Believe In Constitutional Carry?

[oddball]

I am positive criminals practice constitutional carry, so why shouldn't the law abiding?

Even Barry agrees.



I live in a state with C.C. The minority, the Democrat Austin commies here, "predicted" blood in the streets, the Old West, dogs and cats f*cking.

[L84CABO]

ANYTHING other than constitutional carry is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

At no point in the era of the founding did "We The People," need to trundle on down to the local constabulary and BEG the local sheriff for a stupid piece of paper in order to exercise our GOD GIVEN RIGHT to bear arms.

So far 27 states have seen fit to correct this stupid requirement. Hopefully the rest will follow suit.

WOLVERINES!

[mossy]

criminals carry illegally and LEO's have LEOSA.
any law abiding citizen who can buy a gun should be able to carry that gun.

[Grendel Guy]

Paging Hermosa Beach, paging Hermosa Beach.

[bwiese]

And what if one's place of residence and place of firearms storage is within 1000 feet of a school?

If you read the law:

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ? 922(q)(2)(B):

[18 U.S.C. ? 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm —
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
.
.
.

But you'd have to be careful if your car is, say, parked on the street and you're transferring
guns to/from it from your house or business. In such a situation the guns(s) would need
to be locked+unloaded.

[benjamin101677]

I know CA requires shooting qualifications for CCW. Many, not all, other states do as well.

Interested in how many believe Constitutional Carry is a good thing? IE no qualification shooting.

I believe it's a good thing as one can sufficiently determine their own level of satisfaction.

I would have believed it was a good thing in theory, until I have seen all the people in CCW classes that ask "crazy off the wall" questions and have no clue about what they can and can't do in regards to use of force and law.

Surprised at the number of people that have wild fantasies about tv and what might occur.

[DolphinFan]

When looking at the Text/History/Tradition, between 1790-1869, there is no foundation for anything but constitutional carry.
If like Justice Thomas write is true, and the second amendment is not a second class right and equal to the First and sixth amendments, constitutional carry is the law of the land.
As for States, I preach they no longer have authority under the 10th amendment to regulate firearms.

[benjamin101677]

Anyone here that thinks it's not should get insta banned.

I don't think people should carry guns without any training? So because I have a different value you would like to see me get banned? We are starting to sound like the left here, silence and / or get rid of people who don't agree with us.

I used to believe in carry without training until I started hanging around my friend more who teaches CCW classes and I have just seen some of the people that are in the classes. A lot of common sense is lacking.

With carrying a handgun there comes a lot of responsibility that most people don't understand or never think about.

Several scenarios arise that scare me for people without training;

01. I am out shopping something happens and at least 1 person with a 20 round magazine unloads as they have had no training and rounds go everywhere.

02. I have to use my weapon, and a big fear even with people who have CCW is that some weapon holder only sees half of what occurred decides to step up and be a "hero" and shoots me as the good guy.

If you read a lot of threads on here regular practice with firearms is a good thing, not everybody does that. Yet, it there was no requirements we could have old west type gun fights in the street.

[benjamin101677]

When looking at the Text/History/Tradition, between 1790-1869, there is no foundation for anything but constitutional carry.
If like Justice Thomas write is true, and the second amendment is not a second class right and equal to the First and sixth amendments, constitutional carry is the law of the land.
As for States, I preach they no longer have authority under the 10th amendment to regulate firearms.

The world was a different place back then, people were different and guns were used differently.

[audiophil2]

And what if one's place of residence and place of firearms storage is within 1000 feet of a school?

The gfsz act is a federal law and mostly used as an add on to other criminal activity on school grounds.there have been instances of arrests but it is extremely rare.

My firearms business was within 1000ft of a school. I had a sign on my door alerting customers not to have an unloaded and unlocked container gun if they parked on the street in front of my house. On my driveway no issue.

During an ATF inspection an IO noticed the sign and told me that law is not really for good guys with guns.

My local police told me they dont enforce gfsz unless it is during criminal activity near the school or in school grounds. Non criminal activity on school grounds is case by case and usually not an issue.

You need a local DA to notify the FED about the crime and the fed has to step in. Almost never happens.

The law is the law but this not a huge deal. It is like people that bring guns into the sterile area of an airport. It's also illegal but almost no one is ever charged. They get fined at most.

This law would be so easy to overturn base on recent court rulings but it is a tender subject. Ideally there should be an exemption for law abiding citizens. It should only apply when in the course of a crime or in possession of a prohibited person.

[benjamin101677]

ANYTHING other than constitutional carry is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

At no point in the era of the founding did "We The People," need to trundle on down to the local constabulary and BEG the local sheriff for a stupid piece of paper in order to exercise our GOD GIVEN RIGHT to bear arms.

So far 27 states have seen fit to correct this stupid requirement. Hopefully the rest will follow suit.

WOLVERINES!

The rules always swing one way far and the than the other way far. Give it time in these other states without requirements for innocent people to get killed / hurt by someone who didn't know what they were doing with a gun and see where everything goes.

For laws, and change in people they need a face. Let some ccw holder fire 20 rounds in some situation in a mall and hit a lot of innocent people and see how the views change.

[audiophil2]

I don't think people should carry guns without any training? So because I have a different value you would like to see me get banned? We are starting to sound like the left here, silence and / or get rid of people who don't agree with us.

I used to believe in carry without training until I started hanging around my friend more who teaches CCW classes and I have just seen some of the people that are in the classes. A lot of common sense is lacking.

With carrying a handgun there comes a lot of responsibility that most people don't understand or never think about.

Several scenarios arise that scare me for people without training;

01. I am out shopping something happens and at least 1 person with a 20 round magazine unloads as they have had no training and rounds go everywhere.

02. I have to use my weapon, and a big fear even with people who have CCW is that some weapon holder only sees half of what occurred decides to step up and be a "hero" and shoots me as the good guy.

If you read a lot of threads on here regular practice with firearms is a good thing, not everybody does that. Yet, it there was no requirements we could have old west type gun fights in the street.

If the shoe fits...

[benjamin101677]

If the shoe fits...

LOL so your response to my argument is to make a smart comment back.

LOL really show your maturity level,

Just because I have a different view and I based it off of fact of what I have seen at CCW classes with people training, and other things.

[Dan_Eastvale]

It’s an academic question. Some believe agencies guidelines for shooting are appropriate.
7 yards, 15 yards, etc.
It’s a touchy subject but…
I believe it’s up to the gun owner/carrier.

[bwiese]

The gfsz act is a federal law and mostly used as an add on to other criminal activity on school grounds.there have been instances of arrests but it is extremely rare.

Legality & depth of legal risk has nothing to do with frequency of prosecution.

Expect the antis to use this further with referrals to US attorneys (just as
we have see Ca DOJ refer stuff to US Attorneys [like in the Sacto cop gun
flipping cases 12+ yrs ago.]

Please read this memo from BATF to the Oklahoma 2A Association:

https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/BATFLetterONGFSZ2013.pdf

This is NOT from an 'agent' and is representative of policy details and is
a fair legal analysis.}

Remember, the real issue is what happens if you have an SD situation
in a GFSZ.

During an ATF inspection an IO noticed the sign and told me that law is not
really for good guys with guns.

ATF agents' knowledge about risk of prosecution is lame, and fairly
legally irrelevant.

My local police told me they dont enforce gfsz unless it is during criminal activity near the school or in school grounds. Non criminal activity on school grounds is case by case and usually not an issue.

GFSZ is a Federal law, not a state law. Local yokel opinion is again irrelevant.

Local cops don't enforce Fed law other than referral nor can they stop Fed law from being enforced. Some states do also have their own separate GFSZ state-
level laws which may differ/be similar to Fed law.

This law would be so easy to overturn base on recent court rulings but it is a tender subject. Ideally there should be an exemption for law abiding citizens. It should only apply when in the course of a crime or in possession of a prohibited person.

Fine, you do it . If you say there is no risk, you are just plain wrong.