Constitutional Carry, with no bad results, it seems obvious that other States ought to follow suit.

Click to expand...

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (which recognizes the constitutional right to carry of non-residents) all have relatively low population density. This may or may not be a factor in the lack of bad results, but it will continue to be argued and should be objectively evaluated.

Yes JR, here is a link to the Bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1908is/pdf/BILLS-113s1908is.pdf
Being what we no longer can teach our kids any of the things that we grew up learning Mr Lee, Hell will freeze over before they start teaching gun safety classes or anything else that should be taught in the Public Schools, "especially pro gun", as long as the current administration is in power. If you have kids or grandkids you know that most of what was taught in History and Social Studies, in the 50's- 70's, has been changed and altered, "the history books re written" to reflect the ideals of those in control. From the Star Spangled Banner, to Who Discovered America.
The laws need to be changed first. Having a Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity act, in place would be a start in the right direction.

You would think that as concerned with child safety as they claim to be that they would teach children safety habits. They teach sex ed, why not gun safety? It's not advocating the belief so much as preparing them for the event should they stumble upon it.

For what its worth, I'm 25 so I still have a good idea of my school age years and had things like this been taught at my school we all would have been straight A students because most of us grew up with or near guns, (very rural area).
Some schools in the area teach archery in physical education around here and offer bass fishing teams, it seems logical to offer gun safety.
I'm a but of a dreamer though, lol.

But common sense isn't so common, is it?

Click to expand...

No, but that does not mean the government should then assume the role of filling in that gap. Folks seem to get all worked up over the danger of guns in the hands of idiots, yet I rarely hear anyone likewise leery of those same idiots owning flammable liquids, chainsaws, heavy objects, sharp pointy things, caustic pool chemicals, whatever.

The world is full of dangerous objects. People should not be regulated out of owning them, they should simply take responsibility for and be held accountable for their actions.

Is training a good idea for someone carrying a firearm? You bet. Should big daddy legislate it? Lord no. That is a can of worms without end, and we are right smack dab in the middle of the night-crawlers already.

Bottom line, I do not need their permission, or the necessity of qualifying for, the free exercise of my rights.

I think gun safety and usage being taught in school is a very good idea. Much of the anti-gun push would be gone if the anti-gun people had any experience or knowledge of guns and their usage. Most of the antigun groups are made up of people that only get their information from TV. If you knew nothing about guns, what would you think when you see the new CA senate leader talking about "ghost guns" with a backdrop of police with those serious expressions. Of course, most of what was said was just non-sense "30 caliber clip magazine" and 30 rounds in 1/2 second. (3600 rounds a minute, sure)

Is "Constitutional Carry" a good idea? YES!

Tcruse said:

I think gun safety and usage being taught in school is a very good idea.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it would be government "approved" training. It would be "all guns are dangerous and don't ever touch one."

Well...it COULD be that. Then again, there are many places where guns are still welcomed in schools for educational and sporting purposes, and they most certainly don't stick to a "don't touch!" line.

As a region-by-region thing, yeah, you'd probably get some of that. Maybe a lot. But remember, they teach hunters ed in a lot of schools, so this isn't entirely without precident.

When I was in school in central PA in the mid-90's, passing a hunter's safety course was part of the curriculum of my sixth-grade science class. Two whole days were set aside for it.
I'd already passed one the summer before, so I ended up with two certification cards.

Not a bad idea really.

Of course it is. What a strange question.

Reply

Being what we no longer can teach our kids any of the things that we grew up learning Mr Lee, Hell will freeze over before they start teaching gun safety classes or anything else that should be taught in the Public Schools, "especially pro gun", as long as the current administration is in power. If you have kids or grandkids you know that most of what was taught in History and Social Studies, in the 50's- 70's, has been changed and altered, "the history books re written" to reflect the ideals of those in control. From the Star Spangled Banner, to Who Discovered America.


As a high school social studies teacher I have a lot of say about what is taught in my classroom. As far as altered history, that is often because new evidence has shed new light on it. As much as an influence as I may be on my students; parents, friends, and other influences have a very large influence on their world view. It is that world view that will be the lenses that they look through when it comes to issues like the 2a

History isn't always intentionally altered. Any author cannot help but frame past events in the lens of the world he or she lives in. No matter what the subject, when we look back at history, we cannot escape our own world view. It's always been that way.

This is how rights are converted to 'privileges'.

The right to keep & bear arms is already Constitutional.

And those who mis-use any object are responsible and will pay the cost of doing so.
Those who benefit from/live off the nanny state, do all they can to keep people thinking as dependent children.

BTW - I don't go to unsafe gun ranges & I let the owners know why.

When examining the Constitution, I believe that the fundamental argument is not based on facts or fiction but on desire. One side desires less government intrusion, the other desires more. Those that desire government intrusion want to be told how to live their lives and to be taken care of from cradle to grave, thus they don't want others to have the ability to obstruct their "Pursuit of Happiness" which consists of not having to think for themselves. This, IMO, is the core of the problem and not any one particular so called right. These people, are adamant that their right to not have to take themselves seriously supersedes (?) any other right, particularly the thought that they should in any way be obligated to defend themselves. If we fight to defend ourselves this could obligate these lazy cretins to also be obligated to defend themselves and this is intolerable to them, hence the fight to make government bigger and more integrated in our lives. This is what the damn ACA is all about, intrusion into our lives, micro-managing our lives to the point that we no longer have rights. Our fight is not so much with government but with these cretins who would cancel your rights in order that they don't have to make their own decisions.
The second problem is the astronomical non-voting gun owners that I personally know. These people scream about their rights being taken away yet never vote.

Not sure if this was posted here. Found it on another forum. Great read:

A Nation of Cowards

It's always been here

To me Constitutional Carry has been with us since the Bill of Rights was penned via 2A. Permits are a ruse, another hoop to jump through with a tax attached.
JMHO.

Point 1. Every state gets their brain wrapped around issuing a concealed carry permit. It is still 'the government' being benevolent, until comes the day when it changes it's mind, without regards as to who voted for whom.
Point 2. The federal government, who is 'supposed' to be the defender of The Bill of Rights, gets it's corporate brain wrapped around every American carrying a concealed firearm, until it is no longer, "in the best interests of the federal government, rights be darned".
Point 3. It is the right of every American to defend their own life from those that would be in action of physically harming that American's life, whether manjack, dame, or sprout.
Point 4. It is the sole and singular responsibility of every American, who chooses to carry a firearm, to seek any kind of available schooling, training, classes, or seminars, that they are able to obtain, with a part of that on an actual firing range, with a range officer present.
Point 5. What should any American do, when it is the government attempting to stop Americans from protecting their own lives?

SFsc616171 said:

Point 1. Every state gets their brain wrapped around issuing a concealed carry permit. It is still 'the government' being benevolent, until comes the day when it changes it's mind, without regards as to who voted for whom.
Point 2. The federal government, who is 'supposed' to be the defender of The Bill of Rights, gets it's corporate brain wrapped around every American carrying a concealed firearm, until it is no longer, "in the best interests of the federal government, rights be darned".
Point 3. It is the right of every American to defend their own life from those that would be in action of physically harming that American's life, whether manjack, dame, or sprout.
Point 4. It is the sole and singular responsibility of every American, who chooses to carry a firearm, to seek any kind of available schooling, training, classes, or seminars, that they are able to obtain, with a part of that on an actual firing range, with a range officer present.
Point 5. What should any American do, when it is the government attempting to stop Americans from protecting their own lives?

Click to expand...

Point 2: Originally, it was the state legislatures that were supposed to be the "defenders of the Bill of Rights." The 14th Amendment shifted that responsibility to the Federal government where it was assumed by the Federal courts.

Point 4: It is the responsibility of everyone who chooses to carry a firearm to be proficient with it. Any attempt to stipulate as to how that proficiency is attained risks possible infringement on the exercise of the right.

Point 5: You asked a question. What is your point?

Yes, Constitutional Carry is a good idea.

Would you trust some of the people at public ranges to have a CCW, and only a vague notion of the legal aspects of it?

Click to expand...

Hopefully (when Satan starts lacing up his ice skates), there will be at least as much concern with providing some schooling on this as there is for driver's education.

Together with a justice system which uniformly applies penalties for misuse of a weapon, and maybe the public perception can be shifted from "guns are bad" to "criminals are bad, and criminals with guns are worse."

But neither of these correcting factors is likely to occur overnight. So, less infringement of a right is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps the perception thing can be dragged along to agree with these rights.

I'm late to this party but here is my take on it:

Yes, carry (bearing) of arms is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is unjust and immoral to require any testing to exercise a right. We have Constitutional Carry here in Arizona and no uptick in shootings/negligent discharges. That said, it is desirable to encourage people to get training. That's why I believe that the cost of training courses should be tax deductible and gun safety needs to be mandatory in K-12. That's the part where people will complain but it's easy enough to turn leftist "logic" back on them: "If it saves just one life..." "What? You don't want our kids to be safe?" "It's for the children...."

Yes! For constitutional carry! A right! Not a privilege!

Well some will argue that having to purchase a photo ID to vote is a poll tax and therefore illegal, but having to purchase a license to exercise the right to keep and bear is not going far enough to keep the world safe.
I'm sure I'm missing something. I must be too stupid to see that logic.

You really have to be careful when you elect to give the government the power to grant you a license for anything. The same way they gave it, is the same way they can take it away.

Basically, any law-abiding citizen whose past behaviour has not placed them in a prohibited class (ie. felon, mentally unstable, addictive drug use, etc.) should be able to own and carry firearms with no restrictions. I don't know why licenses or permits of any kand need to be issued or carried except to turn a guaranteed right into a granted privilege.

Since instant BG checks are supposedly no burden and quickely done, LEOs should be able to use the same NICS check as FFLs (or a similar one) for instantly checking the background of anyone they find with a gun and suspect of illegal possession. If, for some reason, the check can't be run, well, it's he government's responsibility to make sure it can be run. The technology exists and if it is going to be used (and it is going to be used) it should be used to support RKBA rather then restrict it.