Believe In Constitutional Carry?

[IVC]

Therefore we should allow every American citizen to be able to purchase a gun and shove it in there pants. After all, it is our constitutional right. That will never happen though.

"We should allow???" Who are "we" and what are we "allowing" when it comes to constitutional rights? We are not only talking about constitutionally protected rights, we are talking about pre-existing human rights for self defense.

Even removing 2A from the Constitution wouldn't change the fact that the right to self defense is a fundamental human right, it would only allow the government to infringe upon it (e.g., the way North Korea prevents free speech - even if they say "there is no constitutional right to free speech in North Korea" we don't say "oh, okay then," we say "the fundamental right to free speech is infringed in North Korea).

As for "that will never happen," it has happened in 27 (twenty seven) states. It has happened in more than half of the USA, so *we* are the outlier, not them. Remember, people said "shall issue will never happen in CA" too, yet here we are with Bruen in hand about to enforce it.

People get offended way to easy, even gun owners. Someone has a different point of view or perception and someone gets offended by it. I believe that if someone can show they have the ability to safely handle a gun then they should be allowed to carry without question.

Nobody pro-carry is getting offended, we are stating our opinions and pointing to the flaws in yours. You have to justify your position of "if someone can show... then they should be allowed..." as being constitutional and passing the new THT standard for definition of what an "infringement" is. All you're saying is that we vehemently disagree with you, which is correct, then saying that it's somehow "being offended," which it's not.

[IVC]

In the past, I was the first one to claim that "mandated training" passes constitutional muster under strict scrutiny, which was our hope at the time. Training requirement indeed serves a compelling government interest, it's narrowly tailored (if implemented correctly) and it's the least restrictive way of achieving that government interest (basic proficiency). This all lines up with the position of the posters who argue *for* mandates.

However, after Bruen, the game has changed. Not only did we get something at least as strong as strict scrutiny, we got something that is quite a bit more powerful (at least in theory for now, until we see how it develops in circuit courts), which is the "text, history and tradition" (THT) test. This test essentially says that the words mean what they say and that the protection of the right is what was understood at the time to be the right. In other words, the meaning of the protection or the right cannot be modified by "reinterpretation" or by changing the meaning of the words.

Under THT, the question of "permits to carry" or "training to carry" is whether at the time of the ratification, when the people first said "shall not be infringed," such training requirement was widely spread and understood to be an acceptable regulation of the right to carry. If it wasn't, then adding it at a later time is an infringement. Mind you, it doesn't say "it's a bad idea," or "it affects the right much," it simply says "it is an infringement." Now, we could argue that a training requirement would have been accepted as reasonable and not an infringement at the time, but the standard in Bruen doesn't specify this method since it would be completely arbitrary - it would immediately evolve into "ban on assault weapons with 30 caliber clips in half a second [sic] would've been seen as reasonable. What we have instead is a simple method to evaluate "infringement" - what it did mean at the time.

[IVC]

To really understand the reason behind this originalist interpretation of 2A and the THT test, consider something simple as "women's college sports."

All laws passed about women's college sports took the word "woman" to mean what it has always meant, a female. There was no need to define what "a woman" was, nor was there any need to define thousands of other ordinary words used in the law. Yet, the activists figured out they could redefine the meaning of the word "woman," push that interpretation on the society, pretend the meaning of the word has now changed (we saw this in confirmation of the Ketanji-Brown), then apply the "new meaning" to the existing law, effectively bypassing the legislative process and creating a new law.

In fact, all the hate we get for not agreeing with the redefined words is all about the ability to reinterpret the laws and change the society - if we are allowed to call girly dudes "transgender men" (which is precisely what they are, an XY human being pretending to be a female) instead of "transgender women" (which is what the activists are pushing), then the debate about women's sports would be easy. It would be silly to argue that "transgender men should compete against women." But allow the forced redefinition of the language, and you get a whole national debate because "transgender women should compete against women" passes the BS smell test for masses who don't pay attention.

The correct process for changing laws, as well for changing the Constitution, is not to have "reinterpretation" (judicial branch modifying the law) or "selective enforcement" (activist DAs), but to pass a new law or amendment that specifies and codifies what the activists want to change. Nothing wrong with the change, but it requires a much broader consent and the ability to convince super-majority of people to condone the change. Short of that, the laws (should) mean what they say, without backdoor modifications by the non-legislative branches of the government.

/rant off

[Dan_Eastvale]

Those who advocate for mandatory training and/or psych evaluation, background checks, et al are advocating for it to become a privilege instead of a right.

Constitutional carry returns a portion of the 2A rights to the citizen

Rights wrongfully suppressed by the FEDS and the states.

[rodralig]

While it would be preferable that gun owners have training to ensure decent capability safe handling and use of firearm, as well, well above par training for those who carry guns for their day jobs (private security/LEs) - I still acknowledge and accept the different between right and privilege.

Did I get this right? You need a certain attitude to be allowed to carry firearms?

By any chance were you replying to my post above? And by coincidence, misread what I was trying to say to the previous guy?

Those who advocate for mandatory training and/or psych evaluation, background checks, et al are advocating for it to become a privilege instead of a right.

Constitutional carry returns a portion of the 2A rights to the citizen

Rights wrongfully suppressed by the FEDS and the states.

Basically...

2A is a right, mandating training, etc. turns it into a privilege.


_

[CheapBloke]

By any chance were you replying to my post above? And by coincidence, misread what I was trying to say to the previous guy?















Basically...



2A is a right, mandating training, etc. turns it into a privilege.





_

No i wasn't replying to you. I was saying in general from what I gathered in another thread.

[rodralig]

No i wasn't replying to you. I was saying in general from what I gathered in another thread.

copied.


_

[prob]

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.

Kind of like those 8 Los Angeles police officers who were so panicky and afraid for their lives that they shot 103 rounds at two women delivering newspapers during the Christopher Dornan manhunt? You mean that kind of training?

[rodralig]

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.

Kind of like those 8 Los Angeles police officers who were so panicky and afraid for their lives that they shot 103 rounds at two women delivering newspapers during the Christopher Dornan manhunt? You mean that kind of training?

Ooohhhh!!! #shotFired!!!

Yeah, another LE thinking that they have the best training and/or performance...


_

[mindbent]

"We should allow???" Who are "we" and what are we "allowing" when it comes to constitutional rights?

"We" as in "We the people".
I certainly wouldn't trust the government.
I never said anything about training and don't recall anything about attitude. From some of the previous post I've read I kind of picked up on an angry undertone.
There is a certain amount of responsibility that comes with owning a gun as well as shooting one. I do not take this responsibility lightly. To carry concealed is an even greater responsibility. I know people that have or don't have a firearm and in my opinion they never should. I don't know any law enforcement officers yet I've seen where even some of them shouldn't have a gun either. Next time you're (figuratively speaking) driving down the freeway at 70+MPH and see someone talking on there phone or texting ask yourself, Do I want that person to conceal and carry? I know I don't. Society has become self centered and thoughtless. Seams like nobody thinks of the other guy anymore. So if "We the people" don't learn and start governing ourselves the the government will. My rights to not just CC but most of them are being infringed every day.

[CheapBloke]

. Next time you're (figuratively speaking) driving down the freeway at 70+MPH and see someone talking on there phone or texting ask yourself, Do I want that person to conceal and carry? I know I don't. .

Were you born yesterday? [emoji23]

Concealed Carry law was long before talking on phone or texting law. I bet there is thousands of CCW holders that used the phone while driving before that law came into play.

Would you also argue that people driving without seatbelts don't deserve to carry as well?

This 2 laws are non-existent for tens or hundreds of thousands police officers or first responders across country. Guess most of them don't deserve to carry according to you.

[Colt38S]

Constitutional carry should be allowed in all states

[arrix]

This is America. You don't have a right to safety, but you do have the right to defend yourself. Act accordingly.

[-hanko]

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.

So, why we don't see daily blood baths in a state like Idaho...

CC is in place for adults both from Idaho and from any other state in the U.S., regardless of state of residence.

It's against Idaho law for cities and counties to bring up anti-gun laws, including carrying. Any laws related to firearms have to be passed by the state. Idaho laws prevent arrest by Idaho law enforcement for gun issues, unless the issues encompass other crimes...murder, robbery, theft of guns, etc. Idaho LE is forbidden to assist federal LE with laws related purely to guns.

It may be interesting to explain your paranoia.

[Featureless]

I believe in I carry whenever I want. I'm quite capable of concealed carry, don't need a permission note thanks all the same.