Believe In Constitutional Carry?

[stormvet]

IMO good and bad good if your able to own a weapon you should be able to carry it. The bad I can see is a trigger happy person who?s itching to use it for any reason they can.

It will only be a life threatening incident for me to draw mine. As it should be.

My feeling on that is the person itching to use it, isn?t gonna care one way or the other what the law is. Constitutional Carry or not they will be carrying a gun. Kinda like it is in California and other blue states right now. No shortage of people carrying guns in those states, law or no law.

[IVC]

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

A lot of things were different then, yet the limitations on the government as written in the Constitution remain and mean what they meant *at that time*. Justice Thomas said so, so it is so - that's how our government works, where the Supreme Court provides final interpretation of the law.

To change the meaning of 2A you *cannot* just reinterpret it, or decide that "the times have changed." You have to get through the process of modifying the Constitution to match your goal. And even then, all you'd allow is for the government to *infringe* on our fundamental right, not a moral justification of why our pre-existing right should be limited. The right to armed self defense is one of the most fundamental rights that has been used throughout the history to make people free from other people who would want to control and dominate them.

As a deputy, you might see things differently, but from our perspective we don't want to be outgunned by the law enforcement. Law enforcement is part of the executive branch of government and is similar to legislative and judicial branches. As much as I don't want to have politicians be able to pass any law they want simply because they think it's a good idea or they believe it's for the benefit of the community, I equally don't want to have law enforcement dictate my civil rights simply because it's more convenient for them.

We can work together and augment each other to keep our communities safe, I can watch your back and help you out with information and actions, but it is still *my* community and *my* responsibility to keep it safe. I won't be disarmed or allow others to make me defenseless because "it's better for me" or because "it's their job, I should stay out of it." In the grand scale of things, the right to be armed and free is inherent in the people, not the government or government agents.

[IVC]

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.

That's criminal activity. We are all worried about some criminal unloading into the crowd. Besides, we have a lot of examples of law enforcement unloading and missing quite a bit and do you know what we get as an answer? Qualified immunity. Something we don't have, so it's easy to prosecute someone who hits the crowd.

But it's interesting that high-profile self defense cases (Rittenhouse, Zimmerman) consist of hitting the correct guy, not hitting any bystanders, and still getting prosecuted.

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.

This goes both ways. How is it different if *you* have to use your weapon or when *I* have to use my weapon? I would also really like not to have law enforcement seeing me as a potential threat, yet your protocols and policy will *always* treat me as a potential criminal. Further, you can disarm me "for your safety" and I cannot do the same, even though we are both just two ordinary armed citizens (yes, you are ALSO "civilians").

There is quite a bit of big picture that we all have to sit down and address. Times are changing and, being on the same side, we need to figure out how to make it all work without you having a veto over our fundamental civil right of armed self defense.

[IVC]

All because I think that training is needed, based on my real life experiences.

We ALL think training is needed. What we are discussing is whether training should be required.

To make training required it must go beyond "it's a good idea," or "there are people who are idiots." We have that in driving and there are still a lot of idiots and really bad drivers. The question with *required* training is whether it's constitutional. If it is, we can have it (although we don't have to have it, it's a policy preference). If it's not, we cannot have it, no matter how much you think it's a good idea.

Personally, I believe that training is not an infringement of a right under all but the THT standard. Required training would likely pass strict scrutiny for all the reasons you mentioned. But I don't believe it passes legal muster under THT standard, so it doesn't matter who thinks what or why it's a good idea.

And I am one of the guys who would often point out that "training requirement is not an infringement," yet it's no longer valid point of view because of the standard that has been established in Bruen, which is THT. And I don't think there is anything wrong with it, in fact I welcome it.

It's similar to sex-ed. People don't need training not to rape, and no matter how much people get trained, some will still end up in the ER.

[IVC]

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

^^^ This is a succinct summary of what THT implies.

[IVC]

You are beyond clueless on how the real legal system works.

C'mon, you know it's not true. Chill out, we had some similar angry exchanges in other threads, completely unnecessarily. We are all on the same side...

[MrTokarev]

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

Mic drop.

[mk2dave]

Is this where I go to get berated? Cool!

CC in CA? This hardly seems worth bickering about, as it aint gonna happen anytime soon. Can we agree on this point?

Should CC be legal in CA? Theoretically, I believe it should.

BUT, I also think all potential spouses should look like Charlise Therone. They dont.

I think a more worthwhile questions is what scheme should CA have. My answer is Shall Issue without a background check. As previously stated, we've already passed backgrounds to purchase a firearm, and the IA's (most if not all) verify that you own the pistol you intend to carry. So a background has been performed, no need to do it over. I don't think training is a bad idea, especially for legal aspects. The CCW Forum has a ton of threads "requesting clarification" on laws, and thats with classroom time.

The shooting qual is the least of concerns when it comes to CA policy.

[2761377]

I am anti carry without training; I have seen too many people in CCW classes that had 0 clue about things, have no idea when to use force when not to use force. The questions and beliefs that some people have, that the CCW instructors are at least allowed a opportunity to address may have done good.

The life saved with training may just be my life. I have been a deputy sheriff investigating a incident at night when someone scared home owner who had no real training randomly opened fire on us. Could have easily been killed by him.

I think people argue for constitutional carry without thinking about everything A to Z.

were you fixing to serve a no-knock warrant? what were you doing skulking around in someone's yard without his knowledge? and lastly, what does that scenario have to do with CC? makes you sound like you oppose all ownership of firearms by citizens.

people like you give LE a bad reputation.

[automat is Brett]

I am for constitutional carry on the conditioning that there are severe consequences for misuse and safety violation. People must be compelled to do their due diligence. Too many nitwits with guns is a bad thing.

[BigPimping]

All gun laws are illegal.

[CheapBloke]

All gun laws are illegal.

Hear, Hear.

[Sutcliffe]

Devil?s Advocate here

With Constitutional Carry, how do our fifty eight Sheriff?s fund their re-election campaigns?

[Usmc0844spare]

I don't think you should have to qualify. If you purchased a gun legally and want to carry it you should be able to. But you still have responsibility for every bullet that leaves that gun.

If you've only gone to the range once and are forced to draw your weapon and shoot you better not limp wrist it and put a round in the innocent that was in the area or you're going to jail.

We need more personal responsibility in this country.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Yup, that would go over real well with me when "Nancy Limp Wrist" puts one into my 10 year old because she only "went to the range once".

"Sorry USMC0844spare, we COULDA mandated some basic skill level requirements, but we just decided to deal with these sorts of things on the back end. Hey, look at the bright side: at least Nancy Limp Wrist got to carry a gun around even though she proved to be a danger to others! Hooray!

What, it DOESN'T make you feel all better now that we are holding her accountable after the fact?? Why, I am shocked!! What were we supposed to do? Make sure she knew WTF she was doing beforehand??? Pffft."

[Usmc0844spare]

were you fixing to serve a no-knock warrant? what were you doing skulking around in someone's yard without his knowledge? and lastly, what does that scenario have to do with CC? makes you sound like you oppose all ownership of firearms by citizens.

people like you give LE a bad reputation.

HOLY CRAP-BALLS, the amount of assumption is high with you.

Where do you get ANY OF THAT from what Benjamin posted?