Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[Liberty]

Wow, gentlemen! I thought my post was pretty straight forward.

Everyday I get an email listing new businesses which have posted either sign or both. I can see more of the same if constitutional carry is not done correctly. There will, or should be, one heck of a large campaign to educate the public or we could end up seeing even less places to carry in. We all know the ones who wish to ban guns will be out there "educating" the public. As the old saying goes, careful what you wish for. On an unrelated note, I would will to see the 06 and 07 signs with an expiration date, hopefully some businesses would not replace them.

Hopefully they won't mess with a 30.06 or 30.07 signs. Maybe one of the standard "No Beretta" pictogram signs.

[Oldgringo]

Going back to the Constitution is always a good idea.

Amen to that.

I am not convinced that federal judges should be appointed for life and I also believe there should be definite TERM LIMITS for congressional offices. Other than that....meh.

Both of which I believe would require Constitutional amendments, but I could be wrong.
Meh?

Yes. There have been 27 Constitutional Amendments thus far and at least one more is sorely needed.

'Meh' signals that the rest of it is pretty much okay; however, I'm not really for pushing this constitutional carry thinghy overly far. There's still more of them than there are us and, as you know, the majority rules. I'm perfectly okay with licensed OC and CC.

[OlBill]

Going back to the Constitution is always a good idea.

Amen to that.

I am not convinced that federal judges should be appointed for life and I also believe there should be definite TERM LIMITS for congressional offices. Other than that....meh.

Both of which I believe would require Constitutional amendments, but I could be wrong.
Meh?

Yes. There have been 27 Constitutional Amendments thus far and at least one more is sorely needed.

'Meh' signals that the rest of it is pretty much okay; however, I'm not really for pushing this constitutional carry thinghy overly far. There's still more of them than there are us and, as you know, the majority rules. I'm perfectly okay with licensed OC and CC.

Ah so. Many thanks.

[treadlightly]

Constitutional Carry is a grand thing, but the right to keep and bear doesn't need to be either a good thing or a bad thing. It is the thing, absent amendments to abolish it, and the right itself can't be abolished because the right isn't really an American thing. It's a natural thing. America's jurisdiction would allow us, with a Constitutional amendment, to abolish the guarantee. But not the right.

The Second Amendment acknowledges what all the Founders knew like the noses on their faces, that humans have a right to defend themselves. It does not establish a right, it burdens America with the job of protecting a basic law of nature. Try to pass a weapons law confiscating the incisors out of pit bulls' mouths and you'll probably find most gun grabbers believe dogs have natural rights exceeding humans.

Such is the precision of hoplophobic thinking and the natural lunacy of gun restriction. Most gun law can only work if we can flout nature. Otherwise, disarming civilized society gives the animals among us free rein, almost like granting criminals rights exceeding the law abiding.

Anything more restrictive than Constitutional Carry is a violation of our highest law.

That's the morally pure answer to the question, as best as my flawed perspective allows me to see. I acknowledge there are practical matters to consider.

There are far too many of us whose character flaws ought to invalidate their rights even before they commit a crime. We can't do that. Prior restraint isn't an acceptable solution. That gives free rein to politicians, and they are almost a criminal class these days.

Shall-issue licensed carry is a workable compromise as long as we understand the bargain. As long as licensed carry is a slippery slope toward Constitutional Carry, Texas style licensing pretty much works and we are all safer. The day licensing becomes a slippery slope toward restrictive gun law, we're sunk. Witness California, or New York, or Nazi Germany.

As a sidelight, it's oddly interesting that liberals feel safer on their thrones because the high school dropout who serviced the plumbing carried a government license to do the job, but when government licenses pose a barrier to criminal assault, it's different. All of a sudden, government imprimatur drives them hysterical.

Anybody can grow up to be President. All it takes is a nurturing village. Which means, I believe, lower positions of authority must surely be accessible to all. Anyone can grow up to be a policemen, for example. All it takes is determination and good decisions along the way, and there you go, little Johnny is eventually behind you in the checkout line with a badge and a nice gun, carried out of respect for the law.

All good, and we rightfully and properly trust the policeman who is your neighbor's son, or the kid your kid went to school with.

If anyone can be President and anyone can be a policeman, surely anyone must be able to grow up to assume the lesser role of armed citizen, right? Doesn't that follow? Don't I also have a right to practice respect for the law? In fact, as a member of the governed, from whom power is supposed to flow to the government, don't I truly share the policeman's interest in lawful society?

I think if I didn't believe in my stake in lawful society I'd be siding with criminals. Which, now that I think about it, is what gun restriction proponents actually do.

So, yes, Constitutional Carry is a good thing. Texas' shall-issue compromise works for me, but only if it's not allowed to degrade.

Be vigilant in all things.

[G.A. Heath]

I honestly despise using the term constitutional carry to describe unlicensed carry. I despise using the term because it implies that the constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms rather than protects a previously existing right. Logically if the right is granted by the constitution, rather than protected by it, then the constitution can be used to restrict or even abolish that right. There are other view points on why the term constitutional carry is not ideal, however I can not echo them all. In fact one of the most articulate opinions as to why we should use a different term was written on a blog post. The author is Mr. Massad Ayoob and his article can be found here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAy ... nal-carry/

[Liberty]

"The Vermont Model" a name even Bernie Sanders would love.

[tommyg]

While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

When I took my class and firing test I was in a special class for senior citizens and military. I was the
only senior citizen in the class. The others were Military police that wanted to carry off duty.
I did as well as the rest of them. No problem I did not mind taking the test and I had a good time taking it

[Jusme]

While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

When I took my class and firing test I was in a special class for senior citizens and military. I was the
only senior citizen in the class. The others were Military police that wanted to carry off duty.
I did as well as the rest of them. No problem I did not mind taking the test and I had a good time taking it

tommyg, while I understand your position, the fact remains, that the right to keep and bear arms, has no such restriction (Constitutionally) Just as none of the other Constitutional rights, requires, that person demonstrate proficiency, before exercising that right. It has nothing to do with being "pro gun" or "anti gun"
The reason we have any gun control laws at all, is because those who were elected into power, decided, that because some acted irresponsibly with firearms, they were subject to control, despite a very clear and concise Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice.

[Soccerdad1995]

While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

When I took my class and firing test I was in a special class for senior citizens and military. I was the
only senior citizen in the class. The others were Military police that wanted to carry off duty.
I did as well as the rest of them. No problem I did not mind taking the test and I had a good time taking it

tommyg, while I understand your position, the fact remains, that the right to keep and bear arms, has no such restriction (Constitutionally) Just as none of the other Constitutional rights, requires, that person demonstrate proficiency, before exercising that right. It has nothing to do with being "pro gun" or "anti gun"
The reason we have any gun control laws at all, is because those who were elected into power, decided, that because some acted irresponsibly with firearms, they were subject to control, despite a very clear and concise Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice.

Voting, reporting, reproducing, and tweeting are all much more potentially dangerous than carrying a gun. It's a question of whether we want people to start with no rights whatsoever until they prove that they can exercise those rights responsibly.

If we had a major issue with accidental / negligent shootings that could be solved with additional training, then I might be OK with this type of requirement. But the simple matter is that there is no underlying crisis here. The standard for the restriction of our basic human rights should be high. And it simply has not been met when it comes to the RKBA.

[LucasMcCain]

Despite the usual "blood in the streets" hue and cry, there don't seem to be a lot of actual problems caused by MPA.

I never thought of that with relation to unlicensed carry. That is an absolutely excellent point. Of all the places a normally law-abiding citizen might be tempted to use a gun inappropriately, "while driving a car" has to be at or near the top of the list. Yet here we are with it being a non-issue.

[Soccerdad1995]

Despite the usual "blood in the streets" hue and cry, there don't seem to be a lot of actual problems caused by MPA.

I never thought of that with relation to unlicensed carry. That is an absolutely excellent point. Of all the places a normally law-abiding citizen might be tempted to use a gun inappropriately, "while driving a car" has to be at or near the top of the list. Yet here we are with it being a non-issue.

You could also look to stats from any of the states that currently allow non-licensed carry. Like I said up thread, there simply isn't a compelling crisis that justifies restrictions on our RKBA, IMHO.

[LucasMcCain]

Despite the usual "blood in the streets" hue and cry, there don't seem to be a lot of actual problems caused by MPA.

I never thought of that with relation to unlicensed carry. That is an absolutely excellent point. Of all the places a normally law-abiding citizen might be tempted to use a gun inappropriately, "while driving a car" has to be at or near the top of the list. Yet here we are with it being a non-issue.

You could also look to stats from any of the states that currently allow non-licensed carry. Like I said up thread, there simply isn't a compelling crisis that justifies restrictions on our RKBA, IMHO.

I think you and I agree on this and most other issues. This is a point I always try to make in various discussions on legalizing behavior in one area of the country that is already legal in another. If you have real world data to look at, then a bunch of what-if arguments are moot.

[ldj1002]

Constitutional carry would not do away with our LTC program. We can still feel "special" while still respecting the rights of others.

The 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis mine) This clearly states that the bearing of arms is not to be infringed upon. The requirement of a license is an infringement. You need to take a class $60-100, spending 4-6 hours, then submit fingerprints (which is another $10 or so, isn't it?), and submit a $140 fee to the state government. Then, you wait 30-90 days for them to give you permission to do something that was your right all along.

Most people are not going to go through all that. Some people don't have the time or the money. They're just going to forfeit their right to bear arms.

Criminals don't care about licensing. They're going to carry regardless so they have the upper hand in an assault, robbery, rape, or murder.

Why should the law-abiding be neutered for the benefit of the criminals?

Rights you have to ask permission for are not rights. They are privileges. (See my signature.)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -- Cesare Beccaria (later quoted by Thomas Jefferson)

If there was anything remotely like this put on right to vote it would be like opening a can of worms. Heck most places you can't even be ask to show photo ID to prove you are who you claim you are because it would be infringing on your right to vote. So why isn't jumping through the hoops to get LTC infringing on your rights to have and bare arms? Looks they should both be the same.

[Oldgringo]

While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

{snip]

With all due respect, I am in total agreement with tommyg above.

[hovercat]

Mandatory safety courses in the schools would work, instead. We have mandatory civics and government courses.