Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[RogueUSMC]

Personally, I think there is no convincing one side or the other. You either believe in Liberty (all of it) or you don't. Based on Charles' comment a few posts back, it is understood that Heller allows the FedGov to "infringe" on the 2nd, and we all accept that.

I still believe the 2nd says what it says, "Shall not be infringed".

That means I believe everything, starting with NFA '34 should go.

It may never happen, but that is what I believe.

James

Charles DID preface by something to the effect of 'as a lawyer'...he may feel like you personally but 'feelz' don't work in the courtroom and they shouldn't work in the legislative process..

[mojo84]

Personally, I think there is no convincing one side or the other. You either believe in Liberty (all of it) or you don't. Based on Charles' comment a few posts back, it is understood that Heller allows the FedGov to "infringe" on the 2nd, and we all accept that.

I still believe the 2nd says what it says, "Shall not be infringed".

That means I believe everything, starting with NFA '34 should go.

It may never happen, but that is what I believe.

James

Just curious. Do you believe to have liberty we be able to do anything we want and how we want without any infringement, restrictions or limits?

If so, should I be allowed to pursue happiness any way I want?

There are very few100% absolutes in this world.

[extremist]

Just curious. Do you believe to have liberty we be able to do anything we want and how we want without any infringement, restrictions or limits?

If so, should I be allowed to pursue happiness any way I want?

There are very few100% absolutes in this world.

Yes I do as long as it doesn't violate the Non-Agression principle and abides by Universal Preferable Behavior. I subscribe to the Non-Aggression principle championed by Stefan Molyneux. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, he has multiple videos on it. Here is one of his shorter ones:



Also a good source of info: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

Universal Preferable Behavior: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/fe ... ux_PDF.pdf

[The Annoyed Man]

Compared to any reputable defensive handgun training. The LTC course basically teaches you how to use a gun at a range, which is great for some people. It does not provide much in terms of education or training for using a gun in a real world scenario where deadly force is necessary and justified. So my point was,if training has to be mandatory (which I don't think it should be), it should be applicable to the real world outside of a static range.

This is where I believe you are wrong. The LTC course doesn't teach you how to use a gun at a range, it tests your proficiency. You must get a certain score to pass and in actuality for some at my class it was firearm instruction too but if I understand it the range exposure is to test proficiency. I agree it is not defensive training.

The obvious comparison - although the LTC range qualification is far less comprehensive - would be a drivers license test. It does not teach you how to drive a car. It's a measure of your proficiency in driving a car. It assumes that you've already received some training in how to drive. Similarly, the LTC range qualification assumes you've already received some training in how to safely operate a handgun. It tests your proficiency in using it......granted, at a very minimal level.

But if we want to tie the exercise of a Constitutional right to proficiency, then maybe people who are not well trained orators should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? ......or would that constitute an infringement on the right to freedom of speech?

As long as the state mandates a license to exercise an "uninfringable" enumerated right, then the state can mandate some level of proficiency (I deliberately did not say "training") to obtain the license. But if the bar for that proficiency is set too high (ie mandating actual handgun combat training), then the state opens itself up to charges of putting a "right" out of reach of many of its citizens. At that point, it is no longer being treated as a right.

Therefore, you can't have Constitutional Carry with a requirement to obtain advanced training, or even basic instruction - whether it is a sound idea or not. Because as soon as you mandate a requirement like that, then there is only one way to demonstrate that level of proficiency, and that by the issuance of a license or permission slip, or certification, or whatever you want to call it. But at that point, it is no longer Constitutional carry.

Instead, the justification for Constutitional Carry comes from the assumption that the right exists, and that it will not be infringed until and unless the citizen has proven themselves to be untrustworthy to exercise the right. We assume that Joe and Jane Citizen are in good standing UNTIL they are charged with a crime. Even then, we presume they are innocent until proven otherwise. If they are proven guilty, then we remove their right to walk about freely, to speak freely, to own/carry a firearm, their right to require probable cause for search and seizure, etc., etc.

The world is a dangerous place. The argument against Constitutional Carry is essentially one of wanting to make the world safer. But in order to do that, whether we're talking about guns, or some other thing, you have to establish a standard where citizens who have done no wrong, instead of being judged to be reliable and upright, are instead judged to be untrustworthy potential felons. If Constitutional Carry is passed, it will have to be in the face of two things: (1) sometimes someone who probably shouldn't, will carry a gun; and (2) something bad might come out of that. But like I said, the world is a dangerous place. Almost all attempts to make it safer in some way reduce someone's freedom, even if they haven't actually done anything yet. This is fine if we're talking about driving a car. There is no constitutional protection for a right to drive. If your license is revoked for multiple DUIs, you can still get around. You can take a bus, or even {{gasp}} walk. And if you drive drunk and kill someone, you'll go to prison (hopefully). Under Constitutional Carry, anyone who is not otherwise barred for reasons of felony conviction or mental illness gets to carry a gun. Period. If they use it irresponsibly and someone gets hurt or killed, they go to jail. In other words, they get to own the consequences of their behavior......something which our culture has spent a great deal of energy avoiding, to our regret.

[mojo84]

Just curious. Do you believe to have liberty we be able to do anything we want and how we want without any infringement, restrictions or limits?

If so, should I be allowed to pursue happiness any way I want?

There are very few100% absolutes in this world.

Yes I do as long as it doesn't violate the Non-Agression principle and abides by Universal Preferable Behavior. I subscribe to the Non-Aggression principle championed by Stefan Molyneux. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, he has multiple videos on it. Here is one of his shorter ones:



Also a good source of info: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

Universal Preferable Behavior: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/fe ... ux_PDF.pdf

So, you don't believe in liberty because you do believe in some infringements, restrictions and limits.

Instead of saying people don't believe in liberty, how about saying there is some disagreement where one's liberty can be limited, infringed or restricted? Your all or nothing is ridiculous even based upon your admitted believe there are limits.

[extremist]

So, you don't believe in liberty because you do believe in some infringements, restrictions and limits.

Instead of saying people don't believe in liberty, how about saying there is some disagreement where one's liberty can be limited, infringed or restricted? Your all or nothing is ridiculous even based upon your admitted believe there are limits.

That's a specious argument. I'm not an anarchist, one can believe in complete liberty, with self-limiting behavior based on the principles I quoted above. It's a ridiculous argument to say "that if you have have full liberty there are no restrictions or limits". No, that's anarchy.

[mojo84]

So, you don't believe in liberty because you do believe in some infringements, restrictions and limits.

Instead of saying people don't believe in liberty, how about saying there is some disagreement where one's liberty can be limited, infringed or restricted? Your all or nothing is ridiculous even based upon your admitted believe there are limits.

That's a specious argument. I'm not an anarchist, one can believe in complete liberty, with self-limiting behavior based on the principles I quoted above. It's a ridiculous argument to say "that if you have have full liberty there are no restrictions or limits". No, that's anarchy.

Just making a point based upon your words. You seem to apply absolutes where you want. In actuality, I belief you are the one making the specious argument.

[Soccerdad1995]

Well here's what I believe.

I believe that we are endowed by our creator with a number of inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are many others, including a number of rights that help to ensure we can actually enjoy the listed rights (such as the RKBA which ensures our right to all three).

I also believe that we form governments for the sole purpose of protecting these rights that we were born with. Government has a role to play when the rights of two people are in conflict (e.g. it would make me happy to kill Fred). Laws are established based on a careful consideration of how we can best balance the conflicting rights at hand. And we (the people) authorize government agents, as our employees, to enforce these laws.

I further believe that governments, by definition, only have the powers that the people have delegated. And if any government ever gets sidetracked into thinking that they have inherent authority not granted by the people, such that the government actually becomes destructive of the people's God given rights (as opposed to just balancing competing rights), then the people have every right to abolish that government, by force if needed, and create a new government in it's place. If it comes to this, then the people should be able to clearly lay out their thought process and how they reached such a drastic conclusion, especially if the government in question is one that was long established.....

To be honest, my thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by some rather radical folks who all died a long time ago.

[rotor]

All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

[tbrown]

I further believe that governments, by definition, only have the powers that the people have delegated. And if any government ever gets sidetracked into thinking that they have inherent authority not granted by the people, such that the government actually becomes destructive of the people's God given rights (as opposed to just balancing competing rights), then the people have every right to abolish that government, by force if needed, and create a new government in it's place. If it comes to this, then the people should be able to clearly lay out their thought process and how they reached such a drastic conclusion, especially if the government in question is one that was long established.

Maybe I'm getting old but it seems to me that more than 3/4 of the federal laws have no basis in the actual constitution, as written and legitimately amended. At times the balance seems closer to 90% unconstitutional. If so, then such a government has no moral authority nor legal authority under said constitution.

[Soccerdad1995]

I further believe that governments, by definition, only have the powers that the people have delegated. And if any government ever gets sidetracked into thinking that they have inherent authority not granted by the people, such that the government actually becomes destructive of the people's God given rights (as opposed to just balancing competing rights), then the people have every right to abolish that government, by force if needed, and create a new government in it's place. If it comes to this, then the people should be able to clearly lay out their thought process and how they reached such a drastic conclusion, especially if the government in question is one that was long established.

Maybe I'm getting old but it seems to me that more than 3/4 of the federal laws have no basis in the actual constitution, as written and legitimately amended. At times the balance seems closer to 90% unconstitutional. If so, then such a government has no moral authority nor legal authority under said constitution.

I think you have the percentage range about right (75% - 90% of laws having no basis in the Constitution).

IMHO, there are two primary drivers of this. We have a judiciary branch that tends to either be too weak to stand up to the other branches (ACA), or exhibits activism by deciding the outcome they want and then twisting the law to match that predetermined, desired, outcome (Roe v Wade, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome, it is a great example of this twisting, another example is the all encompassing interstate commerce clause).

The second driver is just human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As a result, we have had legislators and Presidents who are paid lackeys of those with money, and no judiciary to limit what they can do.

If you take a piece of paper and lay out the grievances expressed in the Declaration of Independence alongside the legitimate grievances that folks have today, you may likely reach a very startling conclusion.

[Soccerdad1995]

All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

I see your point from a pragmatic perspective. But how do you possibly implement this requirement without also requiring some form of licensing or registration? Also, what is unique about the people of Texas that makes you believe we need this provision here? There are several other states that have no such provision. Are those folks more friendly to gun rights than our fellow Texans?

I would also add that every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak, I realize there are yahoos out there that don't know, or don't care about, the basic principles that underpin our Republic. But I still think they should be allowed to vote. I still contend that such people are infinitely more dangerous than any one person with a gun.

[rotor]

All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

I see your point from a pragmatic perspective. But how do you possibly implement this requirement without also requiring some form of licensing or registration? Also, what is unique about the people of Texas that makes you believe we need this provision here? There are several other states that have no such provision. Are those folks more friendly to gun rights than our fellow Texans?

I would also add that every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak, I realize there are yahoos out there that don't know, or don't care about, the basic principles that underpin our Republic. But I still think they should be allowed to vote. I still contend that such people are infinitely more dangerous than any one person with a gun.

All good arguments. In practical terms though I don't know if we will get constitutional carry without some education certificate or something to that effect. Perhaps having "Veteran" on your drivers license (even though I had no firearm training in my military service aside from watching an AR-15 get fired once). Perhaps requiring everyone have served their country in some manner with a notation "Served" on their DL. Perhaps requiring firearm safety in schools if you were born before a certain date and grandfather old foggies like me. Kind of like hunter safety. As far as yahoos voting, I would impose a standard. I think though you need to go one step at a time on this just like with LTC people and showing how reliable they are with really no open carry/concealed carry problems.

[Soccerdad1995]

All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

I see your point from a pragmatic perspective. But how do you possibly implement this requirement without also requiring some form of licensing or registration? Also, what is unique about the people of Texas that makes you believe we need this provision here? There are several other states that have no such provision. Are those folks more friendly to gun rights than our fellow Texans?

I would also add that every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak, I realize there are yahoos out there that don't know, or don't care about, the basic principles that underpin our Republic. But I still think they should be allowed to vote. I still contend that such people are infinitely more dangerous than any one person with a gun.

All good arguments. In practical terms though I don't know if we will get constitutional carry without some education certificate or something to that effect. Perhaps having "Veteran" on your drivers license (even though I had no firearm training in my military service aside from watching an AR-15 get fired once). Perhaps requiring everyone have served their country in some manner with a notation "Served" on their DL. Perhaps requiring firearm safety in schools if you were born before a certain date and grandfather old foggies like me. Kind of like hunter safety. As far as yahoos voting, I would impose a standard. I think though you need to go one step at a time on this just like with LTC people and showing how reliable they are with really no open carry/concealed carry problems.

How about this for a possible compromise? If you are carrying and violate some other law, you can get cited for illegal carry. But if you can later supply the court with 2 receipts from a gun range during the preceding 12 month period, those charges are dismissed. Otherwise you face a maximum $100 penalty (more than double what the range sessions would have cost, so a good deterrent). This assumes that you can otherwise legally carry a gun (not a felon, over 21, etc).

That would avoid the need for registration or licensing, and also avoid overzealous cops issuing citations to everyone they see openly carrying.