Three Reasons Why Constitutional Carry (No CCW Permit) is Not Insane

[PavePusher]

"Three Reasons Why Constitutional Carry (No CCW Permit) is Not Insane

“ Republicans are considering two versions of the concealed carry law,” columnist Eugene Kane writes for jsonline.com, ”which I would label thusly: There’s the ‘sane’ bill and the ‘insane’ bill. The sane version – which I oppose – would allow gun owners to apply for permits and receive required training to carry concealed weapons in most public areas but with some restrictions. The insane version – which I vehemently oppose – would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public without any permit or training required.” So why is the second version bonkers? Kane reckons it’s so obvious he doesn’t really need to explain his position . . .


His dietribe starts with a restaurant shooting that has nothing whatsoever to do with legal concealed carry. It’s an excellent indication that the writer relies on rational thought to oppose permitless or Constitutional Carry like Lindsay Lohan relies on the Mormon Church to stay sober. In terms of explaining the “lunacy” of the “buy a gun stick it in a holster” concept, this is about as good as it gets:

Supporters of the latter, the so-called constitutional carry, don’t think that government can give permission for something they believe is guaranteed under the right to bear arms.

You can argue with these people until you’re blue in the face that it’s not 1776 anymore, but that won’t make them budge from their position.

So I guess Constitutional rights went out of style sometime around the Bush Administration. Which is a fact I can’t deny (e.g., the Patriot Act). Anyway, that’s besides the point. Well, not the main point. Not for me. In this article."

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05/robert-farago/three-reasons-why-constitutional-carry-no-ccw-permit-is-not-insane/

More at link...

[geckosfeet]

1. Yeah. I know I would feel safer if I knew that most people carrying had no training.

I wonder how that work out on the psych floors?

[PavePusher]

3. Check Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and, recently, Wyoming.

Although I note you are hypothesizing a scenario which still wouldn't be legal.

Really, if you have to invent stuff to "refute", you are doing it wrong, or your position is faulty. I suggest more coffee. I'm about to get my second cup.

[geckosfeet]

5. Wow. Go get that coffee. You need it.

Untrained people carrying.

Yeah.

We need that.

[eqfan592]

8. The stats don't lie...

...it hasn't been a problem in any of the states that allow it. Simply because you can't wrap your head around reality doesn't change reality.

[geckosfeet]

24. You're right. Can't get my head around that. That makes it my reality.

[eqfan592]

27. Well, your reality and the reailty the rest of us live in...

...are two different places then. When something works out, in spite of how you might think it SHOULDN'T work out, it doesn't change the fact that it DID in fact work out. At that point, you should reevaluate your position, not ignore the reality of the situation.

[cleanhippie]

31. So you are saying willful ignorance is your reality?

You are willfully ignoring the FACTS that those states do exactly "what you cannot get your head around" without ANY of the problems you imagine. That is willful ignorance.

[PavePusher]

14. May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment licences and proof of training, please? n/t

[RSillsbee]

19. Untrained people carrying.

In the geographic majority of the US no training what so ever is required to open carry a firearm Why do I need trainig to untuck my shirt?

Currently, the following states do not require any sort of training before issuing a permit:

Alabama

California ( No state rquirement)

Georgia

Indiana

Mississippi

Montana

New Hampshire

Washington

More to be added I'm sure

[gejohnston]

33. In all fairness

The people most likely in those states (other than the urban areas of AZ) who would likely to carry were trained, just not in a formal classroom as adults.

[YllwFvr]

44. And pennsylvania

No training requirement here, I'm fine with that

[RandomThoughts]

2. Thats true for those that have not sent the beer and travel money also.

Nobody has argued against my positions. So then they have to be handled with different methods.

I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[RSillsbee]

4. If a criminal doesn't need a permit to conceal why do I ? NT

[geckosfeet]

6. Because you are not a criminal.

Admittedly, I making an assumption, but if we assume that as a country, we want to reduce gun crime, how do we start? By making guns freely available to anyone and everyone? That's a plan!?!?!

I don't think so.

[RSillsbee]

9. Is gun crime somehow worse

than other types of crime?

BTW in Colorado illegal concealed carry is a misdemeanor you get a summons for it and a jury has to decide if the gun was actually concealed. It is also completely legal to conceal a firearm in your vehicle

Open carry is 100% legal in Colorado (outside of the Feudal Kingdom of Denver) but if I want to wear a jacket I have to pay 155 bucks and take a class.

Care to explain how that makes sense ?

[geckosfeet]

17. deflection.

Lets talk about gun crime. It's a forum on gun policy.

[RSillsbee]

25. Lets talk about gun crime.

OK suppose you explain to us all how placing restrictions on a law abiding citizen's right to carry a firearm is going to affect "gun crime"

[geckosfeet]

40. It is the 'law abiding' gun machine that provides guns to the criminal element.

What is you suggestion?

[cleanhippie]

32. Yes, thats exactly what you are doing.

Funny, how when the serious questions get asked, you run away from them.

[geckosfeet]

41. I am not running. I am here taking shots left and right. That's what you want right?

I mean, you surely don't want to find a solutions. You just want to bash people.

That's ok. Lots of people have that disorder.

But the fact is that it is NOT people who don't own, want, or involve themselves with guns that facilitate gun crime. People who strive to create solutions to gun crime are not trying to restrict law abiding gun owners - they are trying to help reduce gun crime.

Until there is a genuine desire on the part of the gun community to contribute to real solutions rather than dig in their heels and whine like a bunch of two year olds this is going to be the level of discourse.

[eqfan592]

11. Ummm...

...exactly how does constitutional carry make guns "Freely available to anyone and everyone?" You still have to buy the damn gun, which requires you to go through the various background checks. And if you could pass those background checks, you could get a permit just as easily. So really, exactly where is the gain in requiring permit?

[geckosfeet]

18. Permit requires training. Training requires (presumably) some knowlwdge of guns.

[PavePusher]

22. I refer you to #14.

You don't want to be untrained and dangerous, do you?

[geckosfeet]

23. Ahh. It's my right to be ignorant. Well. I agree to that.

[Upton]

12. You want to reduce gun crime?

Then focus on the criminals. First with the justice system..if someone commits a violent crime, lock them up and throw away the key, none of this coddling bullshit.

Meanwhile the rest of us need to be completely free to defend ourselves, home, property and families from those punks that aren't in prison. I don't see anything about permits in the 2nd Amendment..

[geckosfeet]

20. coddling bullshit. Yeah that's the ticket. Fry em all.

[cleanhippie]

34. It seems you are not interested in an adult conversation.

Many people have posed serious questions to you and you continually reply with nonsense like that.

[geckosfeet]

42. The initial premise, that the op was an invitation to serious discourse

is wrong.

If insulting an entire group of people ('anti's') is your idea of adult conversation then this is doomed to fail.

See my previous reply to your rhetoric. The gun community owns the problem. They should be pro-actively putting forward solutions.

People who do not own, use or advocate for guns are not the source of gun crime. They do not provide criminals with guns. They are trying to stop criminals from getting guns. Is that simple enough to understand?

[PavePusher]

15. Hmmm.... Do people need special training and a licence for scissors...

in order to reduce scissor crime?

Sounds kinda silly when you put any other common object in there, doesn't it?

[geckosfeet]

21. Now there's some common sense.

Not.

[eqfan592]

28. See post 26. (nt)

[eqfan592]

26. People scoff in this forum when you say things like that...

...but just take a look at England.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266170/Disabled-caravanner-prosecuted-keeping-penknife-car-use-picnics.html

This is lunacy of the worst kind, pure and simple. Instead of addressing the root causes of their crime problem, they are prosecuting people like this for having a small Swiss Army knife to cut up fruit at a picnic.

I carry a Leatherman on me at all times even though I'm not a carpenter or other sort of craftsman. I do so because there are times where having some of the various tools on there comes very much in handy. I would be charged with a crime for doing this in England because "It comes in handy" isn't a valid enough reason to carry one.

That is the result of the sort of mindset the gun control proponents have. Over time, it just keeps going further and further.

[PavePusher]

29. "That could never happen here..."

...is the happy refrain the chorus loves to sing.

Except, of course, when it does...

http://www.knifelawsonline.com/knifehome/

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USKnife.pdf

http://www.kniferights.org/

[geckosfeet]

39. I heard they arrested someone for using a toothpick too.

[Katya Mullethov]

38. Your checks dont bounce

Fuckin' duh .

[sharesunited]

7. I read the article and it is unconvincing. We have far less lethal pursuits which are regulated.

And generalized access to guns and ammo is an invitation to acting out and settling personal grievances. The author suggests that gun training might reduce such misuse, but then argues against gun training as an infringement.

Training or no training, more guns and ammo means more guns and ammo are going to fall into hands of persons with intent to kill.

Enough to shrink one's brain reading this crap.

[msongs]

10. the 2nd amendment says "well regulated". as in "regulations" nt

[eqfan592]

13. More like "well regulated" as in "good working order"

or "well equipped." But hey, nice try though. There's always that pesky reality to get in the way of things, isn't there?

[PavePusher]

16. Ah, that old schtick again.

Your knowledge of English grammer contemporary to the Constitution is... faulty. At best.

Purposely dishonest, more likely, as I know you have seen this explained many times here.

[slackmaster]

35. Regulated? That word...

[rrneck]

36. Regulate militias all you want (or can)

The PEOPLE get to keep and bear arms

[Bold Lib]

37. Ignorance can be forgiven, willful ignorance cannot be corrected.

Why do you continue to engage in willful ignorance on this issue?

[Logical]

30. I am fine with licensed carry only. I think some information about laws is good. n-t

[gravity556]

43. AZ hasn't seen any real problems

with Constitutional Carry. I think that quite a few people have taken classes and bought books so that they knew the laws. The guy who was carrying at the Giffords' shooting (the legal carrier, not the crazy fuck shooting at innocent people) was, unfortunately in a Walgreens across the parking lot.