Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[thatguy]

We have a God given right to constitutional carry, it is self evident. We also have an absolute responsibility to mitigate risk to the public.

Interesting perspective. What risk?

We have inalienable (God given and self evident) right to self defense of our person, our families and some cases third party. We don't have the right to to risk hurting innocent people in the process but we do risk just that when presenting deadly force (in this case a gun) leaving us all with a quandary whether we accept it or not.

There is no getting around this vexing problem for there is no guarantee that I couldn't hurt or even kill mine or someone else's innocent child, mother, father, brother, grandchild etc. My personal plan is to practice and train mentally and physically to strengthen my mindset of what would I do if this or that occurred. What I've personally discovered is that a well thought-out, practiced, trained and determined plan to defend myself and others allows me to wait just a little bit longer. I can think about other options, like running, distracting, discouraging through eye-contact and so forth. Trained guns stay in their place (holstered) longer and when my gun stays holstered it is very unlikely to hurt an innocent. Untrained guns or unsure guns on the other hand come out first putting the public in danger much faster.

By accepting our own personal responsibilities we negate the need for law in the first place.

[s3779m]

Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

[Jusme]

Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I think the majority of members here are LTC holders. The infuriating issue for most of us, is the fact that having to get an LTC to be able to carry "legally" flies in the face of the Second Amendment. The words "shall not be infringed" are hollow, when a government requires some type of licensing to exercise a right. The second amendment is very clear, and concise, as it should be. But through the years, we have allowed our elected officials, to pass laws, that are in direct conflict. As of now, in our State, the only way to be able to carry, outside of our homes, and automobiles, is to be given "permission"

The other issue, being debated, is whether or not, we should be required to pass a competency test, to exercise the right. The founding fathers, saw no reason to make that a condition to the amendment, and there are no such conditions, on any other Constitutional right.

[Lambda Force]

Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I have a license.

Just out of curiosity, for those opposed to constitutional carry, what classes and fees should be required before somebody can vote?

[Ruark]

Among those who oppose unlicensed carry, I think the focus is more often not on the person carrying, but on the people around him not carrying, especially in urban areas. Back when the 2nd was written, we didn't have people living in paper-walled apartments, crowded malls and sporting events, massive delapidated inner cities, etc. 80+% of the population was rural. The perception on the part of many is that there enough people out there who don't know how to handle and/or use a gun safely that, if allowed to carry freely, would present a significant danger to the population at large. Thus, we have LTCs.

[Jusme]

Among those who oppose unlicensed carry, I think the focus is more often not on the person carrying, but on the people around him not carrying, especially in urban areas. Back when the 2nd was written, we didn't have people living in paper-walled apartments, crowded malls and sporting events, massive delapidated inner cities, etc. 80+% of the population was rural. The perception on the part of many is that there enough people out there who don't know how to handle and/or use a gun safely that, if allowed to carry freely, would present a significant danger to the population at large. Thus, we have LTCs.

girlgun.JPG

Theres are a lot of things different from the time the Constitution was ratified until present day.
But no gun restrictive law was ever written because of fear of people not being properly trained with firearms. They have all been written in response to criminal acts involving firearms. Which is why gun control laws are so insidious. They presume that the type of firearm, a person can access, will cause criminal behavior.
This flies in the face of not only the second amendment, but the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If I somehow had access to nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean I would use them against anyone. But that is exactly the reasoning behind gun laws.
There is a presumption on the part of left wing law makers, and unfortunately some right wing ones as well, just look at Nixon's record, that the general public cannot be trusted, and that the people must first prove their worthiness to keep and bear arms.

[OlBill]

We have a God given right to constitutional carry, it is self evident. We also have an absolute responsibility to mitigate risk to the public.

Interesting perspective. What risk?

We have inalienable (God given and self evident) right to self defense of our person, our families and some cases third party. We don't have the right to to risk hurting innocent people in the process but we do risk just that when presenting deadly force (in this case a gun) leaving us all with a quandary whether we accept it or not.

There is no getting around this vexing problem for there is no guarantee that I couldn't hurt or even kill mine or someone else's innocent child, mother, father, brother, grandchild etc. My personal plan is to practice and train mentally and physically to strengthen my mindset of what would I do if this or that occurred. What I've personally discovered is that a well thought-out, practiced, trained and determined plan to defend myself and others allows me to wait just a little bit longer. I can think about other options, like running, distracting, discouraging through eye-contact and so forth. Trained guns stay in their place (holstered) longer and when my gun stays holstered it is very unlikely to hurt an innocent. Untrained guns or unsure guns on the other hand come out first putting the public in danger much faster.

By accepting our own personal responsibilities we negate the need for law in the first place.

All true and well said. Are our rights contingent on accepting that personal responsibility or does the personal responsibility come from the result?

If you shoot an innocent bystander, you will be held accountable whether you have a permit and 300 hours at Gunsite or not.

Prior restraint is a very dangerous path and is in fact in part why we ended up where we have.

We should punish people for what they did; not what we think they might do.

How are we going to prove we are responsible enough to negate the need for a law?

[OlBill]

Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I have.

[OlBill]

Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I think the majority of members here are LTC holders. The infuriating issue for most of us, is the fact that having to get an LTC to be able to carry "legally" flies in the face of the Second Amendment. The words "shall not be infringed" are hollow, when a government requires some type of licensing to exercise a right. The second amendment is very clear, and concise, as it should be. But through the years, we have allowed our elected officials, to pass laws, that are in direct conflict. As of now, in our State, the only way to be able to carry, outside of our homes, and automobiles, is to be given "permission"

The other issue, being debated, is whether or not, we should be required to pass a competency test, to exercise the right. The founding fathers, saw no reason to make that a condition to the amendment, and there are no such conditions, on any other Constitutional right.

Well said. Even Scalia was on board with "reasonable restrictions".

Any time a politician says the word "reasonable", we should all go to Condition Red. It is indicative of normative morality designed to further destroy individualism. Sheep back into the pen as it were.

[OlBill]

note: the following opining is the result of my lengthy scholarly endeavors and legal training achieved by reading and posting in gun forums like this and talking and complaining about gun laws with my friends and others.

I know we don't need a license or training to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, but in the days of the framers, most of the towns and counties had militias and required men to be in it. The standing army that was formed to fight the Brits was new and not initially viewed as a permanent thing. Those militias, many that had been in place since the formation of a settlement, met at least occasionally, mostly about 4 times a year to drill and practice. The second amendment even says that the reason God gave us our right to keep and bear arms was because a militia was necessary to have a free state.

In context of the times, it is my opinion that the framers could have figured that at least every man knew how to shoot a gun since they had to be in the militia for their town or county. Were there gun accidents/negligence back then? you bet. I've read stories of accidental shootings throughout the country and even kids bringing handguns to school for nefarious purposes in colonial New York.

I draw a correlation between the when the people's dependence grew on the army, and when "general" marksmanship skills faded. Thus the high death toll in the late unpleasantness and the formation of the NRA afterwards to teach marksmanship so that wouldn't happen again.

With regard to voting, i think they assumed the same thing; that the voters (property owning men) would be informed about the issues of the day and be intellectually qualified to make a reasoned decision when voting. Kids don't learn real history anymore or real civics in school and I compare our dependence on TV to get our political education to the people's dependence on the army. I think we've seen "a high death toll" of informed voters as a result. Maybe we need a "National Voter's Association" to train people how to be politically effective.

I personally am torn about HB1911. I am a staunch 2nd supporter, TSRA and NRA lifer. I also teach LTC classes and would hate to lose that income since it is the source of my toy money, but if that's the way the ball bounces, I will enjoy the fresh recognition of my freedoms.

God bless America - and no one else
superchief

Emphasis mine. Not so Chief.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

[treadlightly]

Whatever case can be made for the restrictive regulation of this cherished right of ours, no credible argument can be made that American founders had the slightest desire to take guns off the street. From Federalist 46, my favorite (emphasis on the obvious is mine):

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Militias, officers selected by somebody, whatever. The point was citizens with firearms were never intended to be eliminated from the American spirit. We are intended to be an armed populace.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Missouri's went into effect on Jan 1 and hasn't caused any problems. This Texas version seems more watered down. The Missouri version 18 and older can carry a concealed firearm without a permit anywhere in Missouri. However carrying into a prohibited location such as a college or stadium will get you arrested versus having a permit where you will just get a citation for the offense instead. Missouri permit less concealed carry does not cover open carry as a few towns have ordinances against open carry that are overrode if you have a ccw permit. Overall it's a good start since most people only carry concealed anyway so eliminating the permit requirement is a good thing. The only real advantage of having a ccw permit in MO is for the gun free school zones but I've never heard anyone arrested on that federal law before.

[anygunanywhere]

If governments prohibit certain places to bearing arms then it isn't constitutional carry.

[Oldgringo]

This "constitutional carry" argument is wearing me out. I can see both sides as being somewhat right/correct.