TexasCHLforum.com

OlBill wrote:Going back to the Constitution is always a good idea.

Amen to that.

rotor wrote:

jkurtz wrote:
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.

jkurtz wrote:For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

I'm not in favor of mandatory handgun combat training to carry, but I am very much in favor of mandatory teaching firearms safety in public schools. We've had 30 years of teachers showing kids how to put a condom on a banana, and how to get an abortion without their parents' knowledge, but somehow, teaching them to be safe around firearms is ignored. And I would like to see a return to a day when high schools offered marksmanship teams as an extracurricular activity. I think that if we can produce just two generations of high school graduates who have all received something like the Eddy the Eagle instruction, and then had the opportunity to join a marksmanship team - if they so desire, and if their parents will let them - we could overturn the past 50-60 years of anti-gun political agendas.

G26ster wrote:Does constitutional carry mean that career criminals/felons maintain the right to keep and bear arms? No penalty for a career criminal carrying, but not committing a crime at the time? If not, how can it be called constitutional carry? If so, criminals already carry, we know that, but do we want them to?

I don't know if it contributes to the discussion, but the argument I've heard about convicts and the adjudicated mentally ill is that their rights were not stripped without due process. The constitutional principle is that gov't cannot rob someone of their rights without due process - which includes the rights to keep and bear arms, associate with whomever, move about freely, to speak freely, etc., etc. But licensing schemes reverse this standard by placing a citizen in the position of having to use due process (the licensing scheme) to gain the free exercise of a right that was already his/hers, and that he/she never lost.

That is why I am, as a matter of principle, in favor of Constitutional Carry. The only issues I have with it have to do with how we go about implementing it. I think there is probably a right way, and a wrong way. I'm not wise enough to say which is which at this time.

I'm not going to try and convince you one way or the other. As an abiding principle, I'm in favor of Constitutional Carry. As a practical matter, I don't know how we'll get there.......by which I mean, I don't know the way forward. I agree as a practical matter that there are some benefits to licensing, but as a matter of principle, I'm not happy about having to jump through someone else's hoops just to exercise a constitutionally protected right. On a personal level, I dislike the implication that I'm not to be trusted without a licensing procedure, even though I've done nothing wrong to earn that suspicion. That is offset by the recognition that the license sort of officially classifies me as a "good guy".......even though I've done nothing to show that I'm a "bad guy".

So I see a sort of yin and yang to the issue. I will be personally happy if it ever passes, but I can see how Constitutional Carry can present a few problems for society.