Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[rotor]

I think we are confusing what people should do with what they should be required to do. Personally, I think that people should do the following:

Take a few parenting classes before they have a kid

Get some pre-marital counseling before they get married

Educate themselves on the issues and candidates before they vote

Get some gun safety, proficiency, and legal training before they decide to carry a gun

But I DO NOT think that the government should mandate that people do any of the above. Why? Because we are talking about the exercise of fundamental, individual rights. Living in a free society means that we will have some irresponsible people, unfortunately. But IMHO that is vastly better than the alternative of living in a nanny state.

Others may disagree, but I would at least ask that we please not conflate the exercise of a right, such as those listed above, with the exercise of a privilege, such as driving (to use one oft quoted example).

Just to be a devils advocate because I can't refute your logic, is there any stronger "right" than life and the ability to take your first breath? According to Obamacare and the Supreme Court, at your first breath you must get insurance or pay a TAX. The individual mandate and I hope that it is Trumpated completely. So, right now, life is taxed and the Supremes say it is constitutional. Again, as devils advocate, there can be some minimal mandated training for gun safety. If they can mandate "life" they can mandate anything. Devils advocate now. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think we are confusing what people should do with what they should be required to do. Personally, I think that people should do the following:

Take a few parenting classes before they have a kid

Get some pre-marital counseling before they get married

Educate themselves on the issues and candidates before they vote

Get some gun safety, proficiency, and legal training before they decide to carry a gun

But I DO NOT think that the government should mandate that people do any of the above. Why? Because we are talking about the exercise of fundamental, individual rights. Living in a free society means that we will have some irresponsible people, unfortunately. But IMHO that is vastly better than the alternative of living in a nanny state.

Others may disagree, but I would at least ask that we please not conflate the exercise of a right, such as those listed above, with the exercise of a privilege, such as driving (to use one oft quoted example).

Just to be a devils advocate because I can't refute your logic, is there any stronger "right" than life and the ability to take your first breath? According to Obamacare and the Supreme Court, at your first breath you must get insurance or pay a TAX. The individual mandate and I hope that it is Trumpated completely. So, right now, life is taxed and the Supremes say it is constitutional. Again, as devils advocate, there can be some minimal mandated training for gun safety. If they can mandate "life" they can mandate anything. Devils advocate now. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, and I disagree with the "life" tax just as much as I disagree with current restrictions on the RKBA. Both are unconstitutional IMHO. But I don't get the final say on that question.

[The Wall]

Just ask yourself if the Constitution is a good thing, and you'll have your answer.

[jkurtz]

Compared to any reputable defensive handgun training. The LTC course basically teaches you how to use a gun at a range, which is great for some people. It does not provide much in terms of education or training for using a gun in a real world scenario where deadly force is necessary and justified. So my point was,if training has to be mandatory (which I don't think it should be), it should be applicable to the real world outside of a static range.

This is where I believe you are wrong. The LTC course doesn't teach you how to use a gun at a range, it tests your proficiency. You must get a certain score to pass and in actuality for some at my class it was firearm instruction too but if I understand it the range exposure is to test proficiency. I agree it is not defensive training.

I think the LTC course has some utility for those that have no firearms experience. You might learn how to load a magazine, insert it into the gun, and chamber a round if you don't already know. Yes it tests proficiency, but it tests your proficiency on a flat range. You stand in a single position shooting at a fully exposed stationary target that sits directly in front of you at a known distance in adequate lighting. Very little of that is applicable to the real life scenarios we actually carry for.

As I said before, I do not think there should be any mandatory training. With that said, if training has to be mandated, I think it should be geared towards preparing people for situations they would likely face.

[G26ster]

Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

[Flightmare]

Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

This is why Charles prefers to simply call it "unlicensed carry".

[Soccerdad1995]

Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

This is why Charles prefers to simply call it "unlicensed carry".

"Unlicensed carry" has a ring of doing something wrong, at least to me. At a minimum, it presumes that the normative state is to require a license for the exercise of this right.

Couldn't we just call it a "Right to Carry" bill?

[AJSully421]

Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

This is why Charles prefers to simply call it "unlicensed carry".

"Unlicensed carry" has a ring of doing something wrong, at least to me. At a minimum, it presumes that the normative state is to require a license for the exercise of this right.

Couldn't we just call it a "Right to Carry" bill?

Nationally, the key phrase has been well established. "Constitutional Carry" is the phrase, like it or not.

[G26ster]

Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

This is why Charles prefers to simply call it "unlicensed carry".

"Unlicensed carry" has a ring of doing something wrong, at least to me. At a minimum, it presumes that the normative state is to require a license for the exercise of this right.

Couldn't we just call it a "Right to Carry" bill?

Nationally, the key phrase has been well established. "Constitutional Carry" is the phrase, like it or not.

Well I'm going to establish a new brand of coffee "nationwide." I'm calling it "Sludge." The public is going to love it.

[ninjabread]

Bumper sticker slogans notwithstanding, true constitutional carry would be both unlicensed and have no statutory restriction on location. Private property owners would have the same right to prohibit arms as they do to prohibit religious items, and so on.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't like the term "constitutional carry" for two primary reasons. First, as an attorney I like to use accurate legal descriptions and constitutional carry is not accurate. The Heller decision states in dicta that licensing laws would be/are constitutional. So claiming that there's a constitutional right to carry a firearm without a license and/or that requiring a license is unconstitutional ignores the leading Second Amendment SCOTUS case.

Also, as an activist for 37 years, I know that overstating your case never helps to pass your bill. It makers it easier for your opposition to call you out for making false claims to the Legislature.

All this said, I realize that the term "constitutional carry" has become a term of art, albeit an deceptive one.

Chas.

[mojo84]

Trump seems to agree with the concept. Here's an encouraging article.

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-pl ... ingbuttons

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, similar to the way in which state driver’s licenses are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen too often.

[extremist]

Personally, I think there is no convincing one side or the other. You either believe in Liberty (all of it) or you don't. Based on Charles' comment a few posts back, it is understood that Heller allows the FedGov to "infringe" on the 2nd, and we all accept that.

I still believe the 2nd says what it says, "Shall not be infringed".

That means I believe everything, starting with NFA '34 should go.

It may never happen, but that is what I believe.

James

[K5CLC]

My vote for constitutional carry is the hope that Texas might ease up on their overwhelming desire to investigate anyone wanting to carry a firearm from the time they were a sperm to present day. My LTC being delayed because i had a misdemeanor 20 years ago (that was dismissed by the judge because i took care of it) just isn't necessary. Arizona only looks back 5 years, other states as well. At least constitutional carry means I really do have a right to have a firearm on me for personal protection. Now, that being said I do think being licensed means more accountability and it's a show of good faith between law enforcement and citizens that we are responsible beings and can be trusted.

[Pariah3j]

Personally, I think there is no convincing one side or the other. You either believe in Liberty (all of it) or you don't. Based on Charles' comment a few posts back, it is understood that Heller allows the FedGov to "infringe" on the 2nd, and we all accept that.

I still believe the 2nd says what it says, "Shall not be infringed".

That means I believe everything, starting with NFA '34 should go.

It may never happen, but that is what I believe.

James