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

[LakeTrout]

I’m not sure if the OP is serious. But I would point out two things:

First, that almost all of our nations most violent and crime ridden areas have historically had the most enforcement of anti-2A laws. And that has failed to cure their violence problems.

And 2nd, I don’t give a rats ass if it’s bad for the perception of gun owners by the soccer moms, anyway. It’s a natural right. To hell with what the image your liberal neighbors have of us.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

How is this thread even a thing? Leave it to a bunch of MA gun owners to ponder if maximizing gun rights is a good or bad thing.

 

[M1911]

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.

The problem is that the only way to keep such individuals from carrying is to give the issuing authority discretion to deny licenses and we all know how that ends up. The only fair way is either constitutional carry or shall issue licensing, neither of which will weed out retards.

 

[M1911]

This.... If you haven't been muzzle swept by a guy with a fresh LTC then you haven't been around too much....

I've been muzzle swept by a Vietnam vet who has had an LTC for decades.

 

[eboos]

I've been muzzle swept by a Vietnam vet who has had an LTC for decades.

It's okay. He knows how to handle a gun.

 

[Drix]

Not sure how constitutional Carry has anything to do with malicious actors... do you guys really think that Constitutional Carry has /anything/ to do with somebody who isn't going to care about "muh laws" to begin with?

Wow.

I was thinking malicious actors as malicious to the cause.

You know the kind, racist homophobes looking for excuses to blow someone's head off, Drejka comes to mind, as do the two that ran down that black dude in the pickup truck and shot him.

 

[drgrant]

Length of time with an LTC doesn't seem to be a good predictor of the ability to safely handle a firearm

Yes, agreed, but I was mostly addressing the assinine default assertion lots of people make that a freshly produced plastic card (and recent safety course) issued by government magically somehow makes someone responsible with a firearm.....

You bring up a great point- I have friends that haven't taken a safety course in 40 years that are safer than fresh plastic card guy.

 

[Dennis in MA]

How is this thread even a thing? Leave it to a bunch of MA gun owners to ponder if maximizing gun rights is a good or bad thing.

He's worried about backlash. There is no question that legislators swing like pendulums. The good news is that this latest rash of gun rights is driven by the courts, not legislatures. They are permanent in nature - effectively bringing us back to our Constitutional roots.

It's a valid concern given where we've come from. Likely unfounded, but still valid as a thought experiment.

 

[drgrant]

I was thinking malicious actors as malicious to the cause.

You know the kind, racist homophobes looking for excuses to blow someone's head off, Drejka comes to mind, as do the two that ran down that black dude in the pickup truck and shot him.

Distinction without a difference. Do you really think a guy who thinks blasting homos or blacks for the hell of it is cool is going to care about silly gun laws or permits existing or not? It's the ultimate form of hubris to think that not having a plastic card will magically constrain someones behaviors. I had a thought at lunch about this shitty thread. Someone should print t-shirts up with a thing that says "gun laws - not stopping any criminal since (insert date of first practcally carryable BP handgun here). With a pic of the ancient gun on it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

2A is not a 2nd Class right. Once the courts affirm it, it's all over for the Left. They can go away just like they did after 20-100 years with segregation. When your rules can't stand up in court, it is sort of foolish to keep yapping about them.

Con-Carry-50-2030! Better than Koni2012.

In practice, it still is. That may be slowly changing. Maybe.

 

[drgrant]

A look into private party sales would more directly address people with guns that aren’t allowed (FPP) vs carry permits. Anti-gunners seem more concerned as of late with where people can carry and not who can buy guns without a NICS.

No, it wouldn't. Another huge piece of naivete by "law abiding gun owners" and government alike is this silly, feel good, nostrum that somehow you will be able to prevent criminals from accessing firearms in a country that has over 200 (maybe 300?) million of them. (and growing daily, and in the past decade you can basically slap them together in your basement if you're not a retard. ) It's easily one of the top 10 biggest loads of shit ive ever heard in my life, somewhere after "2 weeks to stopthe spread" and "get vaccinated, it stops the virus from spreading" I realize that the NRA likes selling this "dey need to enforce da existing lawz!" gun control garbage, but its still virtue signaling BS that does nothing. Anyone who has analyzed it enough knows that US gun control on the whole is "at most having effects that are lost in the noise".

ETA: if people want to be intellectually honest about this topic, the first thing they need to admit is that most gun control is an abject failure, and that maybe we should move along to the things that actually matter, like the cultural defects that cause people to either A- hate one another or B- engage in violent criminal acts. This entire idea of "regulating an object because someone can misuse it" is basically full of shit at pretty much every level. I mean you can probably safely argue that selling a loaded revolver to a toddler is a bad idea, sure, but much gun control beyond that is futile, particularly with regards to people who wish to cause others harm with a firearm or some other weapon.

 

[MAJoe]

No, it wouldn't. Another huge piece of naivete by "law abiding gun owners" and government alike is this silly, feel good, nostrum that somehow you will be able to prevent criminals from accessing firearms in a country that has over 200 (maybe 300?) million of them. (and growing daily, and in the past decade you can basically slap them together in your basement if you're not a retard. ) It's easily one of the top 10 biggest loads of shit ive ever heard in my life, somewhere after "2 weeks to stopthe spread" and "get vaccinated, it stops the virus from spreading" I realize that the NRA likes selling this "dey need to enforce da existing lawz!" gun control garbage, but its still virtue signaling BS that does nothing. Anyone who has analyzed it enough knows that US gun control on the whole is "at most having effects that are lost in the noise".

ETA: if people want to be intellectually honest about this topic, the first thing they need to admit is that most gun control is an abject failure, and that maybe we should move along to the things that actually matter, like the cultural defects that cause people to either A- hate one another or B- engage in violent criminal acts. This entire idea of "regulating an object because someone can misuse it" is basically full of shit at pretty much every level. I mean you can probably safely argue that selling a loaded revolver to a toddler is a bad idea, sure, but much gun control beyond that is futile, particularly with regards to people who wish to cause others harm with a firearm or some other weapon.

I think you’re misreading/misinterpreting what I wrote. Shall issue permits will not subjectively limit who owns a gun, and would have no impact on who has a gun.

In states where no permit/BG check is required for private party sales, would one of those limit who buys a gun? Objectively yes. Would it make a difference on violent crime? No. It would be an imperceptible difference, but more of a difference than carry permits (since 0.001% is > 0%). I’m not advocating for it and I agree with what you wrote WRT gun control, just making a statement. For every piece of gun control there’s multiple ways around it and new ways derived every day. It’s a merry go round whack a mole exercise that results in ineffective regulations and creative solutions.

 

[LakeTrout]

The only fair way is either constitutional carry or shall issue licensing, neither of which will weed out retards.

If constitutional carry is fair, then shall issue licensing is extortion and an abuse of an individual's civil rights. Its one of the other.

 

[M1911]

If constitutional carry is fair, then shall issue licensing is extortion and an abuse of an individual's civil rights. Its one of the other.

By "fair" I meant that all are treated equally. There isn't any way to allow a licensing officer discretion to deny a license to an individual and also ensure that all applicants are treated equally.

I agree with you that we shouldn't have to pay the man for a permission slip to exercise our constitutional rights. But at least shall issue ensures that every applicant who meets the standards is issued an license.

 

[Supermoto]

In jail= no guns
Not in Jail= guns

But one gun law I would support is....any politician that votes for any antigun law will lose any tax funded protection by firearms. They can own guns themselves, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for their protection while they strip away mine

 

[LakeTrout]

By "fair" I meant that all are treated equally. There isn't any way to allow a licensing officer discretion to deny a license to an individual and also ensure that all applicants are treated equally.

I agree with you that we shouldn't have to pay the man for a permission slip to exercise our constitutional rights. But at least shall issue ensures that every applicant who meets the standards is issued an license.

I get what you are saying. I probably used to feel that way too before I lived in a constitutional carry state and woke up one day realizing that none of the scary bad things happened that all of the anti-permitless carry folks warned us against.

The problem is, there fairness goes away when you have some 3rd party agent determining who can and can't practice their civil rights. If we've determined as a society that someone isn't dangerous enough to be locked away from society, then they deserve all of their rights. "Shall Issue" is just a cute way of saying we will allow you to practice your natural rights as long as you meet all of the criteria that we determine for you.

If you have the right to do something, it doesn't require a license.

 

[MAJoe]

I get what you are saying. I probably used to feel that way too before I lived in a constitutional carry state and woke up one day realizing that none of the scary bad things happened that all of the anti-permitless carry folks warned us against.

The problem is, there fairness goes away when you have some 3rd party agent determining who can and can't practice their civil rights. If we've determined as a society that someone isn't dangerous enough to be locked away from society, then they deserve all of their rights. "Shall Issue" is just a cute way of saying we will allow you to practice your natural rights as long as you meet all of the criteria that we determine for you.

If you have the right to do something, it doesn't require a license.

I think what M1911 is saying is that shall issue permit, is a objective standard permit. I think everyone on this site prefers constitutional carry, but if there needed to be a permit, then shall issue is the least shitty permit option.

There are plenty of games that can be played with shall issue permits that delay or make a right unobtainable (time to process, cost, references, etc).

 

[M1911]

I get what you are saying. I probably used to feel that way too before I lived in a constitutional carry state and woke up one day realizing that none of the scary bad things happened that all of the anti-permitless carry folks warned us against.

The problem is, there fairness goes away when you have some 3rd party agent determining who can and can't practice their civil rights.

I disagree. The whole point of shall issue is that the licensing agency CAN'T determine who can and can't practice their civil rights. If you meed the objective criterion and pay the fee (which must be nominal, per Bruen), then you get the license.

Having lived in MA where the licensing authority could decide subjectively whether you could even own a handgun, let alone carry it, I'm well aware of the unfairness of may issue licensing. But may issuing licensing is not the same as shall issue licensing.

Do I prefer Constitutional Carry? Sure. But I can accept shall issue licensing. It is may issue licensing that brings about unfairness.

 

[M1911]

There are plenty of games that can be played with shall issue permits that delay or make a right unobtainable (time to process, cost, references, etc).

Bruen limits the games that can be played.

 

[LakeTrout]

I disagree. The whole point of shall issue is that the licensing agency CAN'T determine who can and can't practice their civil rights.

If you meed the objective criterion and pay the fee (which must be nominal, per Bruen), then you get the license.

Sure, the licensing agency can't, if they're honest. But the legislature does. There is still a governing body between you and your constitutional rights determining whether or not you can practice them, based on the criteria that they deem appropriate for their benefit, not yours. That means you don't have the natural right to do it. You need to obtain governmental permission first. That is a problem.

 

[LakeTrout]

I think what M1911 is saying is that shall issue permit, is a objective standard permit. I think everyone on this site prefers constitutional carry, but if there needed to be a permit, then shall issue is the least shitty permit option.

I get it. Like I said, I probably used to be okay with that idea at some point. But what I am saying is we need to get away from that mentality, that it is acceptable at all to have a permitted system. I think "Shall Issue" gives unconstitutional authority to the governing body to regulate constitutional rights. I hate to use the word slippery slope but its one of those things that we tolerate and pretend everything is okay, but then it becomes encroached upon more and more. And then you end up with a long list of criteria that you need to meet in order to get that permit that they say they "Shall Issue" you.

I think the terminology is misleading. Its not "Shall Issue" at all. Its a permitted system that requires you to meet certain criteria. It is similar to "May Issue", it just requires that the reasons you may not be issued a permit be defined. That is better than nothing. But it is far from acceptable, in my opinion.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Do I prefer Constitutional Carry? Sure. But I can accept shall issue licensing. It is may issue licensing that brings about unfairness

Shall issue licensing also can bring about unfairness. There’s way too much slop in the joints that can be abused. Things that may sound reasonable like a training requirement (an objective standard, not subjective) can be abused when you get into the nitty gritty. Think about things like how long is the training, where the training is done, how often is it conducted, etc.

 

[Broc]

I think what M1911 is saying is that shall issue permit, is a objective standard permit. I think everyone on this site prefers constitutional carry, but if there needed to be a permit, then shall issue is the least shitty permit option.

There are plenty of games that can be played with shall issue permits that delay or make a right unobtainable (time to process, cost, references, etc).

What would "shall issue" prevent that constitutional carry cannot?

The only thing I can think of; with a license, you won't be able to buy a gun in a private transaction if you are a prohibited person.

Besides that, I can't think of anything else that a license would help with vs no license.

 

[M1911]

What would "shall issue" prevent that constitutional carry cannot?

The only thing I can think of; with a license, you won't be able to buy a gun in a private transaction if you are a prohibited person.

Besides that, I can't think of anything else that a license would help with vs no license.

Agreed. That was the point I made at the very start of this thread. The OP was concerned that constitutional carry allows retards to carry. The point I made was that shall issue does as well and the only way to keep retards from carrying is to have may issue licensing, and we all know where that ends up.

 

[drgrant]

In states where no permit/BG check is required for private party sales, would one of those limit who buys a gun? Objectively yes.

I still disagree- violent criminals (and other people, for that matter) have no problem buying and selling guns privately in the harshest gun control regime states in the nation, "lawrs" dont really change any of that, if anything laws would only "prevent" people who care about breaking the laws from doing something, which, ironically, are usually the people
that aren't going to cause any problems. Although there are shitloads of other people who are otherwise law abiding that do shit like violate straw purchase regs all the time because they literally don't know that giving "uncle bob from freestate X $500 to buy a gun for you when he goes up to cabelas " is basically illegal.

Would it make a difference on violent crime? No. It would be an imperceptible difference, but more of a difference than carry permits (since 0.001% is > 0%). I’m not advocating for it and I agree with what you wrote WRT gun control, just making a statement. For every piece of gun control there’s multiple ways around it and new ways derived every day. It’s a merry go round whack a mole exercise that results in ineffective regulations and creative solutions.

The main source of my angst here..... is that nearly all of the most sneakily-horrible (sounds good on paper, but in reality its really, really bad) gun laws in the nation's history were developed and predicated on some a**h*** saying "bweah, dey autta be a lawr about dat" becuase "it felt like the right thing ta dooh" but wasnt actually supported by logic, reason, or facts on the ground in reality. Nobody ever bothered to go that far, they just want the flash in the pan thing without thinking about the consequences....

Reality shows that.... the "law of unintended consequences" kicks in and the side effects of shitty laws ultimately have a deleterious downstream effect on society. Namely the worst of which is contempt for the idea of rule of law. Like when you tell someone that pot is bad and its a felony to buy or sell a plant etc, without a "LOICENSE" or to buy and sell something that, well is supposed to be protected by the constitution (a firearm!) then everyone acts surprised when everyone just breaks the law.

If someone writes some kind of stupid malum prohibitum law it should be rare, have some "hard stuff" backing it up. Like its an easy sell to say "firing guns haphazardly into the air shouldnt be legal" not so much to say "buying and selling guns needs to be heavily regulated" .

 

[Roadglide]

I’ll gladly take any fallout because the alternative is far worse.

 

[Broc]

Agreed. That was the point I made at the very start of this thread. The OP was concerned that constitutional carry allows retards to carry. The point I made was that shall issue does as well and the only way to keep retards from carrying is to have may issue licensing, and we all know where that ends up.

I agree, one thing I didn't mention above, on purpose, is that even with a license, a prohibited person could buy a gun in a private transaction, because there is no way for the seller to know that person is prohibited. A shall issue would only stop someone from getting a license if they are prohibited when they get the license or after they get it if they have to fill a 4473 at a store.

 

[drgrant]

I agree, one thing I didn't mention above, on purpose, is that even with a license, a prohibited person could buy a gun in a private transaction, because there is no way for the seller to know that person is prohibited. A shall issue would only stop someone from getting a license if they are prohibited when they get the license or after they get it if they have to fill a 4473 at a store.

Think about buying a rifle or ammo, here in MA. I show up to a guys house, and show the guy my LTC. That person has no idea if it is still valid or the PoPo just haven't found me to take it away.

Mircs has a validation portal but in reality nobody uses it... but if a license was suspended it might stop a transfer or throw an error.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

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?

There have been several good points brought up. That said, I think your original claim is flawed. One's ability to possess a firearm is checked/validated every time one purchases/transfers a firearm, NOT during the exercising of one's right.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Mircs has a validation portal but in reality nobody uses it... but if a license was suspended it might stop a transfer or throw an error.

I suppose I am one of the few that use the portal. It's free(to me) insurance against getting charged with selling to a felon.