Constitutional Carry... The pros, cons, discussion and poll.

[Shellback]

There have been several discussion threads relating to states passing bills regarding concealed carry without a permit, many refer to it as Consitutional Carry, myself included. I've noticed several different reactions from "Shall not be infringed..." to "We need more requirements for people to conceal carry." I've also noted that there are people who think that Constitutional Carry is a threat to police officer's safety so I'm interested in hearing their opinions as well.

For reference there are currently 5 states that have enacted Constitutional Carry laws and they include Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and parts of Montana. However, there are numerous other states with proposed Constitutional Carry legislation coming up for vote, there are 11 listed on Wikipedia but I don't know if that's accurate.

If there is anywhere on the internet where this topic can be discussed civilly and with respect to one another's viewpoints it's here on PF.com

[RoyGBiv]

"Shall not be infringed"

Exception: Felons, etc.

[Zhurdan]

There were many people who were worried about the streets turning into the "old west" when they were talking about passing the Constitutional Carry here in Wyoming. To date, almost seven months later... there aren't any notable incidences of old west shootouts in Wyoming. The turds who are going to bang it out with the police are/were still going to do so and the folks who weren't, still won't.

Turds are turds, regardless of the law saying it's either ok or not ok to carry. If they are a law breaker, what is some law going to do to change their behavior? All laws like CCW laws do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves. I had this very conversation with Gov. Matt Mead during one of his campaign stops for about a half an hour and he agreed with me and promised that he'd look into it further. Apparently he did.

[JeffJ]

If they are a law breaker, what is some law going to do to change their behavior? All laws like CCW laws do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves.

Exactly - the problem with "reasonable gun control" is that it is attempting to use laws to control those who willingly and gladly ignore laws as a general way of life.

[Shellback]

"Shall not be infringed"

Exception: Felons, etc.

You quote the Constitution and yet you contradict yourself stating felons should be an exception to the the document. There are so many different types of felonies, non-violent, that I think this is far too broad of a statement. You may have a point with violent felons to a certain degree yet many states let people with felony convictions have their rights restored.

In Minnesota, for instance, non-violent felons regain their firearms rights when they complete their sentences. People who have committed a “crime of violence” must petition in court to have their rights restored. Ohio is another state where non-violent felons can possess firearms upon completion of their sentences. Violent felons are barred but can petition in court.

In Montana, the only felons who are not allowed to have firearms when they complete their sentences are those who used a dangerous weapon in their crime. Even these people, however, can petition in court to have their firearms rights restored. In North Dakota, even felons whose offense involved “violence or intimidation” automatically regain their firearms rights 10 years after completion of their sentences.

Currently Iowa has a gun rights bill (http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S2522570.shtml?cat=10151) up for vote that would change the state's constitution allowing anyone, regardless of criminal record, to possess a firearm.

My opinion is if they aren't reformed than don't release them. If they are reformed they should be able to legally purchase a firearm. If they don't do it legally there is nothing stopping them from purchasing one on the street.

[jetfire]

I don't really see a problem with it. If my driver's license entitles me to go hurling around the streets in a two-ton 400 horsepower death machine, I kind of have a hard time getting worked up about people carrying guns.

[JHC]

I am not well versed on all angles of Constitutional Carry. Current "Shall Issue" arrangement has worked very well IMO and experience. I do not want to lose a license that is valid with all the states that GA now has recipricocity with. That's my concern. It may be addressed in the proposals.

[Shellback]

I am not well versed on all angles of Constitutional Carry. Current "Shall Issue" arrangement has worked very well IMO and experience. I do not want to lose a license that is valid with all the states that GA now has recipricocity with. That's my concern. It may be addressed in the proposals.

I know that in AZ you have the choice of still applying for a permit so that you can retain reciprocity with the states that have an agreement with AZ. I don't know all the different laws in the different states but I'm assuming most have something similar, I'm about 95% sure AK does too.

[Shellback]

To date, almost seven months later... there aren't any notable incidences of old west shootouts in Wyoming. The turds who are going to bang it out with the police are/were still going to do so and the folks who weren't, still won't.

Turds are turds, regardless of the law saying it's either ok or not ok to carry. If they are a law breaker, what is some law going to do to change their behavior? All laws like CCW laws do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves.


Exactly - the problem with "reasonable gun control" is that it is attempting to use laws to control those who willingly and gladly ignore laws as a general way of life.


I don't really see a problem with it. If my driver's license entitles me to go hurling around the streets in a two-ton 400 horsepower death machine, I kind of have a hard time getting worked up about people carrying guns.

Good stuff from everyone involved in the discussion. My reasoning is in line with the quoted.

[tmoore912]

If they can legally step into a gun store and buy a handgun, then they should be able to carry it on their person. Everything else is a hurdle placed in the way of law abiding citizens. The other issue with "Constitutional Carry" is places off limits. Jails and Nuclear Facilities are about the only ones I can think of. None of the Government buildings and school crap.

Georgia's proposed Bill would still keep the licensing process for those who want reciprocity with other states and also want hassle free gun purchasing at FFL dealers.

[ToddG]

I don't really see a problem with it. If my driver's license entitles me to go hurling around the streets in a two-ton 400 horsepower death machine, I kind of have a hard time getting worked up about people carrying guns.

You had to take a test and get a license to drive. In many states, you need to demonstrate formal instruction first. In most states, you need to take some kind of test -- at least a vision test -- regularly to maintain your driving license. And you have to pay for it.

You also have to register you car and, in most states, pay to have it inspected regularly so that it meets state standards.

Most of us don't think of those things as overly onerous. In fact, I'd imagine the majority of PF.com members are more likely to see someone they believe shouldn't be allowed to drive than they are to see someone able who is disbarred for some reason.

The difference, of course, is that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving a car.

Nonetheless, everyone in the RKBA movement likes to talk about the "shall not be infringed" part but not the "right of the people to bear arms" part. What exactly does that mean? Most legal scholars would agree that, like the 1st Amendment right to free speech, it is not absolute. There are things you can't say without getting in legal trouble. There are other things you cannot say at certain times, places, or in certain manners. I'm at 30-something thousand feet in an airplane right now. If someone jumps up and yells "I've got a bomb and I'm taking you all to Hell!" should the FAM a few rows in front of me (a) shoot him or (b) applaud his exercise of free speech? I vote (a).

Having said all that, personally I'd rather fall on the side of being too generous with CCW than too stringent. Create appropriate laws that punish unacceptable behavior (e.g., carrying while under the influence) rather than laws that prevent people from engaging in legitimate behavior (e.g., carrying while at a place that serves alcohol). The same goes with training. While I understand the desire to require training for public safety reasons, the reality is that no state will ever require its CCWers -- or its police -- to meet a standard that would impress me. Citizens should not be denied their natural right to self defense simply because they haven't checked the box for a four hour class.

[LHS]

I'm torn on this one. I 100% believe there should be no restrictions on non-felons to purchase and own firearms. But I've seen enough stupidity in the world that having people move about in public with a gun can be a bad thing. Note I said can be, not is. I liked AZ's permit laws when I first got mine. It involved a one- or two-day class that provided basic coverage of the legal rights and responsibilities of carrying a gun, a criminal background check, and a pretty much pointless shooting proficiency test (I literally shot it perfect with my eyes closed). The latter portion is, as I said, pretty much pointless, but I think people who carry a weapon in public have a duty to know the laws regarding doing so. If nothing else, the class dispelled a lot of myths that some people had, and opened their eyes to some of the very real legal and ethical implications of carrying a deadly weapon. It was not particularly in-depth given the time available, but it was something. I would wager it prompted a few people to seek out more advanced training that they would not have otherwise thought to get, because 'they already knew how to shoot'. We all should know, the vast majority of the public is not like people on this forum. They don't focus the amount of time and effort into both the practice of shooting and the theory of when and where to use a defensive weapon. This class makes them have at least a basic modicum of exposure to the fact that these issues exist. All in all, the class was not in any way a significant barrier to acquiring the permit. AZ is a 'shall issue' state, which I fully support. As long as those two conditions are met, and given that we have permitless open carry, I have no issue with the pre-Constitutional Carry AZ laws.

From a more pragmatic standpoint, I would have preferred to see our political capital spent on allowing people to carry into more places, such as schools and universities. At least then we could have used the argument that "people who carry concealed are vetted by a criminal background check and have to have training" to help move some fence-sitters onto our side. By doing Constitutional Carry first, we've given the anti-gunners ammunition to sway the uninformed, and hurt our chances to remove some of these pointless restrictions. In essence we sacrificed practical gains in our rights for a philosophical point that, while I agree with it in theory, doesn't do a whole lot for us on a practical level at this time. Like it or not, regaining our gun rights is something that requires strategy and planning. We have to take into account the perceptions of the non-gun-owning public when we decide which aspects of our freedoms to pursue at any given time. We lost our freedoms over a significant period of time, and a cultural shift has occurred. We need to try to regain our freedoms in the same manner, to prevent a cultural backlash that will do us more harm than good. We've spent the past 25 years working on that, at a gradual level. First we started with basic CCW laws in some states. Then we voted out the people who imposed the '94 AW ban on us. Then we applied pressure to our congresscritters to allow that ban to sunset. This is all good. But the lesson to be learned from this is that a single overreach can have drastic consequences. The '94 ban was that overreach for the anti-gunners. I worry that things like Constitutional Carry, pushed too hard at this time, will be ours. We have far too many important things to accomplish first. Don't throw it all away for something that gives a poor risk-to-return ratio.

[F-Trooper05]

I know that in AZ you have the choice of still applying for a permit so that you can retain reciprocity with the states that have an agreement with AZ. I don't know all the different laws in the different states but I'm assuming most have something similar, I'm about 95% sure AK does too.

I'm in Alaska and have my CCW.

[joshs]

I know that in AZ you have the choice of still applying for a permit so that you can retain reciprocity with the states that have an agreement with AZ. I don't know all the different laws in the different states but I'm assuming most have something similar, I'm about 95% sure AK does too.

All permit-less carry states except for Vermont have a "shall issue" permitting system as well.

[LHS]

I know that in AZ you have the choice of still applying for a permit so that you can retain reciprocity with the states that have an agreement with AZ. I don't know all the different laws in the different states but I'm assuming most have something similar, I'm about 95% sure AK does too.

There are also different restrictions in AZ for permitless and permitted CCW. For example, in order to enter an establishment that serves liquor, you have to have a permit. I believe the federal Gun Free Schools Act requires a state-issued permit to have a weapon within 1000' of a school. Try driving around in metro Phoenix without coming within 1000' of a school. Essentially what we've created in AZ is a tiered CCW system, but people frequently don't realize it.

[jetfire]

You had to take a test and get a license to drive. In many states, you need to demonstrate formal instruction first. In most states, you need to take some kind of test -- at least a vision test -- regularly to maintain your driving license. And you have to pay for it.

I understand that it's a flawed analogy, but the point isn't to make a 1-to-1 comparison between cars and guns. But that's what happens when I try to distill a complex topic down to a soundbite. To clarify: if you can pass a NICS check to buy a handgun, then I don't really have an issue with you carrying one. Would I prefer that everyone get competent professional instruction? Sure, so long as it's voluntary.

[RoyGBiv]

You quote the Constitution and yet you contradict yourself stating felons should be an exception to the the document. There are so many different types of felonies, non-violent, that I think this is far too broad of a statement. You may have a point with violent felons to a certain degree yet many states let people with felony convictions have their rights restored.
I was trying for brevity so as not to get the thread off track on the first reply... :D

Yes... I believe there are some people who should not be allowed to possess weapons of any kind (difficult to implement when a steak knife or a rock (or your hands) can be used as a weapon, I know)... I'd bet we'd be close to agreement on who falls into the excluded category if we discussed it over a few beers. My exclusions are narrow, yours maybe narrower. And add in the mentally unstable to my list. Medically or adjudicated.

Conceptually.... You're have the right, unless you do something to forfeit the right. Instead of having to jump through hoops and expense to get your state to give you permission and have that permission recognized by less than all other states.

So.. "... shall not be infringed, unless you've demonstrated that you're untrustworthy"...

[TGS]

You quote the Constitution and yet you contradict yourself stating felons should be an exception to the the document. There are so many different types of felonies, non-violent, that I think this is far too broad of a statement. You may have a point with violent felons to a certain degree yet many states let people with felony convictions have their rights restored.

In Minnesota, for instance, non-violent felons regain their firearms rights when they complete their sentences. People who have committed a “crime of violence” must petition in court to have their rights restored. Ohio is another state where non-violent felons can possess firearms upon completion of their sentences. Violent felons are barred but can petition in court.

In Montana, the only felons who are not allowed to have firearms when they complete their sentences are those who used a dangerous weapon in their crime. Even these people, however, can petition in court to have their firearms rights restored. In North Dakota, even felons whose offense involved “violence or intimidation” automatically regain their firearms rights 10 years after completion of their sentences.

Currently Iowa has a gun rights bill (http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S2522570.shtml?cat=10151) up for vote that would change the state's constitution allowing anyone, regardless of criminal record, to possess a firearm.

My opinion is if they aren't reformed than don't release them. If they are reformed they should be able to legally purchase a firearm. If they don't do it legally there is nothing stopping them from purchasing one on the street.

Good info, but I thought that 922 prevented any felon from possessing a firearm?

[Shellback]

Yes... I believe there are some people who should not be allowed to possess weapons of any kind (difficult to implement when a steak knife or a rock (or your hands) can be used as a weapon, I know)... I'd bet we'd be close to agreement on who falls into the excluded category if we discussed it over a few beers. My exclusions are narrow, yours maybe narrower. And add in the mentally unstable to my list. Medically or adjudicated.

I have no doubt we would and I completely understand your position. My position is that the law doesn't prevent the criminal from obtaining a weapon or committing a crime with it. I also think obtaining a permit in a lot of places is a pain, is expensive and I don't like being treated like a criminal for exercising my Constitutional rights, e.g. fingerprinting.

[Shellback]

Good info, but I thought that 922 prevented any felon from possessing a firearm?

I'm a rock swimming in the deep end on this one. Maybe one of our lawyer types or police officers can chime in on this one.

[ToddG]

... I don't like being treated like a criminal for exercising my Constitutional rights, e.g. fingerprinting.

That's on you, dude. I've never been arrested but I've been fingerprinted more than twenty times for security clearances, permits, job background checks, etc. Your comment comes across to me as looking for trouble and finding it where none exists.

About the least likely thing you'll see overturned are prohibitions against felons possessing guns. As such, criminal background checks -- which involve fingerprinting -- are likely to remain as long as there are permits.

[TGS]

don't like being treated like a criminal for exercising my Constitutional rights, e.g. fingerprinting.

Surprisingly, the cops expressed the same grief when I went to collect my Firearms ID card from my local PD. They were legitimately pissed off that citizens have to put up with NJ's gun laws, especially veterans. They then tried to sell me a .44 Super Redhawk while we were still in the detectives bullpen. :D

[EMC]

But if we do away with the permit, then I have to pay $7.50 for the background check the next time I buy! :D

[JConn]

It seems to me, if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they are going to do it regardless of any laws that may prohibit the crime, gun, or carry of the gun. Laws which infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms only serve to disarm a populace which generally wants to play by the rules. Now, do I want violent felons to get guns and go kill people, of course not. However, and I may be way out of line, it seems to me if they are violent felons, who have done time, they can probably procure a gun if they want one. Same goes for carry. Someone mentioned not carrying into nuclear facilities. If someone really wants to do harm, with nuclear material, do you honestly think laws telling them they can't bring their gun into said facilities are going to stop them. It seems these laws serve little function other than to provide certain members of the populace with the sand to bury their heads in. So in short, yes I support constitutional carry.

[Shellback]

That's on you, dude. I've never been arrested but I've been fingerprinted more than twenty times for security clearances, permits, job background checks, etc. Your comment comes across to me as looking for trouble and finding it where none exists.

I'm not lookig for trouble and my opinion is in line with many people. I've been fingerprinted multiple times from indoc at MEPS to having currently issued CCW permits in several different states. I still don't like it, think it's a waste of time, resources, money and prefer not to have the hassle.

Your local neighborhood criminal isn't gonna rush down to the local cop shop to get fingerprinted before he decides to start carrying his handgun concealed.

[RoyGBiv]

It seems to me, if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they are going to do it regardless of any laws that may prohibit the crime, gun, or carry of the gun. Laws which infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms only serve to disarm a populace which generally wants to play by the rules. Now, do I want violent felons to get guns and go kill people, of course not. However, and I may be way out of line, it seems to me if they are violent felons, who have done time, they can probably procure a gun if they want one. Same goes for carry.
I agree with you... reality is that the law will not dissuade a determined criminal. However, that does not mean it should be "constitutional" for them (convicted violent criminals, or however you want to split that hair) to possess a gun, concealed or otherwise. It's another thing you lose (in addition to your freedom) when you do bad things.

[fixer]

I like Constitutional Carry--alot. I think that there is room for a two tiered approach to firearm possesion laws.

Constitutional Carry could be similar to current concealed carry. While a more focused, back ground-checked, class-oriented (training-centered..thanks Caleb), permit could allow concealed carry anywhere.

My thinking is that if someone would take classes, re-qualify regularly, show interest in maintaining proficiency with the weapon and the law, get finger printed, back ground checked, etc...then there is no rational reason why that person shouldn't be able to carry in a post office (yeah yeah I know a Federal building) to get the mail, pick up kids from school, carry to and from work, etc...meaning common everyday places that people need to go to.

[jetfire]

class-oriented

While I understand the context you intended this, I'd probably want to rephrase that.

[fixer]

While I understand the context you intended this, I'd probably want to rephrase that.

fixed

[Pennzoil]

I'm torn on this one. I 100% believe there should be no restrictions on non-felons to purchase and own firearms. But I've seen enough stupidity in the world that having people move about in public with a gun can be a bad thing. Note I said can be, not is. I liked AZ's permit laws when I first got mine. It involved a one- or two-day class that provided basic coverage of the legal rights and responsibilities of carrying a gun, a criminal background check, and a pretty much pointless shooting proficiency test (I literally shot it perfect with my eyes closed). The latter portion is, as I said, pretty much pointless, but I think people who carry a weapon in public have a duty to know the laws regarding doing so. If nothing else, the class dispelled a lot of myths that some people had, and opened their eyes to some of the very real legal and ethical implications of carrying a deadly weapon. It was not particularly in-depth given the time available, but it was something. I would wager it prompted a few people to seek out more advanced training that they would not have otherwise thought to get, because 'they already knew how to shoot'. We all should know, the vast majority of the public is not like people on this forum. They don't focus the amount of time and effort into both the practice of shooting and the theory of when and where to use a defensive weapon. This class makes them have at least a basic modicum of exposure to the fact that these issues exist. All in all, the class was not in any way a significant barrier to acquiring the permit. AZ is a 'shall issue' state, which I fully support. As long as those two conditions are met, and given that we have permitless open carry, I have no issue with the pre-Constitutional Carry AZ laws.

From a more pragmatic standpoint, I would have preferred to see our political capital spent on allowing people to carry into more places, such as schools and universities. At least then we could have used the argument that "people who carry concealed are vetted by a criminal background check and have to have training" to help move some fence-sitters onto our side. By doing Constitutional Carry first, we've given the anti-gunners ammunition to sway the uninformed, and hurt our chances to remove some of these pointless restrictions. In essence we sacrificed practical gains in our rights for a philosophical point that, while I agree with it in theory, doesn't do a whole lot for us on a practical level at this time. Like it or not, regaining our gun rights is something that requires strategy and planning. We have to take into account the perceptions of the non-gun-owning public when we decide which aspects of our freedoms to pursue at any given time. We lost our freedoms over a significant period of time, and a cultural shift has occurred. We need to try to regain our freedoms in the same manner, to prevent a cultural backlash that will do us more harm than good. We've spent the past 25 years working on that, at a gradual level. First we started with basic CCW laws in some states. Then we voted out the people who imposed the '94 AW ban on us. Then we applied pressure to our congresscritters to allow that ban to sunset. This is all good. But the lesson to be learned from this is that a single overreach can have drastic consequences. The '94 ban was that overreach for the anti-gunners. I worry that things like Constitutional Carry, pushed too hard at this time, will be ours. We have far too many important things to accomplish first. Don't throw it all away for something that gives a poor risk-to-return ratio.

I agree with this above.

My buddies and I talk about AZ constitutional carry all the time while agreeing it wasn't the best move in the long term for increasing gun rights. In my heart I'm all for constitutional carry but I think AZCDL could have went after a number of other laws first. I'm still a member and love the organization but I think now it's harder now to improve carry laws due to going from an argument of trained certified license holders to qualifying the general untrained public as a whole for any new carry law now(ie. campus carry, carry around schools, etc).

Our permit process was really easy to start with and renewal was just mailing in little bit of money every 5 years thats it. Everyone I know owns a firearm and we even do work sanctioned shooting team builders all the time. It's awesome living in a red state but you see a lot of people shoot and the people that didn't have licenses prior to our constitutional carry law were in my eyes due to fear of passing a really easy shooting test. Most of the people that I know that carry now under constitutional carry probably couldn't guarantee hits on 8" circle at 5 yards.

When AZ got constitutional carry it raised a lot of press which also included most corporate businesses looking into how to keep firearms out. So a huge increase in gun buster signs went up meaning we lost ground as a whole. Also Arizona's laws on CCW are now split so a person with a CCW can carry legally in more places then a person with out a AZ CCW carrying under constitutional carry. Everyone I've talked to that doesn't have a CCW is unaware of the difference in rights. This leaves us open to more bad firearms press or good people ending up on the wrong side of the law. Lastly with less people getting CCW licenses you are now seeing a lot less CCW classes so while not impossible to get a license now there is definitely less opportunities now.

[Ray Keith]

I'm a rock swimming in the deep end on this one. Maybe one of our lawyer types or police officers can chime in on this one.

Regardless of any State law, a convicted felon is a prohibited person (ammo too) under federal law. I'm not aware of an allowance in the Federal law for restoration under State law. If there is I'd like to know. If you can get a Presidential Pardon, I'd say you have a decent chance at getting a restoration.

You won't clear the "instant" check, and will have an issue on the 4473 form. Several states that I know of have a requirement for a CHL that you not be a prohibited person under Federal law.

Perhaps there will one day be interesting battles between States and the Feds, but this is how the Feds view it.

[joshs]

Regardless of any State law, a convicted felon is a prohibited person (ammo too) under federal law. I'm not aware of an allowance in the Federal law for restoration under State law. If there is I'd like to know. If you can get a Presidential Pardon, I'd say you have a decent chance at getting a restoration.

You won't clear the "instant" check, and will have an issue on the 4473 form. Several states that I know of have a requirement for a CHL that you not be a prohibited person under Federal law.

Perhaps there will one day be interesting battles between States and the Feds, but this is how the Feds view it.

Restoration under state law can remove the federal disability, but the restoration must restore all firearms rights. See United States v. Caron (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-6270.ZO.html).

[Shellback]

You won't clear the "instant" check, and will have an issue on the 4473 form. Several states that I know of have a requirement for a CHL that you not be a prohibited person under Federal law.

Perhaps there will one day be interesting battles between States and the Feds, but this is how the Feds view it.

I'm doing a lot of reading and research on Printz v. United States, it's very interesting and pertains to this issue.

[G60]

I support it because of the 'constitutional minimum' it helps to create, and I believe that is some of the strategy behind it.

[Joseph B.]

I am all for it, I think the second ammendment should never be limited or controlled for any reason. People have the right to bear arms, for whatever reason they choose, what they do with it is a different story though...

[BWT]

In almost all states that I'm aware of that are Shall issue, none of their carry laws are more restrictive as far as eligibility from a criminal background stand point than what it requires to get a gun.

AFAIK, if you can buy a gun in almost all of those states (I say almost, because I don't know that all of them, but I've always perceived it this way), you can get a permit in shall issue.

I made the distinction that eligibility from a criminal background stand point because you, even though legally able, may not have an 8-hour class required in some states to get it, or pay the proper fees, or get the proper finger printing.

The way I see it, our Fore Father are what you'd consider to be extremists, these guys were out writing documentation, publishing documentation, preparing for a revolution, past a curfew that was imposed by a government, that could've easily, and I mean easily, have gotten them tried and executed for treason. What they were discussing, would've been treason. The fact they were out organizing a revolution, would've been treason. Disregarding the curfews, etc, that probably would've had something minor, like a flogging, you know, that one probably wouldn't get you killed, but the other two, dead for sure.

When they say "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms", I don't think they meant a general right as a populous, remember, sneaking at night, treason at risk, to express their views from an oppressive government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think people forget about "Security of a free State" a bit.

I think, you don't need to have a permit.

The upsides to a permit to me are,
1.) It educates people in my state about what the statutes of lethal force currently are.
2.) It educates them on how they are to handle dealing with L.E. when being approached in a matter of L.E.
3.) It educates them on the limitations of their permit, where they are allowed to carry, etc, etc.
4.) Even though I don't agree with it, I think it does require you to know how to shoot the firearm you own well enough to pass a shooting test. (I think you should become proficient with anything you plan on using for self-defense, but... I think you being tested for it is bull crap, and just another obligation and requirement to have a State Certified Instructor administer that test, what if you live out in the middle of nowhere, and can't make it? What if you just believe in freedom?)
5.) You do have to express knowledge of what you've been taught to a manageable enough degree to prove that you comprehended and atleast retained for 8 hours at some point in time, what the limitations of your permit were at that point.
6.) Reciprocity among other states.

[JeffJ]

I don't think that's necessarily correct. I'm fairly certain in Texas, I'm going from memory here, certain violations like DWI, some state tax issues, and maybe a few other things can keep you from getting your CHL. I don't know if the law has changed but at one point you had to wait 5 years after a DWI - note that this wouldn't preclude you from buying a handgun, so the restrictions are more strict.

I agree that people should be well versed in the laws of their state and the operation of their tools. However, as out of style as this is, I also believe in "Big Boy Rules" if you want to carry a gun then you need to do the work that makes you qualified to do so. I think the same thing about other tools, every carpenter I know that's missing a finger lost it doing one of two things that are basic safety violations - it's not hard to make sure that every operation you perform doesn't violate those. I don't think they need a class either.

[joshs]

In almost all states that I'm aware of that are Shall issue, none of their carry laws are more restrictive as far as eligibility from a criminal background stand point than what it requires to get a gun.

Many shall issue states have more permit disqualifiers than possession disqualifiers.

[ford.304]

I think it actually falls back on the old liberal standard (feel slightly dirty saying that) - of how much of a burden does it place on poor people?

For me, I thought my state's shall-issue system was fair enough. I pay $150 bucks, take a saturday for a course, learn about gun laws (even as a novice, I knew everything they taught me about how to shoot the gun), and then schedule another day to go apply for the permit. As a comfortably middle class dude, that's pretty easy to manage.

However.. if you're a grandmother living on social security in the bad part of town, and you want to put your deceased husband's old police special in your purse when you take the bus to the grocery store because half of your friends have been mugged and beaten doing exactly that... that's a much bigger burden to meet.

Which is why it comes down to a right. Voting is infinitely more dangerous than carrying around a gun - voting puts us into wars, puts people behind bars. But we wouldn't accept a basic test of civil knowledge and history to be able to vote, or even to write a blog on policy.

That said, I do think that carrying a gun every day without doing your research or training, or knowing local self defense laws, is usually a really bad idea. But I think it's our right to have bad ideas, up until the point where we hurt someone else with them.

Given that the majority of shall issue states already allow open carry without a permit, I don't really see what the fuss is. Everyone I take to the range the first time looks at me like I'm insane when I explain to them that in Ohio, they could already just strap a pistol to their hip and walk down main street, according to the law. I then do go on to explain why that's usually a bad idea, unless they have a real pressing need to.

[Shellback]

I think it actually falls back on the old liberal standard (feel slightly dirty saying that) - of how much of a burden does it place on poor people?

I sent a PM regarding this very thing to one of the members here after someone brought up CCW permits being "class-oriented". Many of our gun laws are in fact class and race oriented and were designed that way from the beginning. The poorest people, in the worst neighborhoods can neither afford the required training, the permit or to take the time off of work to sit around waiting for 4 hours to get fingerprinted and processed. I understand the reasoning behind it and what police officer wants to work in the ghetto where every scumbag can pack heat legally?

I am not a "defender of the poor", or liberal by any means, but I do believe that elderly people on fixed incomes have a hard enough time getting by as it is. The costs are prohibitive to the poor and elderly and constitutional rights shouldn't only be available to the people who can afford them.

[JeffJ]

Whats the difference between a scumbag packing heat legally and a scumbag packing heat illegaly?

[Shellback]

Whats the difference between a scumbag packing heat legally and a scumbag packing heat illegaly?

A little bit of money and time. It's also another charge to pile on.

[jar]

I was dreading typing up a long response on my phone, but ford covered it perfectly.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

[JeffJ]

A little bit of money and time. It's also another charge to pile on.

Right.

My comment was more in response to cops not wanting to patrol ghettos where scumbags are legally packing - I don't see how that would be any different than cops not wanting to patrol ghettos where scumbags are illegally packing.

[Shellback]

Through a bit of research I've found that 12 states are considering Constitutional Carry at this point in time. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia.

[JDM]

I'm not sure how I normally feel about Constitutional Carry, but as I'm currently sitting in a 5 hour CCW renewal class, at this moment I strongly support it.

What objections do you have to it, Tom?

[JDM]

Got it.

[derekb]

The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a (nationally consistent!) 'tiered' system as seen in some states. I don't like the idea of making it difficult for someone to carry a handgun in most, or many, day-to-day situations (grocery store, the office, whatever) if they so desire. I don't think there should be a barrier, for a random example, to someone who's recently received threats to take action to protect themselves or their loved ones.

At the same time, I'm not opposed to the idea of (once again, nationally consistent) training that would reduce restrictions on people carrying firearms legally, losing the silly post office and school zone bans for those who commit the resources to doing so.

A lot of pipe-dream, but I think that's a system I'd be perfectly happy with. The big thing for me would be national consistency, I'm so very tired of being disarmed every time I get a job (because they're all out of state.)

[TCinVA]

I'm a bit of a radical:

I don't see any place or time where an honest person is unable to defend himself/herself from criminal assault anywhere in the laws of our land. I mean, can anyone point out a legal requirement to let someone stab you to death if you're outside of your house? To let them crush your skull with a bat? To shoot you?

It strikes me as ridiculous, therefore, to hold that possession of an effective means of self defense is forbidden unless you have a permission slip from the government. Denying access to an effective means of self defense is a defacto denial of the right to self defense...which we don't tolerate with other rights. Sure you have the right to speak freely on politics...after you pony up a $100.00 fee and pass a background check to make sure you're not a seditious element. Oh, and you can only actually speak freely here, here, and here. And if we don't like what you say your permit will be revoked.

A defacto denial of rights is still a denial of rights. Our government is supposed to exist to secure our rights...not trample them.

It would be nice to see government at all levels take the 2nd amendment rights of honest people who have never hurt anyone as seriously as it takes the 4th or 8th amendment rights of child molesters and terrorists. Anything less is unacceptable, in my opinion.

[Fly320s]

TCinVA nailed my sentiments exactly.

I will that the right to self defense still applies whether a person is stone cold sober, or blindingly intoxicated.

[Shellback]

Our gun laws kill law abiding citizens who need protection now and not after some sort of waiting or cooling off period. Here's quite a few examples, here (http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html) and here (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/gun_control_kills.htm), of women and children being killed and/or raped due to the woman either not being able to obtain a firearm due to onerous waiting periods or not being able to legally carry one concealed due to the requirements.

[JConn]

I'm a bit of a radical:

I don't see any place or time where an honest person is unable to defend himself/herself from criminal assault anywhere in the laws of our land. I mean, can anyone point out a legal requirement to let someone stab you to death if you're outside of your house? To let them crush your skull with a bat? To shoot you?

It strikes me as ridiculous, therefore, to hold that possession of an effective means of self defense is forbidden unless you have a permission slip from the government. Denying access to an effective means of self defense is a defacto denial of the right to self defense...which we don't tolerate with other rights. Sure you have the right to speak freely on politics...after you pony up a $100.00 fee and pass a background check to make sure you're not a seditious element. Oh, and you can only actually speak freely here, here, and here. And if we don't like what you say your permit will be revoked.

A defacto denial of rights is still a denial of rights. Our government is supposed to exist to secure our rights...not trample them.

It would be nice to see government at all levels take the 2nd amendment rights of honest people who have never hurt anyone as seriously as it takes the 4th or 8th amendment rights of child molesters and terrorists. Anything less is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I'm right there with you.

[Tamara]

I sent a PM regarding this very thing to one of the members here after someone brought up CCW permits being "class-oriented". Many of our gun laws are in fact class and race oriented and were designed that way from the beginning.

Oh, yeah. Indiana's handgun permit law, which dates back to the late '30s, still includes the "proper person" language, and we all know what that meant back then: African-Americans, hobos, commies, and papists need not apply.