Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[Smokey613]

While I understand your concerns, I will just point out that several states have had "constitutional carry" for some time and there has not been any major issues. My son resides in Alabama and while they do require a LTC ( issued by the local Sheriffs ) there are no training/proficiency requirements and they do not seem to have any issues either.

[Lynyrd]

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

[Middle Age Russ]

I agree wholeheartedly that knowledge of the laws pertaining to the use of force and deadly force is important for anyone who may have a need and desire to defend themselves or others. That said, rights should not be turned into permissions contingent upon payment of a tax and attending a class. Properly stated, rights are inherent to the individual and can be exercised at the sole discretion of the individual.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[mr1337]

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)

[CleverNickname]

Look at other states with unlicensed CCW and show me what problems they're having.

The onus should be on you to prove that a license is needed, not on anyone else to prove that one isn't needed.

[LucasMcCain]

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

You can already carry a long gun without licensing or training. People used to keep rifles and shotguns in their vehicles all the time. It didn't cause problems that I am aware of.

People can keep handguns in their cars or on their persons on their own property (in Texas) without licensing or training. Again, I have not heard of this causing all kinds of problems.

We are subject to a ton of laws regarding our actions on a daily basis which we haven't been trained on, but most of us manage to be law abiding citizens.

I'm not at all arguing that training is a bad thing or unnecessary. However, I don't necessarily think that it needs to be government mandated. A comprehensive media push would take care of it for the most part. Maybe offer insurance breaks for taking classes, similar to defensive driving for auto insurance. Just from personal experience, I have found that most people that get a gun want to know the laws and feel comfortable with their weapon. They seek training without it being forced on them. I realize that's strictly anecdotal evidence, but it's what I got.

Also keep in mind that we have it quite good in the glorious state of Texas currently. In many states, it's very difficult or even impossible to carry a weapon to defend yourself. It's those areas where self defense is most regulated that would most benefit from constitutional carry.

All this said, I tend to look at things from a pretty simple viewpoint. Maybe there are problems I don't know about. Regardless, thanks for broaching the subject. I'm interested to hear what others have to say about it.

[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.

[Lynyrd]

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?

[G26ster]

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?

[LucasMcCain]

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?

Those groups are already stripped of many of their rights, including the right to own a gun, if I'm not mistaken. The idea of constitutional carry is that if it is legal for one to own a gun, then it should be legal to carry that gun. Or that is my understanding, anyway.

[treadlightly]

We already have limited Constitutional carry - the Motorist Protection Act, and road rage hasn't become an endless OK Corral. Perhaps the opposite - for many reasons, an armed society is a polite society.

That said, there are people who should not be allowed to have access to firearms. We also can't have prior restraint. Felons can be denied their rights, because they forfeited them. John Q. law-abiding citizen, that's a different deal.

Office holders, who can be scary beyond a mouse gun or two on the street, don't have to have a license to run for office. Why should other rights be different?

I figure Constitutional Carry will be a tough sell to mushy-headed people who think laws can make us safe. Removing restrictions would be really, really nice, and it's pretty clear that wouldn't cause any trouble at all.

[der Teufel]

No rights are absolute. Freedom of speech has limitations.

My personal opinion is that the background checks are probably a good idea. I could do without everything else, although I agree that a knowledge of the law regarding use of force is also a good thing.

[flechero]

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?

I believe most of those folks are already prohibited, per current law. So if they carry, they are doing so illegally. And we all know how effective laws are at stopping criminals from doing things that are illegal. ...lol