Could Constitutional Carry harm RKBA efforts?

[terryg]

This is intended to be a thought provoking post. Please don't simply answer of the cuff, but rather take a few moments to consider the question fully. Please feel free to answer whether or not you support permit-less carry and even if you agree with the premise in theory but still support constitutional carry.

It seems that one thing that has worked well in the efforts to re-establish 2A rights within state and local statutes has been the excellent nature and record of CHL holders nationwide. One the easiest to disprove 'fears' is that CHL holders will suddenly flip out and start shooting people. Despite what the VPC publishes, CHL holders have shown themselves to be extremely responsible both with there weapons and in general.

But the two recent mass shootings in Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner and more recently Carey Hal Dyess, have gotten me wondering if premit-less carry laws will muddy the superior statistical picture.

Already, the VPC list Loughner as a "Legal Concealed Handgun Carrier" and the 6 he killed are added to their running "totals". Yet, if those shootings had happened before the recent AZ law change allowing citizens to carry concealed without a permit, that wouldn't be the case. (At least I don't think he had a carry permit.)

So, as more states adopt constitutional carry type laws, it suddenly makes it much easier to lump practically all shooting suspects into the "legally carrying" category. It won't matter then that these people could have/would have still committed the same crimes. The press will still show how they were completely legal up until the moment they pulled the trigger. Could this have a negative impact on the the concept of the armed citizen and on gun laws throughout the nation?

[Pawpaw]

If half the criminals in this country spontaneously combusted, the gun-grabbers would rant & rave about how the guns killed all those kids and misguided adults.

When the other half turned in their guns and devoted their lives to Christ, they would rant & rave about how "God and guns" ruined people's lives.

The resulting drop in crime would be attributed to "common sense gun laws".

[jimlongley]

Of course VPC is going to say that Loughner was carrying legally, it would do nothing to advance their agenda if they said otherwise. That he might have been is questionable at best, but the lie has been told, the bell has been rung, and it is loud.

And of course, depending on statistics to help is a double edged blade, all of the statistics in the world fail when faced with the loud emotional bad apple that spoils the entire bushel.

[terryg]

If half the criminals in this country spontaneously combusted, the gun-grabbers would rant & rave about how the guns killed all those kids and misguided adults.

When the other half turned in their guns and devoted their lives to Christ, they would rant & rave about how "God and guns" ruined people's lives.

The resulting drop in crime would be attributed to "common sense gun laws".

Right. We are obviously not going to convince Paul Helmke and the like. The broader question is will we be less equipped to win the PR war with the general public when the most notorious killers (think of the name recognition of Cho and Loughner) are no longer illegally carrying guns, but are instead legally carrying.

[terryg]

Of course VPC is going to say that Loughner was carrying legally, it would do nothing to advance their agenda if they said otherwise. That he might have been is questionable at best, but the lie has been told, the bell has been rung, and it is loud.

But they wouldn't have been able to get away with that lie if CC still required a permit.

And of course, depending on statistics to help is a double edged blade, all of the statistics in the world fail when faced with the loud emotional bad apple that spoils the entire bushel.

I agree with that as well. However, is that apple made all the more emotional when it was also carrying a gun legally as opposed to illegally? When it is illegal, it's more ammo to show how gun laws don't work. When it's legally then emotion dictates "we fix it".

[TDDude]

The ani-gun mantra is part of the liberal agenda. Since liberals approach their mindset as one of faith, they ignore evidence to the contrary. Of course the liberal leadership views it as a way to totalitarianism but that’s another argument. The leadership knows exactly what they’re spewing and where they want to go and where it ends.

However, the rank and file “liberal” has the mindset that government is all knowing and pure and good and the sheep need to step in and stay in line. The first step in this all the way back to Biblical times is to disarm the population. All historical evidence to the contrary showing that communism, socialism, and ultimately fascism (which is the end game of socialism) is a failed system doesn’t matter to a liberal. They always think that “this time by George, we’ll get it right!!”

According to Answers.com, there are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. If every gun owner in this country belonged to the NRA, there wouldn’t be another anti-gun politician elected to as much as the town Dog Catcher. We would own all three branches of government. Maybe Colt would be able to go back to making revolvers again.

I guess my seriously considered point is that it doesn’t really matter if we have open carry, concealed carry, or 50 cal machine guns mounted on top of our Suburbans. The only way to win the RKBA effort is through groups such as the NRA & TNRA and at the ballot box. If any of you forum members own a firearm and aren’t at least a member of the NRA, then shame on you.

[G.A. Heath]

<Sam Beckett>Oh, boy...</Sam Beckett> Yes, but not really. If a nut job goes out and shoots somebody immediately after work September 1st we will hear that parking lot protection caused it. The newest latest progun liberty that can even remotely be associated with the crime will be claimed as the culprit. So will they try to use it against us, yes. Will it be effective, not really.

[Pawpaw]

If half the criminals in this country spontaneously combusted, the gun-grabbers would rant & rave about how the guns killed all those kids and misguided adults.

When the other half turned in their guns and devoted their lives to Christ, they would rant & rave about how "God and guns" ruined people's lives.

The resulting drop in crime would be attributed to "common sense gun laws".

Right. We are obviously not going to convince Paul Helmke and the like. The broader question is will we be less equipped to win the PR war with the general public when the most notorious killers (think of the name recognition of Cho and Loughner) are no longer illegally carrying guns, but are instead legally carrying.

My point was that we cannot win on that PR front. The deck is stacked and they own the casino (liberal media).

The only way to win this battle is to hammer the point that the Second Amendment is a civil right, just as much as freedom of speech. Hammer the point that without the 2nd, the rest is just a house of cards. Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to pick up that banner.

[TDDude]

If any of you forum members own a firearm and aren’t at least a member of the NRA, then shame on you.

I used to be an NRA member but until they start supporting EBRs as much as they do the others, I'll consider them Fudd Central and won't renew - or should I just be blissfully happy that I'm paying someone to throw some of my interests under the bus all the time?

And no, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate re my position - they do some very good work but they need to WAKE UP and clean up their act before I'll send them a penny.

Not sure what you mean. Most of the Riflemen mags that I get have EBR's featured. They've been on a 1911 kick for the past few issues but most of the others have stories on various AR platforms and their future or considered replacements.

I guess when an organization gets big, there's always something we won't like. But, she's the girl at the dance, the bus that brought us, the stepmom that's raising us, whatever country metaphore you want to use, that's what the NRA is. If we don't want to end up "walkin home" (another metaphor) it's my opinion that we maintain her needs and treat her right. Oh, and vote. Ya gotta vote for the officers that you want runnin her.

I'm not debating you my friend cause I'm not debatable.......

[blackmesa]

If 9/11 didn't stop constitutional religious freedom, there's no reason to stop constitutional carry.

[Dave2]

I used to be an NRA member but until they start supporting EBRs as much as they do the others, I'll consider them Fudd Central and won't renew - or should I just be blissfully happy that I'm paying someone to throw some of my interests under the bus all the time?

Yes, Exemplarily Baked Redveletcakes really are that important.

Seriously, I've been trying to work it out for a bit now, and I can only come up with two gun-related meanings: "Extended Barrel Rifles" which I don't see how an organization could really be for or against (extended as compared to what?), and "Extra Blued Receiver" which doesn't sound all that bad. I mean, it's not as good as a RWTCAOB ("Receiver With The Correct Amount Of Blueing"), but it hardly seems worth leaving an organization over.

[blackmesa]

I used to be an NRA member but until they start supporting EBRs as much as they do the others, I'll consider them Fudd Central and won't renew - or should I just be blissfully happy that I'm paying someone to throw some of my interests under the bus all the time?

Yes, Exemplarily Baked Redveletcakes really are that important.

Seriously, I've been trying to work it out for a bit now, and I can only come up with two gun-related meanings: "Extended Barrel Rifles" which I don't see how an organization could really be for or against (extended as compared to what?), and "Extra Blued Receiver" which doesn't sound all that bad. I mean, it's not as good as a RWTCAOB ("Receiver With The Correct Amount Of Blueing"), but it hardly seems worth leaving an organization over.

The second amendment wasn't written to protect duck hunting or rabbit hunting.

The second amendment was written to protect self defense guns, especially guns used to defend against evil overlords. Guns like the AR-15.
Evil overlords and their minions call them assault weapons. In response, many gun owners mockingly called them evil black rifles. EBR.


P.S. I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Dave2]

I used to be an NRA member but until they start supporting EBRs as much as they do the others, I'll consider them Fudd Central and won't renew - or should I just be blissfully happy that I'm paying someone to throw some of my interests under the bus all the time?

Yes, Exemplarily Baked Redveletcakes really are that important.

Seriously, I've been trying to work it out for a bit now, and I can only come up with two gun-related meanings: "Extended Barrel Rifles" which I don't see how an organization could really be for or against (extended as compared to what?), and "Extra Blued Receiver" which doesn't sound all that bad. I mean, it's not as good as a RWTCAOB ("Receiver With The Correct Amount Of Blueing"), but it hardly seems worth leaving an organization over.

The second amendment wasn't written to protect duck hunting or rabbit hunting.

The second amendment was written to protect self defense guns, especially guns used to defend against evil overlords. Guns like the AR-15.
Evil overlords and their minions call them assault weapons. In response, many gun owners mockingly called them evil black rifles. EBR.


P.S. I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Aaaaaahhhh... See if I had stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night instead of my lousy excuse for a bed, I'd have gotten enough rest to figure that one out on my own.

Also if I hadn't stayed up so late, which I seem to have done again.

[ScottDLS]

EBR = Evil Black Rifles