Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[bblhd672]

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.

Mine too!

[oldshooter]

I think the rationale for allowing Constitutional Carry is fundamentally a philosophical one about civil rights, which you already understand; however, that being said, it does not look like any states that have Constitutional Carry have had any problems with it, some over a period of many years, so it doesn't look like there's any real reason to worry about more shootings, public safety, etc. It still would not "allow" bad guys to carry, but of course, they will still do so anyway, just like they do now, so that argument is a wash too. Ultimately, there is no historical or statistical reason to think it will cause any significant problems, and the "hypothetical" arguments against it are no better than the old arguments and predictions of "blood in the streets," that were made, first against concealed, and then open, carry. Heck, they are even the SAME arguments and predictions!

Now we get down to what I think is your real issue with it. I agree that passing the shooting and written tests required to get an LTC probably makes one a better, and likely also a safer, armed citizen. I think it would be great if everyone who carried, took that kind of training before, or shortly after, getting their new gun and beginning to carry it in public. However, I also believe that going through a good shooting school like Thunder Ranch, Frontsight, or Gunsight Academy, would make one even better. I think the way to approach this without either stepping on anyone's inherent civil rights, or giving the government any more power to restrict our rights than they already have, would be to make such training, not mandatory, but admirable, perhaps "expected," or even envied. If we all look up to, and maybe even envy, those who have gone through more formal training, it will create a desire among new shooters to get some training too. We (both us individual shooters and big shooting organizations like the NRA, NSSF, GOA, etc.) could strongly advocate for gun dealers to make LTC training readily available, or help new gun folks sign up for classes, and perhaps even be reluctant to sell them a gun unless they also signed them up for training. This would be circumvented by some people of course, but that's just the price we pay for living in a free country. The majority of people however, would probably end up taking some training, even if only a minimal LTC class. Later, when they discovered that they were looked up to and seen as better than those who worked around the training, they would be likely to seek even more training. A "win-win" for all of us. Most folks who are new to shooting tend to want some kind of training anyway, and I think if we not only strongly encourage it as the norm among us experienced shooters, but also made some effort to make such training cheaper and more easily available, newbies would flock to it.

The final icing on the cake though, the reason that should convince you, is simply that, if everyone had to take an LTC class...who would we graduates of those classes be able to "feel better than?"

[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 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.

The more I think about your post, the more puzzled I become. Which of my views causes you concern? Is it my support for unlicensed carry? Is it my desire that good people not get into legal trouble because of a lack of knowledge? Is it my concern that good people may be injured or killed in a self-defense situation because they do not have the skill at arms to defend themselves? Or is it the fact that I know the Legislature's opinion of unlicensed carry at this point in time?

I'm stumped.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Beiruty]

As a compromise make it OC and CC from non-prohibitive person WITHOUT a LTC in non-prohibitive place a Class-C misdemeanor. fine up to $200 for each offense, the charge can be deferred and dropped with the acquisition of a LTC.
الله
This would be an incentive to get a LTC and learn the laws of firearms and the use of deadly force in self-defense, etc....

[parabelum]

Mr. Cotton articulated the issue we are discussing with IMAX clarity, with valid/legitimate issues and/or concerns.

Here's now where I get a bit frustrated at the "process". I consider Mr. Cotton to be a very esteemed member of pro-2A body who fought many battles.

If this bill is doa, then why do our legislators even bother with it at this time?
Wouldn't their time be better spent aiming at goals more attainable, or is this a case where they have a list of things that they want to accomplish, so they throw the biggest one out there first (unlicensed carry from my perspective), then once it gets shot down it will be perhaps be harder to snub the few bills that do have a better chance of passing?

Is this misguided thinking on my part?

Just trying to understand the mechanics.

[nightmare69]

We are slowly getting more of our rights restored and I believe eventually constitutional carry will be passed in Texas. It may be a decade away but I'm sure we will catch up to the rest of the pro 2A states. I do believe recreational use of marijuana will pass before Constitutional carry does.

[warnmar10]

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.

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

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?

[twomillenium]

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.

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

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?

Well if your not going to think about it, then neither am I. You have google just like I do. Why don't you do your own home work and answer your own questions with the facts that you find. One thing that may help you get traction, is to remember that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

[TXBO]

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.

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

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?

Well if your not going to think about it, then neither am I. You have google just like I do. Why don't you do your own home work and answer your own questions with the facts that you find. One thing that may help you get traction, is to remember that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

Yea, maybe the bites have been too small and too slow.

[rtschl]

It's the fact that the legislature has sold you on their opinion and you can't sell them on ours.

So what do we do? Get rid of the pro gun/2A legislators and hope their replacements do vote that way? Like Charles I wish unlicensed carry/constitutional carry was accepted. But reality is what it is and it is political naivete to think we can just will the legislature to support this. It is also a waste of political capital to invest much in this issue at this time. That is reality that no one is going to be able to change this session. It will take time, hard work, and good relationships with the legislature to get there.

[TXBO]

It's the fact that the legislature has sold you on their opinion and you can't sell them on ours.

So what do we do? Get rid of the pro gun/2A legislators and hope their replacements do vote that way? Like Charles I wish unlicensed carry/constitutional carry was accepted. But reality is what it is and it is political naivete to think we can just will the legislature to support this. It is also a waste of political capital to invest much in this issue at this time. That is reality that no one is going to be able to change this session. It will take time, hard work, and good relationships with the legislature to get there.

It's time to stop protecting those who won't support our wishes.

[rtschl]

It's time to stop protecting those who won't support our wishes.

I hear you, but the most likely outcome of that is a less support for us if they win re-election in the primary and a democrat if they don't.

[Flightmare]

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.

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

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?

There were a few in my class who failed the range qualifications, at least on the first time. There are several LTC instructors on here who have seen students fail on the first try. It should not be assumed that it is an automatic.

[twomillenium]

I don't think it is a more conservative challenge, as much as it is a slow-thinking "I want it all and I want it now" attitude. I have to be blunt because I can no longer protect that attitude.