Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[SSN Vet]

Short answer.... yes!

That said, is it a good idea to have someone walk into a gun shop buy a firearm and a box of bullets from a store clerk that thought they fit the gun. Then walk out put it in a holster and protect themselves???

You do not have a constitutionally protected right to hunt, boat or drive. You do have a constitutional right to bare arms. Compromising people's writes for the sake of protecting them from their own stupidity is a very slippery slope.

Stupid people have been doing stupid things since the dawn of time. It's not the government's responsibility or right to interfere with people reaping what they sew.

I too have done all of the things you mention... and I 100% support constitutional carry.

Criminologist have studied constitutional carry extensively (though you'll never hear, because the lib controlled media suppresses the truth) and crime rates and gun violence rates have not increased in the states that have enacted it.

 

[pharmer]

We are fixing to find out July 1. Folks know I'm a "gun guy" and I've had a few folks out to the range with satisfactory results. On the other hand I've had more than one "yahoo" that "Can't wait to be packing, folks better watch out!" Indeed, and not only because they decline range invites; "I know all about shooting, my uncle took me to the dump once when I was 12." Joe

 

[Armybrat]

So in order to carry a gun to protect yourself you need to take a class?What if I’m poor and can barely pay for the gun let alone a class. Will the taxpayers provide money to me to attend the class? You’re discriminating against me if you require me to take a class I can’t afford. Do the criminals that roam the streets get more jail time because they are carrying a gun without taking the class?
Now what about having to take a responsibility class before legally drinking alcohol? After all alcohol can severely alter one’s senses making them inherently more dangerous if drunk. We see drunken violence all the time not to mention the loss of life in vehicle accidents caused by alcohol. I guess the best answer is to outlaw all guns and alcohol. There problem solved!

Correct.
Literacy tests & poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional two generations ago by the SCOTUS.
Should be the same for “permits & classes” to exercise 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Kleanbore]

I believe it would beneficial to public safety if everyone who wanted to carry a concealed firearm in public did go through one [(a mandatory safety course)]

"Course?" Why?

I taught a young boy the fundamentals of "gun safety" in less than forty five minutes, years ago. It was extremely effective, and it made a lasting impression. He used the same methods to teach his son, years later.

I believe that where people can really benefit is in learning about use of force law. A course could be beneficial, but there are other ways. A good on-line course is a better idea than going to a class somewhere. And as I have said before, the key words are "use of force", and not "gun".

Staying safe involves a whole lot more than "gun safety" or marksmanship. Forget the gun. Study how to avoid being a crime victim, at home and out of doors.

 

[GEM]

Let's forget the idea of gun courses in schools. Even a gun safety course would be seen as promoting that owning a gun is acceptable. This is not the view of many in the country. It's like teaching safe sex to the chastity nuts. They are not going to buy into it.

This is when you should use a gun for self-defense, safely - NO, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN IN THE HOUSE!!!!

So the fantasy is little Beaver Cleaver, wide eyed, innocent and interested in gun safety. This is not the American school environment.

 

[SterlingBullet]

There is really only one way to address any safety concerns over constitutional carry.
Our problem here is that we citizens of the United States are not exercising the FULL extent of the Second Amendment.

There would be no worry about people improperly trained about firearms if we had an unorganized militia similar to the one the earliest citizens of our country belonged to. All abled-bodied men were required to be armed and proficient in the use of firearms.

A well regulated militia consisting of every adult would mean that every adult would have the proper training to handle firearms safely.

Local efforts can be made with support from states to provide training guidelines and subsidies to purchase modern, reliable weaponry, rifles and sidearms, and supplies for militia training.

Current federal law says the militia is all men over the age of 17; the law can be updated to include females.

 

[WrongHanded]

"Course?" Why?

I taught a young boy the fundamentals of "gun safety" in less than forty five minutes, years ago. It was extremely effective, and it made a lasting impression. He used the same methods to teach his son, years later.

I believe that where people can really benefit is in learning about use of force law. A course could be beneficial, but there are other ways. A good on-line course is a better idea than going to a class somewhere. And as I have said before, the key words are "use of force", and not "gun".

Staying safe involves a whole lot more than "gun safety" or marksmanship. Forget the gun. Study how to avoid being a crime victim, at home and out of doors.

The legal side of use of force would also be part of the curriculum. It needs not take more than a day, including a practical component. Just like a Hunter Safety course. The tests are easy because they just told you the answers earlier that day. It's about information.

 

[Kleanbore]

There would be no worry about people improperly trained about firearms if we had an unorganized militia similar to the one the earliest citizens of our country belonged to. All abled-bodied men were required to be armed and proficient in the use of firearms.

A well regulated militia consisting of every adult would mean that every adult would have the proper training to handle firearms safely

None of that makes any sense.

It is worth remembering that when men dressed in camo drove around in Chevy tucks spray painted in an Army motif , called themselves "militia" and walked around with AR-15s in northern Arkansas and southern Missouri, the only real result was creating a strong, lifelong belief in the mind of the then governor of Arkansas that 'assault weapons" should be banned.

 

[bearcreek]

It is worth remembering that when men dressed in camo drove around in Chevy tucks spray painted in an Army motif , called themselves "militia" and walked around with AR-15s in northern Arkansas and southern Missouri, the only real result was creating a strong, lifelong belief in the mind of the then governor of Arkansas that 'assault weapons" should be banned.

Would you consider the "militia" you reference to be "well regulated"?

 

[wayneinFL]

The legal side of use of force would also be part of the curriculum. It needs not take more than a day, including a practical component. Just like a Hunter Safety course. The tests are easy because they just told you the answers earlier that day. It's about information.

Use of force:

Don't start fights.
Don't shoot someone unless you have to.

Works in every state.

Want me to cover firearm safety, too?

Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

If it takes you more than 45 minutes to learn that you're stupid. A six year old can understand it.

A responsible person can learn that in 45 minutes. A responsible person will voluntarily seek it out. An irresponsible person could be required to sit for a 40 hour course, then walk out the door and shoot you in the foot.

 

[megatronrules]

I'll start by saying that I'm a firm supporter of 2nd amendment rights all rights actually. That being said I'm kind of sorta on the fence with constitutional carry.i know some people can't afford to apply for a carry permit and in a way that in effect puts that right out of reach of some.

I also don't feel that training should be mandatory to exercise a right, however I think gun owners needs to take that right very seriously and should seek training at a minimum before carrying a deadly weapon in public. I do realize people are going to be responsible for not that being said it's always a good idea to be trained and know the laws.

 

[Atavar]

I believe that everyone who carries a weapon or who has one at home should have a basic knowledge of use of force laws.

While I agree with you there is a HUGE difference between “should” and “must”.
Requiring training and testing is nothing more than backhanded gun control.
Rather we should make voluntary training available at no cost to anyone that wants it.
We could require mandatory training in our high schools so long as it was not tied to 2A rights.
We could train everyone in the country for less than a day of Ukraine money.

 

[The Night Rider]

And now you're name calling because you can't get what you want.

We have permitless concealed carry in over half the states in the country. I'd say we got almost exactly what we want

 

[The Night Rider]

Rather we should make voluntary training available at no cost to anyone that wants it.

Who are you going to draft to teach the classes without compensation?

We could require mandatory training in our high schools so long as it was not tied to 2A rights.

How much are you going to increase my taxes to pay for that? Who are you going to have teach the classes?

 

[The Night Rider]

Here you go,



Basic firearms safety

 

[21H40]

Well in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution Congress has the right to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia read Tench Coxe statement Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Militia every able bodied man between the ages of 18-35 that is the militia

Doesn't this mean that the 2A only applies to men between 18 and 35? That doesn't sound like a great RKBA argument if congress can disarm the non-militia.

 

[Elkins45]

Here you go,



Basic firearms safety

Nothing in that video addressed when it is legally justified to use a gun defensively. One more time: firearm safety and CCW safety aren’t the same thing. This video only addresses part of the equation.

 

[Kevin5098]

Doesn't this mean that the 2A only applies to men between 18 and 35? That doesn't sound like a great RKBA argument if congress can disarm the non-militia.

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[WrongHanded]

We have permitless concealed carry in over half the states in the country. I'd say we got almost exactly what we want

What he wanted was for me to agree with him. And I don't.

 

[Elkins45]

Who is actually impacted by the passage of permitless carry? Not permit holders, and not criminals. Both groups were already carrying concealed weapons. The people impacted are the ones who wanted to carry a gun but didn’t want to expend the effort to go through the permitting process but also didn’t want to risk being caught in violation of the law.

I have to wonder how many people who wanted to carry haven’t already made the effort to get a permit? I can’t imagine there are huge numbers of them. I doubt there’s any way to reliably know how much the percentage of carriers increased when the permit requirements went away.

 

[WrongHanded]

Who is actually impacted by the passage of permitless carry? Not permit holders, and not criminals. Both groups were already carrying concealed weapons. The people impacted are the ones who wanted to carry a gun but didn’t want to expend the effort to go through the permitting process but also didn’t want to risk being caught in violation of the law.

I have to wonder how many people who wanted to carry haven’t already made the effort to get a permit? I can’t imagine there are huge numbers of them. I doubt there’s any way to reliably know how much the percentage of carriers increased when the permit requirements went away.

Good points. And you are certainly correct that the only people affected by permitless carry are those without a permit who now choose to carry. Until one of them uses that gun. Then circumstances dictate who else is affected. Maybe just a bad guy. Maybe not a bad guy.

I also would be interested to know how many people did not seek a permit, but are now carrying because of permitless carry laws. And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun.

 

[armoredman]

Constitutional Carry, AKA recognizing the preexisting right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, is the right and natural thing to do. It is as simple as recognizing the preexisting right to speak freely. Period. Adding requirements such as mandatory training, background checks, permits, ANYTHING, puts the government in the position of being able to restrict the ability to exercise a right,(you failed the test, you have to pay $1 more than you have to pay for the permit, you posted something we didn't like on the Internet in 1998 so you fail the background check), which effectively changes it into a privilege. I say this as ALSO a 4H pistol coach, a former CCW instructor, a 21 year veteran of state correctional service, a military vet, everything that people claim RIGHT before they say, "but"...the word "but" means " I don't believe in unalienable fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights".

 

[wayneinFL]

Good points. And you are certainly correct that the only people affected by permitless carry are those without a permit who now choose to carry. Until one of them uses that gun. Then circumstances dictate who else is affected. Maybe just a bad guy. Maybe not a bad guy.

I also would be interested to know how many people did not seek a permit, but are now carrying because of permitless carry laws. And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun.

Two of my sons went with me to permit class. They were under 21 and could not get a permit. One remarked to the other, "I didn't learn anything here that I didn't learn in Boy Scouts." And he's right, if yiu have a lick of common sense, there isn't much to learn in the permit course.

My oldest maybe still has the certificate, but he hasn't taken off work a day in 7 years, to go through the fingerprinting, filling out the application and sending $117 off to the state. Now he'll be able to carry without taking time off work.

He's had handguns since he was 18. He has had them at work, at home, or in his car. Not to mention handling multiple handguns as he has taken them out of gloveboxes to change cabin air filters for customers.

What exactly is the fear that he may "feel the need" to carry at some point now that's it's legal? He hasn't shot anyone yet. Why would he start?

 

[bearcreek]

I also would be interested to know how many people did not seek a permit, but are now carrying because of permitless carry laws.

That would be interesting, but impossible, to know.

And why exactly they didn't get a permit when it was required, but now feel they need to carry a gun.

Distrust of the government is the most common reason that I've heard/read. Also, you should not assume that those people weren't already "Constitutional carrying" prior to it being legalized.

 

[Atavar]

Who are you going to draft to teach the classes without compensation?


How much are you going to increase my taxes to pay for that? Who are you going to have teach the classes?

The taxes are going to be the cheapest part of the whole deal, if we can afford billions in Covid relief and monthly billions in Ukraine aid we can afford to fund education.