Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[GEM]

In states with shall issue permits, the crime rate of permit holders is way lower than the general population. Now if you look at constitutional carry states, it becomes messy as every bad person committing a gun crime (as in urban gun violence) can be counted as a constitutional carrying criminal (if they did not have a disqualifying felony ban on having a guns), even they had been an illegal carrier before.

However, the thing to look at is the overall gun crime rate and see if there is a discontinuous, sharp increase in handgun crime with the passage of the new laws. This must be broken down by areas also as increases in urban crime are different processes. You would have to look at areas that previously had low rates with shall issue demographics and see if those areas show a sharp increase in gun crime with CC. Looking at overall state rates is pretty meaningless if you want to see a casual link to Constitutional Carry.

One might also ask the general population who didn't carry if they are now prone to carry as the state is constitutional and they didn't before. What are the demographics of those folks?

 

[JR24]

I’m of a mind that constitutionally protected rights are rights without restriction.

Such thinking could easily translate of losing free speech because of “hate speech” or banning a “dangerous” religion or any other number of restrictions.

 

[captain awesome]

Night rider, you are either confused, or didn't read the post thoroughly. But you've demonstrated your....opinions... In several other posts and I don't think arguing with you or trying to make you understand and see things clearly is going to be fruitful. Good luck.

 

[GEM]

Banning speech and religions outside of the accepted mainstream has been a thing in the USA in the past. Imposing one religion on everyone has been quite popular and is making a comeback periodically. Banning books by the left and right, censoring them - hey, both sides are on board with that. What else is new? Taking bad words out of novels to remove triggering upset by the original words. Hey, let's do that. Little kids will go nuts if they see Michelangelo's David's nuts - hey, get the principal of the school to quit.

Damn - let's ban all those shots of Dr. Pol and Dr. Oakley showing animal genitalia.

When have constitutional rights NOT been threatened?

 

[Beck]

I believe people should be trained in safe responsible gun handling... in public schools at least by junior high. However, failure of a public school system to teach the children well should not prohibit people from owning and carrying firearms when they are of age.

We need fundamental cultural changes. That is to say... change them back to the way they were when I was a kid. We all had guns and were taught to use them responsibly by parents, neighbors and other mentors. No body got shot.

The Boy Scouts too. By the time I went through police training I already knew the safe gun handling part. I could have taught the class.

Our culture has lost a lot of what it used to pass down to the next generation. That's a problem.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

So why bother then, right? Just comply, offer no resistance and hope that the bad guy doesn't worry about leaving witnesses.
Of course, we don't want any good guys armed, then. Too many guns on the streets. Why should the good guys have the means to resist and defend themselves?

Here you are, on an RKBA forum, arguing against carrying firearms with arguments as illogical as the anti-gun folks.

This.
So much this.

My son is 10 months old and it's my job to protect him and my loving wife.

OP's premise that we just cave to the bad guys and simply not carry is absolutely preposterous.

 

[bearcreek]

On the other hand, we need to think long and hard about how we use our guns. I don't think that carrying a gun provides much security. But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply. That's just human nature. Road rage incidents, etc., are becoming more common. I tell my wife, who is an aggressive driver, not to cut people off or give them the finger, because they might be armed. OK, 99% of armed drivers might restrain themselves, but what about the other 1% ?

People who know that they don't have good self control should not carry guns. Those people should be focusing on learning to control their physical reactions to their emotions. Telling everyone that they shouldn't carry a gun because there are some people who have poor self control doesn't make much sense.

 

[WisBorn]

This.
So much this.

My son is 10 months old and it's my job to protect him and my loving wife.

OP's premise that we just cave to the bad guys and simply not carry is absolutely preposterous.

Are you referring to the Opening Post?
Where do you get that stupid idea...

My question is simple, should we allow public carry of a firearm without any training?
Most people agree that safety training is a good thing. The question of the 2nd Amendment rights is not what I'm saying.
Many states have enacted constitutional carry stating that the 2A allows for carry. Many other states require training.
I have been required to go through training to receive my 4 different CCW/CWP state permits. I personally believe that the training is good thing. I also feel that once you go through the training and obtain a permit it should be good for any state that you visit. No different than a drivers license.

If you live in a Constitutional Carry state and go to a state that requires training and a permit you cannot legally carry.

 

[tactikel]

The right to carry is a Constitutional right, not a privilege like a drivers license. No one should be required to pass a class, provide a need, purchase a license. That being said, I would strongly advise anyone with zero firearm experience to take a class, gain shooting skills, and practice.
Once they can make you take a class, pay a fee, define what you can carry, they can fail you, make the fee unaffordable, deny the carry of any modern forearm.
The $200 dollar ATF tax stamp in the 1930s would be $3000-4000 in todays money.

 

[JR24]

If you live in a Constitutional Carry state and go to a state that requires training and a permit you cannot legally carry.

Not true, at least when I lived in Alaska. You could still opt for a carry license that did require training and had reciprocity with other states.

Honestly with the mindset of needing training to practice a constitutional protected right, I’d say along those lines we might as well have competency tests about politics before allowing folks to vote. One could easily argue that mindless voters cause far more damage and risk to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the theoretical carrier who isn’t trained enough to safely carry.

Especially considering you’d have to weed out all events, with this line of thought, where the CCW user intentionally did a bad thing and limit issues to those SOLEY caused by lack of training. Accidents that just don’t happen often.

 

[trackskippy]

Whatever happened to being able to do what you like, as long as what you do, doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, and you are responsible for your actions? Seems like anymore, everyone wants to limit and regulate your freedoms because of their fears, imagined or otherwise.

I was always told and taught this was the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but I havnt seen much of that for a good while now.

The illusion continues and just keeps getting worse.

 

[wayneinFL]

Back when Hunter Safety became mandatory for individuals in Wisconsin, there was a huge amount of backlash. But evidence since that time has shown a huge reduction is firearm deaths and accidents from hunters in the field. Being a instructor for years, I was always amazed at the ignorance of firearms and their respective ammo, from folks that had hunted their whole life. Most of these folks were the dads or grandparents of the students we were instructing. and were "grandfathered". So, I don't have an issue with folks being educated. I truly believe, that if we want to beat our chest and cry "shall not be infringed", we need to teach gun safety in schools. At least the basics of how to safely handle/operate firearms and the amount of damage they can inflict. This, like with sex education will result in folks claiming it will lead to "more", but that is just another incorrect statement.

I'm okay with teaching children about firearms in school as long as the curriculum isn't about banning them.

It's too easy to make a licensing training requirement a barrier to ownership or carry.

 

[.308 Norma]

If you live in a Constitutional Carry state and go to a state that requires training and a permit you cannot legally carry.

Not true, at least when I lived in Alaska. You could still opt for a carry license that did require training and had reciprocity with other states.

Yeah, I think I know what you meant, WisBorn. But I think you should probably rephrase that.
JR24 is right. There are several so called "Constitutional Carry" states (including the one I live in) that still offer carry permits/licenses that have reciprocity with other states that do require carry permits/licenses.

 

[Atavar]

I’ve said it before, maybe even in this thread, what needs to happen is severe punishment for the possession or use of a firearm in a felony.
We need to start enforcing the laws we have, not make more laws.
I advocate for a mandatory no parole consecutive 20 year prison term for using a deadly weapon in a felony. This term to be separate from any sentence for the actual crime. No plea bargains. Life for second offense.
If we make the penalty severe enough it will deter weapons offenses.

 

[Old Dog]

Are you referring to the Opening Post?
Where do you get that stupid idea...

No, he wasn't -- he quoted me, while I was responding to more of AlexanderA's strangeness.

 

[jmr40]

I don't think it is helping anything. The states where they make it hard to carry a gun aren't the ones passing Constitutional Carry. The states who are, are already easy enough to get and carry a gun.

 

[Targa]

One could easily argue that mindless voters cause far more damage and risk to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the theoretical carrier who isn’t trained enough to safely carry.

I could not agree more!

 

[WisBorn]

Thank you for correcting my error @.308 Norma and @JR24 . I was not clear and should have said permitless carry. Many states offer permits and also have constitutional carry.

No, he wasn't -- he quoted me, while I was responding to more of AlexanderA's strangeness.

Thank you for the correction.
I apologize @Corpral_Agarn I thought you were referring to the Opening Post.

My original post was to have civil conversation. As many threads it went off course.
I don't want to take anyone's rights away. I do want our society to be a safe one. I am concerned when more and more states offer Constitutional Carry that there will be an increase of accidentally discharges and unnecessary shootings. Training in most cases is good.

 

[Kevin5098]

I actually agree with all of this. The next step, however, is once you have the right, do you exercise the right? Why does it follow that you must carry if you can carry? It would be better for society if fewer people, rather than more people, are walking around carrying. We are currently seeing the results when every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going around armed. Simple arguments -- or simple misunderstandings -- escalate into deadly encounters. The presence of the gun is the key to that escalation. Please, leave the guns at home.

I used to sympathize with the idea that "an armed society is a polite society." But that rubric presupposes that everyone is a rational actor. As we have seen, sadly, a certain percentage are not rational actors. Human emotions are unpredictable things. So, we have to calibrate not according to the majority who are rational, but according to the minority who are prone to going off the rails. And you can't necessarily predict which is which ahead of time.

Enacting more laws is not the answer, since they can't be enforced. The country is awash with guns, and they aren't going to magically disappear. What we need is an "attitude adjustment" regarding guns. They are not the panacea that some people think they are. We as gun owners need to be at the forefront of this attitude adjustment.

Yeah, enough of this rant.

So your belief is that we as gun owners should have the right to carry, but not exercise that right. There is a saying "a right not exercised is a right soon lost" Massad Ayoob's first Commandment of concealed carry is "If you carry, always carry. The tool does no good if it is sitting at home. You cannot predict when evil will need to be faced down. Commit to your self to always carry." His third commandment is "Don't let the gun make you reckless" - in other words avoid escalation. Most martial arts training admonishes students to not look for trouble and exercise self discipline during confrontational situations. I find it insulting to be told that because I carry a firearm, I am apt to escalate an argument to the point of lethal force. I believe that as gun owners we need to realize that our CCW is a constant reminder for us to be cautious when conducting our daily business and avoid situations and locations that may escalate into a confrontation.

 

[Electricmo]

Firearms training won’t help nothing. Evil does what evil does. The people who are constitutional carrying their weapons aren’t the problem. It’s the criminals who were carrying anyway. They are evil.
We aren’t supposed to drive and text of use our phones while driving either. It’s dangerous. More people die per year from these distracted driving incidents than gun accidents.

 

[Old Dog]

I am concerned when more and more states offer Constitutional Carry that there will be an increase of accidentally discharges and unnecessary shootings.

I moved to Washington state in the mid-90s; my whole adult life had been serving in the military and law enforcement - so I was used to training, and expected training to be required. When I found out that Washington issued CPLs with no training requirements whatsoever, I was a bit skeptical. However, what I've learned in the past 30 years is that, despite the lack of a training requirement to obtain a CPL in this shall-issue state (the original), this state, over the years, has a documented record of fewer accidents, crimes, misdeeds and "bad shootings" by CPL-holders than the other states that have stringent training requirements (and much more expensive licenses). So my opinion on whether training should be mandated has evolved.

Training in most cases is good.

Yes, absolutely, no argument there.

 

[Jeff62]

Constitutional carry is good.
Propter training and vetting the crazies is good. The thing is, I don’t know how to do that. I’m pretty smart, my chess rating would impress. I don’t know how to parse the goodies from the baddies whilst being fair to the goodies.
So...........I’ll just keep a watchful eye.

 

[The Night Rider]

Please explain to me how this idea would be a backdoor tax on owning a firearm? I have looked at it from every angle I can think of and don't see how providing people with tax funded discounts on firearm ownership is taxing firearm ownership. If anything it is taxing those who don't take advantage of it. This would be funded by the general public tax funds, the same funds that pay for schools, police, military ect....Which I can see some people not being on board with, but I can think of a lot of far worse ways our tax dollars are spent regularly....our taxes already pay for police and military...I don't see how making our civilians more safe, and competent with firearms and promoting more firearm ownership through publicly funded optional/voluntary and incentivised safety courses is all that different.

Everybody wins. Pro 2a people get discounts on guns and free training. FFLS gain more income. Antis feel safer because potential gun owners have a real motivation to seek training who otherwise might not, money talks. No one is forced to do anything to exercise their rights, nor are they punished by doing so if they don't take advantage of the safety programs...what's the downside here?

It may not be a backdoor tax on the firearm but it would raise everybody's taxes to fund the program.

And I can't imagine the government subsidizing gun store owners without asking for something in return it's a bad idea.

I'm going to say this to you and I'm going to say it to the other guy I have never bought a firearm that didn't come with an instruction manual including several pages of safety information. If you can't be bothered to read that then a safety class isn't going to do any good

 

[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.

I just posted this to somebody else but I'm going to say it to you as well, I've never bought a firearm that didn't have an instruction manual that included several pages of safety information including the NRA's 10 rules of handgun safety in it. Those materials already exist and they already come with the gun. If that's not enough information for you to be safe with your gun all the classes in the world are not going to help you

 

[Elkins45]

I just posted this to somebody else but I'm going to say it to you as well, I've never bought a firearm that didn't have an instruction manual that included several pages of safety information including the NRA's 10 rules of handgun safety in it. Those materials already exist and they already come with the gun. If that's not enough information for you to be safe with your gun all the classes in the world are not going to help you

Do those instructions tell you the conditions under which you are allowed to use deadly force in self-defense in your state? Or how the conditions differ for defense of others? Or under what conditions it is legal to use deadly force in defense of property?

The rules of carrying a gun for defensive purposes are different in every state, and they go far beyond just knowing how not to accidentally shoot someone. Why would you possibly object to legal gun owners being given the knowledge that just might keep them out of prison for the rest of their lives?

Firearm safety ≠ CCW safety. Legal CCW compliance requires a whole different knowledge base that can vary wildly across state borders. I think people should have easy access to that knowledge. What’s your argument that they shouldn’t, other than the tax dollars one which we’ve already dismissed? Remember, this whole conversation is not about people owning guns, it’s about people carrying guns.