PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional Carry Initiative


dantodd
02-08-2011, 3:06 PM
It will never happen. We won't get it on the ballot and we sure as hell won't win if it were on the ballot but.....

I am not sure how many CGer's are even in favor of Constitutional Carry so, a poll! a poll!

Would you vote for an initiative that permitted any non-prohibited person to carry a gun without any test, permit etc?

ETA: this is a private poll.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 3:13 PM
If we're talking about a constitutional amendment vote, to protect both methods, I have no problem with my vote being public. I voted B, which is yes. Yes. LOC and CCW should be a basic right.

And people wonder why I'm such a "sellout". Just sayin....

Steveo8
02-08-2011, 3:14 PM
Same here! 3 votes all the same :)

wildhawker
02-08-2011, 3:14 PM
B. "Yes. LOC and CCW should be a basic right"

dantodd
02-08-2011, 3:15 PM
If we're talking about a constitutional amendment vote, to protect both methods, I have no problem with my vote being public. I voted B, which is yes. Yes. LOC and CCW should be a basic right.

And people wonder why I'm such a "sellout". Just sayin....

I wanted to make sure that EVERYONE felt comfortable voting. I suspect since it's 0-3-0-0 it's obvious I voted the same way.

wash
02-08-2011, 3:20 PM
I voted B but was tempted to vote D.

That's probably because those UOC guys are pissing me off (and probably delaying my ability to LOC).

PsychGuy274
02-08-2011, 3:21 PM
It's not a right if you have to ask permission.

Havoc70
02-08-2011, 3:22 PM
B all the way.

audiophil2
02-08-2011, 3:26 PM
I did not click on the poll since I can't vote in CA but my answer would be B. It's working fine over here.

ghost
02-08-2011, 3:28 PM
b. all the way

LOC and CCW should be a basic right

Coded-Dude
02-08-2011, 3:29 PM
http://sulz.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/letter_b.jpg

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 3:34 PM
I did not click on the poll since I can't vote in CA but my answer would be B. It's working fine over here.

That didn't stop me.

Vote anyway. :p

joefreas
02-08-2011, 3:35 PM
It happened in AZ. B that is-

GrizzlyGuy
02-08-2011, 3:38 PM
Would you vote for an initiative that permitted any non-prohibited person to carry a gun without any test, permit etc?

Why are you discriminating against prohibited persons? ;)

nobody_special
02-08-2011, 3:54 PM
I voted for (B) though I don't have a problem with (C) so long as the permits are shall-issue, inexpensive, and not subject to excessive restrictions.

Carnivore
02-08-2011, 4:09 PM
The letter

http://usera.imagecave.com/Carnivore/letter_b.jpg


I like some color in my letters.

stix213
02-08-2011, 4:18 PM
I would certainly support both in that alternate reality you must be suggesting. Though if I were proposing a proposition for the ballot, or writing a bill for the legislature, I would take a realistic approach and go for something much more likely to pass, such as a "shall issue" permitting for either.

TempleKnight
02-08-2011, 4:20 PM
I voted B but was tempted to vote D.

That's probably because those UOC guys are pissing me off (and probably delaying my ability to LOC).

+1 - let's add UOC should be by permit only

Connor P Price
02-08-2011, 4:26 PM
I went with B, its a basic right and should be treated as such. Its a pipe dream though.

Super Spy
02-08-2011, 4:26 PM
I think we should have constitutional CCW, forget the LOC for metro areas, way too many MWG calls to the police and you scare all the soccer mom's and make yourself a target. If you want to LOC while in the sticks fine, but in the city keep it under cover.

Hopalong
02-08-2011, 4:27 PM
The only way people are going to get used to seeing people with guns

Is to see people with guns.

Personally, it doesn't faze me in the least.

Ripon83
02-08-2011, 4:34 PM
Do you remember the school "voucher" propositions? We have not seen one in CA for a long time. Do you know why those were brought up? They were brought up to "soak" the California Teachers Union out of campaign funds so that their resources would be dried up in legislative races.

The only reason I bring that up; is such a proposal for a law of this kind would soak up the pro gun money.....and if you think things are bad now imagine it without those contributions.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 4:37 PM
I think we should have constitutional CCW, forget the LOC for metro areas, way too many MWG calls to the police and you scare all the soccer mom's and make yourself a target. If you want to LOC while in the sticks fine, but in the city keep it under cover.

I would say if Constitutional Carry were to be made an initiative, it would have to
1) repeal all gun laws, no more "Criminal Safety School Zones", "MWAG" or "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" BS calls that criminal safety proponents use as weapons against their intended victims.
2) make prosecution for misuse of the 911 system and making false police reports mandatory. Right now it seems like the victim disarmers get Brownie points every time they report peaceful law-abiding gun owners as violent psychopathic criminals, instead of a citation or trip to jail.

Skidmark
02-08-2011, 4:53 PM
D.

The OC crowd are making life tougher for us than it needs to be.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 4:54 PM
The only way people are going to get used to seeing people with guns

Is to see people with guns.

Personally, it doesn't faze me in the least.

Florida and Texas proves that contention wrong.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 4:54 PM
D.

The OC crowd are making life tougher for us than it needs to be.

Yeah, infringe on yourself! D!

Florida (non permissive open carry state) and Texas (non permissive open carry state) proves that contention wrong.

...

The only way people are going to get used to seeing people with guns

Is to see people with guns.

Window_Seat
02-08-2011, 5:35 PM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/error46146/DC-Transit/7-7/IMG_0035.jpg

It's hard to stop a train once it gets going. :cool:

Erik.

diginit
02-08-2011, 5:49 PM
B for me. Anyone that believes differently hasn't read the 2nd Ammendment. That goes for anyone that voted for C and D also. They evidentally believe our rights should be infringed and that the right to carry should be regulated by the government telling us how to use this right. I'm dissapointed in them.

Cokebottle
02-08-2011, 5:57 PM
On the ballot, "B".

But I would not sign a petition in front of WalMart to put it on the ballot, for reasons previously discussed many times....

A failure on the ballot would provide decades of ammo to the antis.

Dreaded Claymore
02-08-2011, 5:59 PM
I definitely wouldn't try to get it on the ballot as an initiative, it'd lose and we'd be in trouble. :mad: But if it appeared on the ballot, I'd certainly vote B.

CCWFacts
02-08-2011, 6:10 PM
I (along with 85% of everyone else here) voted that it's a constitutional right.

But I would like to emphasize, attempting to have a ballot initiative on any of these issues has been tried, and failed, and is a terrible idea and a waste of resources.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Xaeon/passnot.jpg

RSC
02-08-2011, 6:16 PM
B - but use an iron fist on anyone who abuses the right and commits a crime with a gun

Civilitant
02-08-2011, 6:23 PM
B. done deal

glad to see it's not even close ( the poll that is )

scarville
02-08-2011, 8:20 PM
I went for B because F was not available.

F. No license is required to carry a firearm and anyone carrying openly and plainly for all to see is exempted from the sales tax.

Zak
02-08-2011, 8:25 PM
But what about my shiny CCW permits? :coolgleamA:

CitaDeL
02-08-2011, 8:52 PM
But what about my shiny CCW permits? :coolgleamA:

Rice paper is definately not shiny. Or a right. And seldom issued in the places in California that need it most.

You werent thinking of one of those snazzy CCW badges, were you?
Ack!

Untamed1972
02-09-2011, 7:17 AM
B! it's a basic right. It's time to bring and end to all gov't intrusion into the personal lives of the citizenry.

Lone_Gunman
02-09-2011, 7:22 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/B-Autonorte.png

Legasat
02-09-2011, 8:46 AM
B - If I can buy it, I should be able to carry it. Period.

steadyrock
02-09-2011, 10:06 AM
What else? B. Constitutional Carry works fine in 6% of the nation so far, and with WY and CO coming on board it's nice to see the movement gathering momentum. I suspect MT will come along shortly as well.

-hanko
02-09-2011, 10:47 AM
+1 - let's add UOC should be by permit only
Good. Keep peeing on the 2nd.:confused: Sounds like you're in favor of good ol' reasonable gun control.

The normal police responses to the OC crowd are making life tougher for us than it needs to be.
Fixed.

B - but use an iron fist on anyone who abuses the right and commits a crime with a gun
Zero disagreement here.

-hanko

forgiven
02-09-2011, 4:02 PM
B- that was an easy answer.:)

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 5:08 PM
It's not a right if you have to ask permission.

It's certainly not a right if you have to beg first, then PAY for permission.

diginit
02-09-2011, 5:53 PM
Hanko... Congradulations! You have a brain! I'm so tired of people that say one form of carry should be legal and another not. According to the US constitution. We should to be allowed to carry firearms anyway we choose.

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/diginit/Ammo%20Testing/d33d861c.jpg

pitchbaby
02-09-2011, 8:04 PM
If your not a B, why are you here?

Anti-Hero
02-09-2011, 8:31 PM
I'll come right out and say it. I voted A. I believe there should be a minimum level of competency involved when one wishes to carry a firearm for self defense. This should encompass the legal and moral obligations of self defense, a real range qualification, and possibly some scenario based training.

If you fail, come back next month.

Cokebottle
02-09-2011, 8:59 PM
2A is as fundamental as the right to vote.

Training (education, critical thinking) should be as much a part of voting as everything that you mentioned should be a part of gun ownership.

But it should be up to the gun owner to seek and participate in this training. It should not be a requirement.
In the Constitution, there is a period immediately after "shall not be infringed."

Anti-Hero
02-09-2011, 9:14 PM
2A is as fundamental as the right to vote.

Training (education, critical thinking) should be as much a part of voting as everything that you mentioned should be a part of gun ownership.

But it should be up to the gun owner to seek and participate in this training. It should not be a requirement.
In the Constitution, there is a period immediately after "shall not be infringed."

You can use the same argument for driving. Do you want unlicensed, untrained people, who don't know traffic laws, how to merge, etc. driving a two ton truck on the same roads as your family?

We already license one potentially deadly weapon. Why would you think another to be exempt?

Using voting is a terrible analogy. People don't get killed by hanging chads. If exercising your right involves the potential to kill or maim you better damn well have some kind of a clue what you're doing.

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 9:14 PM
The penis gun is GOLD!

You can use the same argument for driving. Do you want unlicensed, untrained people, who don't know traffic laws, how to merge, etc. driving a two ton truck on the same roads as your family?

They already are, and the government refuses to permanently revoke their privileges even when they commit injurious crimes with their vehicles. The drag racing on public right-of-way scumbags who put my faultless brother in a coma and brain damaged him for life were found guilty, yet still were given their privilege back shortly afterward.

Why is the PRIVILEGE of driving afforded infinite leeway compared to the RIGHT which specifically "... shall not be infringed." ?

Cokebottle
02-09-2011, 9:28 PM
We already license one potentially deadly weapon. Why would you think another to be exempt?
Operating a motor vehicle is not an enumerated right.
Using voting is a terrible analogy. People don't get killed by hanging chads.
They can be, and people have been killed as a result of the actions of elected officials, here and in many other countries.

Anti-Hero
02-09-2011, 9:31 PM
We can wax philosophical all night long. My view on this subject won't change and I doubt yours will either.

Cokebottle
02-09-2011, 9:32 PM
We can wax philosophical all night long. My view on this subject won't change and I doubt yours will either.
Actually, mine already has.


I used to agree with you.

Anti-Hero
02-09-2011, 9:38 PM
Actually, mine already has.

I used to agree with you.

I'm not sure how I'll be able to sleep tonight.

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 10:09 PM
There's no rest for the wicked, anyway...

CalBear
02-09-2011, 10:26 PM
http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_14238_857_4243_43/http;/cbi-lap7.cbi.cr.usgs.gov;7097/publishedcontent/publish/ecological_topics/pollinators/highlight__narrow__polls_bee_anatomy/highlight__narrow__polls_bee_anatomy_1.jpg

jpigeon
02-10-2011, 4:56 AM
Im thinking constitutional carry could pass in CA:rofl2::rofl2:

FirstFlight
02-10-2011, 5:44 AM
B For Me!

audiophil2
02-10-2011, 6:55 AM
I'll come right out and say it. I voted A. I believe there should be a minimum level of competency involved when one wishes to carry a firearm for self defense. This should encompass the legal and moral obligations of self defense, a real range qualification, and possibly some scenario based training.

If you fail, come back next month.

26 state governments, including CA, as well as the COTUS disagree with your belief.

I understand you are entitled to your opinion and are unlikely to change it but could you at least provide some logical explanation as to why you think you are right and the Constitution and majority of state governments are wrong?

scarville
02-10-2011, 7:05 AM
The only way people are going to get used to seeing people with guns

Is to see people with guns.

Personally, it doesn't faze me in the least.
CCW is the best closet. :rolleyes:

dantodd
02-10-2011, 7:14 AM
I'll come right out and say it. I voted A. I believe there should be a minimum level of competency involved when one wishes to carry a firearm for self defense. This should encompass the legal and moral obligations of self defense, a real range qualification, and possibly some scenario based training.

If you fail, come back next month.

This is actually the information I was looking for. I am actually a little surprised there aren't more people who (when anonymous) believe that some level of basic competency should be required to carry.

CalNRA
02-10-2011, 7:23 AM
You can use the same argument for driving. Do you want unlicensed, untrained people, who don't know traffic laws, how to merge, etc. driving a two ton truck on the same roads as your family?

We already license one potentially deadly weapon. Why would you think another to be exempt?

Using voting is a terrible analogy. People don't get killed by hanging chads. If exercising your right involves the potential to kill or maim you better damn well have some kind of a clue what you're doing.

The streets full of people negligently discharging their weapons in Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona totally support your case.

Wait, that's not the case.

In fact much of CA law enforcement don't care if you don't have a license while operating a motor vehicle anymore, as long as you are an illegal immigrant.

audiophil2
02-10-2011, 7:31 AM
This is actually the information I was looking for. I am actually a little surprised there aren't more people who (when anonymous) believe that some level of basic competency should be required to carry.

Maybe it is because people are capable of reading up on history and the most basic laws of the land. It does not take much time to learn that the permit system was not based on gun safety at all, rather it was created as a form of racism and oppression against blacks and poor people.

If someone could point out solid information on how unlicensed open carry/CCW has proven to create wild west shootouts or even negligent shootings I would gladly condone mandatory permitting and instruction. So far no one has been able to provide this information and those that are anti-constitutional carry only provide personal beliefs or feelings about why they are right.

dustoff31
02-10-2011, 7:38 AM
This is actually the information I was looking for. I am actually a little surprised there aren't more people who (when anonymous) believe that some level of basic competency should be required to carry.

I believe that some basic competency is certainly in order. But should it be required, or just strongly recommended? I can't imagine that anyone is actually in favor of allowing ignorant and incompetent people carrying guns. OTOH, we allow such people to do all manner of things.

Rather than requiring training, perhaps one should suffer some penalty for not ensuring that they know when, where, and how to shoot. For example, saying that failure to take some form of recognized training will be considered prima facie evidence of negligence if you mess up.

Arondos
02-10-2011, 9:26 AM
Far more people have been killed by voters than automobiles. Politicians cause wars...

and I don't see any requirements other than age to vote so why should there be any restrictions on other guaranteed rights?

I believe the individual should be responsible for being competent and properly trained and if they aren't then they should be held accountable. We don't need more government control that lessens personal responsibility.

rugershooter
02-10-2011, 10:12 AM
Gun control doesn't work to stop people from illegally carrying guns. Only law abiding citizens will obey the law, so why infringe on their rights? There's no reason to. From a strictly constitutional point of view, permits infringe on the 2A. There shouldn't be any permits or training requirements for carrying gun. Training is a personal, individual responsibility, not the government's responsibility.

jnojr
02-10-2011, 10:47 AM
Two choices:

1) A system with no CCW permits, where someone who doesn't know what they're doing might hurt or kill someone else.

2) A system with CCW permits, where the government can, and therefore will, take ever-growing powers to determine who should be able to carry when... until nobody that they do not approve of can carry at all.

On the one hand, the possibility. On the other, the proven certainty of the growth and intrusion of government power.

I know which I prefer. Freedom isn't free. Nor is it warm, safe, and cozy. And all of our attempts to use government to create a place that is warm, safe, and cozy inevitably lead to one where life is cold, bleak, and terrifying.

rugershooter
02-10-2011, 10:59 AM
Two choices:

1) A system with no CCW permits, where someone who doesn't know what they're doing might hurt or kill someone else.

2) A system with CCW permits, where the government can, and therefore will, take ever-growing powers to determine who should be able to carry when... until nobody that they do not approve of can carry at all.

On the one hand, the possibility. On the other, the proven certainty of the growth and intrusion of government power.

I know which I prefer. Freedom isn't free. Nor is it warm, safe, and cozy. And all of our attempts to use government to create a place that is warm, safe, and cozy inevitably lead to one where life is cold, bleak, and terrifying.

I was going to post a quote from Thomas Jefferson but then I saw it in your sig. Freedom has risks...