Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[Liberty]

I tend to agree with you and I really don't expect this to pass in Texas. The argument is that it is a constitutional right and other things are just a privilege like driving a car. i would sure hate to see people on the road without passing an exam and some knowledge of the law, be it driving or carry. We have an excellent record in the public's mind right now, it may not be so good if completely untrained people carried. Of course, I would like to see a literacy test before getting into the voting booth. I am sure that I will be flamed over this but so what.

People are everywhere now carrying without incident, rifles, Handguns under MPA all over the place, especially this time of year during hunting season. I do hope that they continue the license program because my CHL now works in over 30 states and I've been to quite a few of them and would like to visit a few more.I wouldn't complain if they made improved the knowledge in a more widespread manner. Maybe the teach it in the public schools. This knowledge has proven more valuable to most people than, say, something like Algebra.

[TXBO]

i would sure hate to see people on the road without passing an exam and some knowledge of the law, be it driving or carry. We have an excellent record in the public's mind right now, it may not be so good if completely untrained people carried. ....

Studies by John Lott have shown that concealed carry training requirements have no positive effect on reducing crime or preventing accidents. They do however have a negative impact on the number of concealed license holders.

You may be ok with the arbitrary training requirements now but, if a future legislature decided that you must be able to perform an el presidente' at 25 yards in under 5 seconds, you might not like it.

[TXBO]

...The argument is that it is a constitutional right and other things are just a privilege like driving a car. ....

That's not an argument. That's a fact.

All constitutional rights have some restrictions. I can only say that when I took my CHL class there were some not so sharp people taking the course that really did not know anything about handguns. At least after the range work they knew the basics. I think most people on this forum from what I have seen are pretty sharp about firearms. I don't believe the general public is. I don't think every yahoo out there is safe enough to carry a handgun. I trust the people on this sight as they have not only proven their safety but I can tell by their writing that they know what they are doing.

If that's the way you feel, why only require training for a license to carry? Why not for handling a long gun? Why not require training and a test just to purchase a firearm?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Lest I me misquoted again, I want to begin by saying I am not opposed to unlicensed carry of a handgun. I also am confident that it will not pass in Texas in 2017.

As a legislative and political advocate for gun owners for over 36 years, I want to see the license requirement for carrying a handgun repealed, while making the license optional. As an attorney and a former police officer, the idea of people carrying handguns without 1) knowledge of the law; 2) sufficient skill at arms to survive a deadly assault; and 3) protection from the federal Gun Free School Zone law, worries me. My concern isn't that unlicensed people will be a safety issue for society. The Motorist Protection Act that we passed in 2007 (HB1815) proves that the lack of a license doesn't mean a person is going to be a threat to public safety. My concern is that gun owners will unknowingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law, perhaps in a very big way. Balancing the Second Amendment advocate with the attorney/COP side of me, I come down supporting unlicensed carry.

For those who still want to proclaim that there is a constitutional right to carry a handgun without a license, please read the Heller decision before making this unfounded claim. Heller expressly notes that licensing would pass constitutional challenge, so stop overstating your case. Doing so hurts your credibility. The better argument for unlicensed carry is the lack of a problem in states that do not require a license. (Comparing Vermont with a total population lower than Austin, Texas (625,000 v. 800,000) is not productive.) With the coming change in the SCOTUS, we may finally get an opinion on the Second Amendment much close to the "shall not be infringed" concept, but that's far from certain.

To those that argue "I don't need a license to pray or to speak," you are correct. But you do need a permit to build a church building or a newspaper building. You most certainly need government approval to vote (voter registration and, in some states, a photo ID) and I don't see any of our Members complaining. In fact, most discussions about photo ID to vote garners support for the concept from Members.

I think the general public would be less concerned if Texas law were amended to require a background check to confirm that a person has not lost their constitutional rights (ex. convicted felon), then issue a license without requiring a fee or a class. This computer check would take mere seconds. This would be very similar to getting a voter's registration card that is required to vote in all elections.

Again, this is merely an academic discussion since unlicensed carry will not pass in 2017.

Chas.

[twomillenium]

I agree with "constitutional carry" if there would be an automatic prosecution with no exceptions for those who can not legally own or carry a weapon. This would go for long guns as well. Jail time would could not be bypassed in any form, other than death (natural of course), for those who carry illegally. I think that private property rights should remain supreme to the owners or those in authority of the owners, by simply putting up a gun buster sign or "no guns allowed" sign on property. This would apply to long guns, as well. However it would not apply to License holders, there could be a national type (if it became Nationwide Legislation) of signage similar to the .06 & .07 signs or oral notification and this would apply to licensees and non-licensees. Force of law could only be enforced by not immediately leaving when told to do so. At this time I would also leave it up to the States to accept or not accept non-state residents from unlicensed carry. (if it were a National). Some won't like this one way and some the another way. Frankly Charlotte I don't uh care.

P.S. Training would be required for license holders. The training would have standards that would need to be met by ALL States.

[Charles L. Cotton]

...The argument is that it is a constitutional right and other things are just a privilege like driving a car. ....

That's not an argument. That's a fact.

All constitutional rights have some restrictions. I can only say that when I took my CHL class there were some not so sharp people taking the course that really did not know anything about handguns. At least after the range work they knew the basics. I think most people on this forum from what I have seen are pretty sharp about firearms. I don't believe the general public is. I don't think every yahoo out there is safe enough to carry a handgun. I trust the people on this sight as they have not only proven their safety but I can tell by their writing that they know what they are doing.

If that's the way you feel, why only require training for a license to carry? Why not for handling a long gun? Why not require training and a test just to purchase a firearm?

Perhaps because the discussion is about HB375, unlicensed carry of handguns.

Chas.

[warnmar10]

HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Realistically, how many people who take a LTC class leave without a certificate of successful completion? The class requirements are anything but rigorous. So on the one hand I would argue the licensing requirements are wholly inadequate but I can't off hand think of another unalienable and Constitutionally protected right for which a license is required.

I suppose my compromise would be Constitutional carry except where currently prohibited and carry anywhere a peace officer can with a license, the license being a little more than just a silly test for which the answers are obvious and a shooting test that is so easy that most first time shooters can pass it.

[twomillenium]

HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Realistically, how many people who take a LTC class leave without a certificate of successful completion? The class requirements are anything but rigorous. So on the one hand I would argue the licensing requirements are wholly inadequate but I can't off hand think of another unalienable and Constitutionally protected right for which a license is required.

I suppose my compromise would be Constitutional carry except where currently prohibited and carry anywhere a peace officer can with a license, the license being a little more than just a silly test for which the answers are obvious and a shooting test that is so easy that most first time shooters can pass it.

Since the testing is so silly. Would you want someone who can't pass it to carry?

[TXBO]

...The argument is that it is a constitutional right and other things are just a privilege like driving a car. ....

That's not an argument. That's a fact.

All constitutional rights have some restrictions. I can only say that when I took my CHL class there were some not so sharp people taking the course that really did not know anything about handguns. At least after the range work they knew the basics. I think most people on this forum from what I have seen are pretty sharp about firearms. I don't believe the general public is. I don't think every yahoo out there is safe enough to carry a handgun. I trust the people on this sight as they have not only proven their safety but I can tell by their writing that they know what they are doing.

If that's the way you feel, why only require training for a license to carry? Why not for handling a long gun? Why not require training and a test just to purchase a firearm?

Perhaps because the discussion is about HB375, unlicensed carry of handguns.

Chas.

Perhaps but I'm responding to a comparison of unlicensed carry to driving a car with a comparison of unlicensed carry to owning a gun in general. What makes my comparison inappropriate?

[TXBO]

The better argument for unlicensed carry is the lack of a problem in states that do not require a license. (Comparing Vermont with a total population lower than Austin, Texas (625,000 v. 800,000) is not productive.) With the coming change in the SCOTUS, we may finally get an opinion on the Second Amendment much close to the "shall not be infringed" concept, but that's far from certain.

Chas.

Additionally, the best argument is the statistical evidence that fees and hours of training requirements do nothing to reduce crime but do reduce the number of license holders.

[anygunanywhere]

I personally feel better knowing that an LTC holder has been thoroughly vetted by the state before they are allowed to carry in public.

I know I would feel better knowing voters were properly vetted before voting and if journalists were properly vetted before doing whatever journalists do.

That's fair, and I agree. The only thing that gives me pause is the mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. Do they have a 2A right? Should they be allowed to carry in public?

Many voters and "journalists" are mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. and have no restrictions on voting or lying to the people.

My comments were posted with just a hint of sarcasm.

[TXBO]

I think the general public would be less concerned if Texas law were amended to require a background check to confirm that a person has not lost their constitutional rights (ex. convicted felon), then issue a license without requiring a fee or a class. This computer check would take mere seconds. This would be very similar to getting a voter's registration card that is required to vote in all elections.


Chas.

I would be completely satisfied with this. No different than an instant check to buy a gun.

[steveincowtown]

Lest I me misquoted again, I want to begin by saying I am not opposed to unlicensed carry of a handgun. I also am confident that it will not pass in Texas in 2017.

As an attorney and a former police officer, the idea of people carrying handguns without 1) knowledge of the law; 2) sufficient skill at arms to survive a deadly assault; and 3) protection from the federal Gun Free School Zone law, worries me. My concern isn't that unlicensed people will be a safety issue for society.
Chas.

I certainly respect your opinion as a former LEO, and Attorney, a champion of gun rights, and a current LTC instructor. The fact remains that unlicensed carry hasn't been an issue in other states, and I suspect that in Texas it will work out the same.

With regards to knowledge of the law, a 1/2 day course doesn't provide this. You see post on this board all the time with questions from LTCers on material that should have been covered in the course. One must make the personal choice to become a student of the law.

With regards to having sufficient skill to survive an assault. This is unrelated to licensing and is in no way covered in the Texas LTC course. One must make the personal choice to acquire these skills.

With regards the Gun Free School Zone law this hasn't been an issue in other states and I don't see it becoming one in Texas. I also can't find a case where someone was convicted of just this. It is usually more of a tag on charge.

I would be lying if I said I was pretty bummed out that an NRA board member has this view of not only the points above, but the possibility of unlicensed carry moving forward.

[TXBO]

... My concern is that gun owners will unknowingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law, perhaps in a very big way. ....

That's a fair and compassionate concern.

[Soccerdad1995]

To me, this is a lot like saying "convince me that constitutional voting is a good thing". I would feel much better if I knew that citizens had to pass a basic political knowledge test on the candidates, their positions, and exactly what the office entails before they exercise the awesome power of the ballot.

But ultimately, what I would prefer does not matter. Both are rights, not privileges that should be only conditionally granted.