[Swampbilly]

I'd like to pose a question, if I may...

First, a little background. I imagine you know there are certain States in the United States who have truly honored, and respect, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, with enacted Constitutional carry laws. Meaning, a citizen, approved to own firearms may engage in defensive carry of a sidearm without the infringement of a legislated concealed carry permit...thereby permitting an inalienable right, more as a priviledge.

To my knowledge, Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming have enacted Constitutional Carry. Oklahoma, Utah, South Carolina, and seven other states are proposing and engaging actions on the same.

Here is the scenario :

1) A State engages the actions of proposing legislation to increase Second Amendment rights of citizens through Constitutional Carry.

2) Legislation is introduced and is supported, making progress with support from many, along with local and national gun rights organizations.

3) Later, during the process, detractors who are gun owning and professed "Second Amendment supporting" Concealed Carry instructors begin expressing "concerns", with this legislation, seemingly in hopes of derailing it, and "concerns" more surround personal concerns with concealed carry permit class instruction revenue lost.

4) I'll add another caveat...in order to support reciprocity, and said state's citizens to defensive carry out of state, a concealed carry permit will still be available and class instruction still applies. For law abiding, approved gun owning citizens, who are not concerned with carrying out of state, they now can fully exercise Second Amendment rights without a legislated carry permit and permitting fee. However, knowing this, concealed carry permit instructor detractors are still raising their perceived issues.

Keep in mind also that nothing prevents continued offering of NRA Basic firearms and safety instruction, nor any other tactical firearms classes. Of course, gun owners would be free to make their own choice on that, as well as inform themselves on local state laws.

So, I know what I think about that scenario. But in the context of belief and support in Second Amendment Rights, I'm interested to know how Marlin Forum members here evaluate it and hear your expressed opinions.

Regards,

Swampbilly

 

[Pard]

a citizen, approved to own firearms

If we were still a constitutional country, You would not need anybodies approval.
Now that we are a corporate global business. Regulations rule the land.

The sole saving grace is that the states are still independent form the illegal federal government.
Until there is civil war & the federal government is taken down. You are just another corporate slave.
We know this will not happen, so the argument for rights is futile.

 

[piguy]

I am of a simple mind, the second amendment is a right, not a freaking driver's license. With that said, why do we the people allow states

to take a right away, then to grant it back with their own conditions imposed. As with any individual right granted to us, it ends where it

causes harm to others. The best example would be yelling fire in a crowded stadium when it was not true. My right to free speech is

nullified should I perpetrate such a deed; as it should. My confusion is simply why is the second amendment the only one of 26 that is so

severely restricted, in some cases banned outright? It is like restricting certain groups right to vote because they are stupid. Perhaps there

should be a law requiring voters to take a class to prove they know enough to vote so as to not cause the harm that stupid voting is

known to cause. After all, it would just be a reasonble restriction such as in common use to limit guns. Maybe there should be some

reasonable retrictions on the right to jury trial. After all, they are costly. Perhaps the right to an attorney should be restricted only to


felony crimes, save some money and time. How about some restrictions on bringing lawsuits? We all know that many are without merit, and drain

valuable resoures to no purpose. Again I ponder why Americans accept the many limits on the second amendment and allow the other 25

a free pass. Shall not be infringed means just that.

 

[City Slicker]

So true piguy
I've had many of these same thoughts. The shooting community should step up and push for 'voter testing' using the same logic that is used against us by the anti gun crowd.

The truth is stupid voters cause more harm than gun owners ever could. You don't have to look any further than the President we have now.

 

[Pat/Rick]

+1 piguy. To go a bit further, I view my (and others) ability to own and carry as part of a God given, and inalienable right to self defense.

 

[RevDerb]

So true piguy
The shooting community should step up and push for 'voter testing' using the same logic that is used against us by the anti gun crowd.

The truth is stupid voters cause more harm than gun owners ever could. You don't have to look any further than the President we have now.

+1

 

[piguy]

Yes, self defense- nature's eldest law. 8)

 

[w5cds]

The Second Amendment says that we have the pre-constitutional right to keep AND BEAR arms. No state has the right to say we must buy a permit to exercise that individual right.

 

[Pat/Rick]

w5cds, boy do I agree! Problem is, will LEO's agree? Not being able to afford pushing the issue in court..........I figure It's a case of rendering unto Caeser. For now, they got us by the short hairs.

 

[rimrock]

1852 in Bastrop, Texas you were required to carry concealed cuz open carry caused too many drunks to slap leather without thinking. With CCH, you had to stop and think about who drew first, anyway. SCOTUS recognized in the Heller decision that time and place restrictions had always been imposed like the Bastrop ordinance. CCH is nothinig more than another tax, just like car registration, state income tax, home alarm permit, etc. With open or constitutional carry, you'll still be looking at a tax because few taxes are repealed in America once it started.

As for me, I choose concealed over open to maintain the surprise factor against a BG. YMMV

rimrock

 

[Leverdude]

I think that since its a right enumerated with others, whos similar infringement wouldn't be tolerated, the matter is pretty cut & dry. But then immediately we are hit with the violent offender thing. Very few people really want to see murderers, rapists & other violent criminals have acess to guns upon their release. Wether or not they get released is another subject, I dont think a person who's rehabilitation is even remotely questionable should be released, but the reality is that they do.
Anyway my point is that almost immediately we come upon restrictions to a "right" that most feel are good. That in turn leads to one more & one more & one more. As far as the instructors I doubt many are concerned over a loss of funds. I know I'm not & none of the guys I teach with or instructors I know make a living from it. Most charge a fair rate but making a couple hundred a month, or even thousand, isn't going to feed & house a family. Plus as noted, as long as some states require a permit most states will offer one to gain reciprocity with the other states. I think alot of it may come from fears, unfounded as they may be, that once these laws pass, IF bad things happen, it'll be very easy to point fingers & say "Look what happens with constitutional carry" and we could concievably go backwards as a result. The tragedy in AZ comes to mind.

Here in CT for example, our permit is to carry pistols & revolvers. There is no concealment requirement. But, because for generations most of us did conceal it became accepted that it was required. Then afew years back a man got arrested for carrying concealed but getting made, his shirt rode up & the cashier called the cops. He was arrested as many had been before but, he bothered to read the legislation & found there was no requirement to conceal & if there is no concealment requirement then he commited no crime by letting his gun pop out. Eventually the charges were dropped but now that the cat is out of the bag there are more guys carrying openly to push the issue. True they arent commiting any crimes & most are having no trouble. But, they are bringing attention to the fact that its legal to carry openly & that creates incentve to "fix" whats not broken. I carry concealed mostly but I dont want it to be a requirement, because if it is then printing becomes a crime. Because of these guys excercising their rights legally we now have bills introduced each year regarding concealment that were never heard of before. My only point being that we need to look at these things from every angle to ensure we dont shoot ourselves in the foot.

That said I'd support such a move here "Constitutional carry" if it came up, but I think it belongs in the federal legislature more than any state. Our rights acording to the constitution dont change as we move from one state to the other.

 

[MarlinXL7]

The truth is stupid voters cause more harm than gun owners ever could. You don't have to look any further than the President we have now.

Why, you must have read the first quote in my signature!

 

[w5cds]

Why, you must have read the first quote in my signatur!

Ain't THAT the truth!

 

[Roan444]

The trouble lies with how far YOU are willing to defend your rights when the government is knocking at YOUR door.

I know many that say they're in support of the Second Amendment, but when posed with tough questions, are actually FUDDS in FIGHTERS clothing...When the going gets tough, the FUDDS "GTFO"

I'd hate to be put in that situation, and can't say for certain where I'll fall, but I hope it's at my front porch with an empty chamber...

 

[RJinCO]

" ... shall NOT be infringed." There's not much room for debate or legal wrangling in those four words. The SCOTUS decision in Heller was wrong in that it still provided for infringement by states and localities. We derive our rights, all of our rights, from our divine creator. Because these rights are God-given, they cannot be denied or lessened by man (government).

As the founders and states' representatives were developing the Constitution, they had just recently won a war for freedom from an oppressive government. One of the many crimes that the Americans believed (correctly) had been committed by the crown was the unlawful confiscation of privately owned colonial weapons and powder stores. The Americans were very concerned that even an American government, limited by law, could become oppressive.

The Declaration of Independence includes the statement the people have a right, a duty, to abolish or alter a government at destructive of the rights of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is as much a guarantee that the people have the might to throw off or abolish an oppressive government as to provide for their own defense and for hunting and sporting purposes.

 

[planeflyer21]

Swampbilly, being an instructor in Arizona, I've pretty much already seen all you spoke of come to pass.

With "constitutional carry" here, there are/were some very specific reasons that it was passed, namely a few jerkwads in law enforcement and sitting on the bench, who purposely twisted a couple of laws on the books to hose a few citizens and pat themselves on the backs.

Background: AZ Law previously stated that a gun/deadly weapon was NOT concealed, so long as the gun/weapon or holster or other carrying device was "wholly or partially visible". The law also stated that if a gun was retained in a holster, which was then further secured in a location out of sight, that it was not concealed (i.e., a "two-step" rule, two steps to get the gun into action...remove from hiding, then remove from the holster).

In a case out of Tucson, a person had a gun in a holster in a fanny pack. The judge legislated from the bench that it violated the law, as a person seeing the fanny pack could not know there was a gun in it, so if the wearer/bearer had no concealed carry permit, the pack must have "FIREARM" or other similar wording to put other people on notice. A separate case out of Scottsdale, a person was charged with carrying concealed by police. Their defense was that the holster was partially visible. Again, the judge in this case legislated that in this day of cell phones, multi-tools, folding knives, a person had no way of knowing that the tip of a holster was for a gun or some other device. Yet another case out of Tucson, a married couple was pulled over and the husband (a permit holder) had his gun between the front seats in the car. The wife did not have a permit. Since she had access to the gun, police wrote her up for control of a concealed weapon.

Due to outcries from gunowners, constitutional carry was passed.

Now here is the kicker.

To be an Arizona Concealed Carry Weapons Permit Instructor, a person had to obtain some other sort of firearms instructor certification. One path (the most commonly used) was to obtain certification for NRA Home Firearm Safety and Personal Protection Inside the Home. Once a person was able to demonstrate possession of these certifications, they could be certified to teach AZ CCW. Under the OLD LAW, an instructor could then let their NRA Certifications lapse and still be an AZ CCW Instructor.

It should also be noted here that prior to Constitutional Carry in Arizona, any "nonprohibited possesor" over the age of 18 years old could OPENLY carry a handgun with NO training whatsoever. The only training required in Arizona was to obtain the CCW Permit.

With the passage of the new law, so was the requirement that CCW Instructors MAINTAIN their initial certification (i.e. NRA Instructor status) in order to maintain their AZ CCW Permit Instructor status. Needless to say, a majority of CCW instructors were against the new law, which acknowledges the Right to bear arms, concealed or openly, if a person is 21 years of age or older and not a "prohibited possessor".

I was always for Constitutional Carry. My original intent was to teach ONLY NRA classes, then I found out that the NRA insisted an instructor for Personal Protection Outside the Home must be certified in the state they live in to teach that state's law on use-of-force. That's when I got the AZ CCW Instructor rating.

Also under the new law, a person may CHOOSE to get an AZ CCW Permit for the purposes of reciprocity (carrying concealed in other states), in states that honor the AZ permit. At present thirty eight other states honor our permit.

Personally, my business for CCW classes has INCREASED, I'm sure in part due to most other instructors quitting because, as they say, "the state put me out of business!"

About the same time this Constitutional Carry was implemented, AZ gunowners received other improved laws too. We got "defensive display", the right to display a gun/weapon to head off a violent encounter. In order for business establishments to ban guns on their premises, they must have signs posted in a readily visible location, the signs must be of a certain minimum size, and the signs must quote the section of AZ law that allows them to ban guns on their premises.

While I find the handling practices of a majority of gun owners lacking in safety, I'm still against mandatory training. For several years now I've advocated a dollar-for-dollar tax break to people who seek gun training. Antis argue that gun ownership is a burden on the taxpayer first to law enforcement, then the medical system, legal system, courts, and prisons. Well then, they shouldn't mind skimming that cost right off the top and preventing accidents.

I could get behind mandatory training if the government supplies all able-bodied persons with a 1911 and an AR15, supplying the ammo as well.

Jon

 

[Pat/Rick]

planeflyer, good post sir. Your next to last paragraph mentioning that the antis view gun ownership as a burden on the taxpayer; I wonder why they don't see as clearly with other issues? But then, those are different topics aren't they.