Constitutional Carry: Good or Bad for Gun Owners in the Long Run

[Mesatchornug]

We are 2A abolitionists absolutists and we really don't care much for anything else.

FIFY

 

[Dench]

FIFY

Engrish isn't my best, thank you

I don't think I can even blame autocorrect for that one

 

[Mesatchornug]

Engrish isn't my best, thank you

I don't think I can even blame autocorrect for that one

 

[WECSOG]

O̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ the p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ only purpose any license serves is to give the government the ability to take it away.

Fify!

 

[WECSOG]

First off let me start this with I'm a firm believer in Constitutional Carry and would love to see it morph into National Reciprocity for all states.

But I'm wondering whether Constitutional Carry plays into the Dems hands in the long run. Lets face it. We all know someone we wouldn't trust with a tooth brush but they now have unfettered access to guns and the ability to carry them in these Constitutional Carry States. Is that actually a good think for gun owners in the long run? These retards will do things that bring bad press to us gun owners and give the Dinks more ammunition against us. No I don't have an answer and I'll keep cheering as States convert to CC, but it does make me wonder.

Why would we need "National Reciprocity" once we have 50 state Constitutional carry? Reciprocity of what?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If your goal is purity of thought and principle, no permits, no papers, nuttin, no time no where. A danger of this that the attitude of "I am more pro gun rights that you, therefore, my viewpoint is better" can get in the way of moving steadily towards victory.

If you take a more practical approach is it more complex.

Some rights are strengthened if exercised. Others are weakened. In a place where OC is culturally acceptable, one strengthens the right by exercising it. If you doubt the later, look at the laws regarding open carry of long guns in CA after the 60's radicals started exercising that right, or what happened to "Open carry legal if unloaded" CA law.

An early example is Michigan. When it went from "may issue" to "shall issue", additional limitations where placed on the licensees.

What repercussions will it spur? Bruen set a good stage for future action, and allowed commoners to get "very limited utility" NYC permits, but the repercussions were near instant. All NY carry permits have been rendered all but useless (unless you are prepared to arrange formal permission to be armed from every business you wish to enter). NJ had the same effect. Even car interiors are "sensitive places" - but the effect was not as profound as NY since, unlike NY, NJ didn't have many thousands of commonors outside of one city with carry permits that did not have onerous restrictions. Only the the important and connected were adversely impacted.

Another example was the GOAL push for license clarification pre-Bruen, which resulted in a predictable "Yes, they are restrictions and we are changing the nomenclature on the LTC" rather than "It's just a reason for issuance and does not place any restriction as to when/where the licensee can carry".

When there is a high profile "ordinary people can carry" chance in anti states, the legislative backlash can be profound and swift.

So no, I do not have a simple answer - but there is much more to it that "right is right and we will settle for nothing less".