Is "Constitutional Carry" safe & smart?

[JonStoh]

"Constitutional Carry", are laws that allow anyone who can pass a NICS check any buy a handgun, to carry that handgun concealed/unconcealed with no further training, certification or permit required.

Personally, I 100% support the right of law abiding adults citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection, in public.

However, I prefer that such people KNOW the law regarding self-defense in their state. And I prefer that they actually KNOW how to use a handgun in self defense.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a class to educate gun owners on the laws of self defense in their state. Sadly many folks are totally ignorant of such laws, and think its legal to shoot people in situations that are actually NOT legal, and can get you thrown in jail for a long time. I see nothing wrong with requiring a 2 hour, or 3 hour, or whatever hour class is required to fully instruct the legalities of lethal self defense in their state, and an exam to make sure they get it.

And a 1 hour field test to make sure they know how to load and shoot a handgun safely.

Again, I know many folks believe that such training is NOT required by the Constitution. I get that. But that's not my question. My question is, is such training SMART? And I think it is.

This is NOT about undo burdens upon gun owners. Im talking class times only long enough to sufficiently teach these things. Not 35 hour courses. Minimal time frames. I cant imagine it would take more than say 4 hours to educate folks on self defense law.

How many lives might this save? How many good people might be kept out of prison? I say 1 a year is good enough for me.

And price? Should all be funded by the govt. Including the classes, the permit and the ammo.

 

[Truebeliever]

The problem is the “ requirement “. The requirement can be changed to a point that it is difficult or impossible to comply with it.
Is it smart to take a class? Yep but many have been trained from birth by their parents to safely handle firearms without a formal class.

 

[JonStoh]

The problem is the “ requirement “. The requirement can be changed to a point that it is difficult or impossible to comply with it.
Is it smart to take a class? Yep but many have been trained from birth by their parents to safely handle firearms without a formal class.

Good point. There should be an option to simply take an exam if you feel you are already familiar with all state laws regarding self defense.

Pass the written exam? You all good. Fail exam? You have to take the class and retest.

And a 1 hour exam to prove handgun profficiency.


Again, I am not trying to make the lives of gun owners difficult. I simply think we should make sure folks know what they doing.

Same thing with requiring a drivers test, pilots license exam, exam for a Professional License, exam to be a doctor, etc.

Yes, I know, none of those things are right guaranteed in the USC. But again, this is about what is the smart & safe thing to do.

 

[dsdmmat]

Govt cannot be in charge of setting conditions for a right. Then it becomes a privilege.

 

[2WheelGnnr]

Agreed... any amount of training is a good idea if you are going be responsible for such a task as carrying a firearm.

you can test out or take the exam. part of testing out would be a profiencinecy portion. I am also of the mindset that some quick education in schools may do good to for teach children what to do or not to do if you find a gun....I think its a good idea for a child to atleast be familiar with what a gun is and can do and how to stay away from them and tell an adult atleast...vs playing it as curiosity is drives them in many cases...whats this? hmmmmm

 

[repete]

From the OP, "Constitutional Carry", are laws that allow anyone who can pass a NICS check any buy a handgun, to carry that handgun concealed/unconcealed with no further training, certification or permit required."
You assume it's just a handgun, what about long guns, bows ectrea?
You also mention mandatory classes, while I agree a lot of people could learn something from them I still have a problem with the mandatory part! That brings me to the second half of that, in the 1970's I took the NYS hunter's safety course, it was three hours long, now it is somewhere around 12 hours over two days, yet no more effective then the three hour course. That is all because of government people that 'know better' then shooters and life long hunters.

 

[2WheelGnnr]

True they have gotten carried away with hunter safety.........I think it all can be covered in an afternoon properly........

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I thought this thread was a joke. Then I saw who originated it and realized it wasn't satire.

@JonStoh serious question, are you in favor of gun rights or gun control?

 

[JonStoh]

I thought this thread was a joke. Then I saw who originated it and realized it wasn't satire.

@JonStoh serious question, are you in favor of gun rights or gun control?

Im am in favor of gun rights and common sense gun regulations.

Hence my post stating that I fully support the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for self-defense.

the Governor and I, don't see eye to eye.

 

[Vantrepes]

The "One hour exam" will become a legal quiz that a 2A lawyer couldn't pass in the time allotted. First it will be basics, then in a few years, you're going to have to have the entire penal code memorized to pass it. "Oh, you were so close. You got 995 of the questions right, but you put down the wrong subsection when you were asked what code sets the requirements for powder storage in NY. If you don't know that, I mean, you're just not well enough informed to be safe"

"Simple safety course to show proficiency" will end up becoming an expert level shooting course, with no walk through, and no do overs in a couple of years. "Missed that 5" circle target at 75 yards with a 9mm? You're too dangerous, maybe you can try again in 5 or 10 years."
Of course, it's illegal for you to practice until you have a permit, so you will have to hire an instructor certified by NYS (there MIGHT be one in your area, maybe) and pay through the nose to learn the course.... so they can "update" it every so often, and you'll have to start over.

Prime example: Look how the requirements of the NYS pistol permit have crept along.

If your really want to improve things, then make the classes part of the required HS curriculum for seniors. Then everyone with a HS diploma will have the basic understanding of firearms, and how they are safety handled.

 

[Tisto]

" Is constitutional carry safe and smart"....Hmm.. let's ask this a different way.

Has there meen a major uptick in accidental shootings in the 25 states that recently adopted constitutional carry ? Has there been a major uptick in crime committed by those presumably legal citizens that have chosen to carry a gun without a government issued permission slip ?

Do you have ANY hard evidence that shows that people exercising their rights without a government permission slip or government mandated training are causing accidents ?

Face it. You don't like the idea of just anyone having or carrying a gun. You want only those trained to a certain standard, set by your master - the government tobe able to keep and bear.

How many purple ties do you own ? Fair question.

 

[dwa12479]

Justice Thomas has explicitly stated the the 2nd Amendment is NOT a second class right. Should there be a required course and written exam for someone to vote? Or publish? Or give a speech? Maybe only certain people with special government permissions can invoke the 5th? The rest are compelled to incriminate themselves.

The things you mentioned doing if you're going to carry onna regular basis are a great idea, and I agree everyone should do them. I have. But a hard requirement turns your right into a privilege.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It should be equally difficult as it is to vote, exercise free expression and own guns. Each one shares equal levels of responsibility and they are all capable of extreme harm.

If it's determined that gun owners need to jump through these hoops, then so should voters and those who wish to express opinions. They should have comparable hurdles to jump over proving they are of sound mind and good judgement.

Lord knows how much irreparable harm has been done to this country by low IQ voters and those who spread slanderous and vile ideals.

 

[Podmonkey]

Whether it is "safe" and/or "smart" is irrelevant.
It is incumbent on the individual, and no one else, to know and understand all relevant laws, responsibilities and obligations regarding the carrying of firearms. Those that fall short of these requirements will suffer the severe consequences of their negligence.

Frankly the notion that we, at an individual level, require regulations to provide for our own safety and security os what encourages governments to head down the path of tyranny in the first place. We ultimately demand it.
Freedom is dangerous, it must be so. The world is dangerous, that is it's nature.

 

[Zerex]

I have yet to see an epidemic of armed citizens shooting bad guys yet, indicating that the existing training is already totally adequate.

It is an attempt by 55% and that communist ilk, to disqualify gunowners from owning guns. They will be applying an attitude test about minorities and criminals and only want the police and friendly military from Cuba and China to have guns.


This is all about the terrorism that exists, regarding white men, possibly carrying concealed weapons...........like we fear the large tall black man, who is also likely carrying illegally.

 

[Saltwater60]

Right after we do the same for all other individuals rights. It seems that many citizens and politicians fail to understand what the constitution says and what peaceful protesting means. Should their be a class on voting? How about freedom of speech? Also what is federal describing action policy. People fail to understand most of not all laws so should they be locked up into their homes until they can pass a test or take a class that is endless because the laws change all the time?
Just like everything else if you don’t follow the laws you get punished so why is owning a gun any different? I agree people should know the law and how to use that firearm they just bought but I also don’t have to shoot someone in a situation I’m not comfortable with. I have that choice and restraint.

 

[speedkills27]

"I see nothing wrong with requiring a class to educate gun owners on the laws of self defense in their state."


The only way I would even begin to consider something like this is if:
1- As you mentioned, the class and ammo are taxpayer funded
2- There becomes a class and test required to vote

Even if the above mentioned things happened (fat chance) I would still be very skeptical of further infringements

 

[tirwin1]

"Constitutional Carry", are laws that allow anyone who can pass a NICS check any buy a handgun, to carry that handgun concealed/unconcealed with no further training, certification or permit required.

Personally, I 100% support the right of law abiding adults citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection, in public.

However, I prefer that such people KNOW the law regarding self-defense in their state. And I prefer that they actually KNOW how to use a handgun in self defense.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a class to educate gun owners on the laws of self defense in their state. Sadly many folks are totally ignorant of such laws, and think its legal to shoot people in situations that are actually NOT legal, and can get you thrown in jail for a long time. I see nothing wrong with requiring a 2 hour, or 3 hour, or whatever hour class is required to fully instruct the legalities of lethal self defense in their state, and an exam to make sure they get it.

And a 1 hour field test to make sure they know how to load and shoot a handgun safely.

Again, I know many folks believe that such training is NOT required by the Constitution. I get that. But that's not my question. My question is, is such training SMART? And I think it is.

This is NOT about undo burdens upon gun owners. Im talking class times only long enough to sufficiently teach these things. Not 35 hour courses. Minimal time frames. I cant imagine it would take more than say 4 hours to educate folks on self defense law.

How many lives might this save? How many good people might be kept out of prison? I say 1 a year is good enough for me.

And price? Should all be funded by the govt. Including the classes, the permit and the ammo.

Prove to me how many lives are currently lost and how many people are in prison because of a lack of training. Is there some sort of epidemic that I am missing?

I despise this line of thought. Someone thinks their own opinion of what is "smart" should apply to everyone else and it just happens to require more government oversight. Take all the classes you want, just don't think your needs have to be applied to everyone else.

 

[spat]

"Constitutional Carry", are laws that allow anyone who can pass a NICS check any buy a handgun, to carry that handgun concealed/unconcealed with no further training, certification or permit required.

Personally, I 100% support the right of law abiding adults citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection, in public.

However, I prefer that such people KNOW the law regarding self-defense in their state. And I prefer that they actually KNOW how to use a handgun in self defense.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a class to educate gun owners on the laws of self defense in their state. Sadly many folks are totally ignorant of such laws, and think its legal to shoot people in situations that are actually NOT legal, and can get you thrown in jail for a long time. I see nothing wrong with requiring a 2 hour, or 3 hour, or whatever hour class is required to fully instruct the legalities of lethal self defense in their state, and an exam to make sure they get it.

And a 1 hour field test to make sure they know how to load and shoot a handgun safely.

Again, I know many folks believe that such training is NOT required by the Constitution. I get that. But that's not my question. My question is, is such training SMART? And I think it is.

This is NOT about undo burdens upon gun owners. Im talking class times only long enough to sufficiently teach these things. Not 35 hour courses. Minimal time frames. I cant imagine it would take more than say 4 hours to educate folks on self defense law.

How many lives might this save? How many good people might be kept out of prison? I say 1 a year is good enough for me.

And price? Should all be funded by the govt. Including the classes, the permit and the ammo.

Well, it's certainly a lot better than letting anyone with a pulse (and many without one) vote.

If you can't be trusted to be armed in public you absolutely should not be choosing our leaders.

 

[DoOver]

 

[That_FNG]

In the constitution what class does it say one should take before carrying a firearm?

the only people not carrying a firearm right now are the law abiding responsible citizen. Idiots, law enforcement and criminals already do so.

 

[OwnTheRide]

"Constitutional Carry", are laws that allow anyone who can pass a NICS check any buy a handgun, to carry that handgun concealed/unconcealed with no further training, certification or permit required.

Personally, I 100% support the right of law abiding adults citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection, in public.

However, I prefer that such people KNOW the law regarding self-defense in their state. And I prefer that they actually KNOW how to use a handgun in self defense.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a class to educate gun owners on the laws of self defense in their state. Sadly many folks are totally ignorant of such laws, and think its legal to shoot people in situations that are actually NOT legal, and can get you thrown in jail for a long time. I see nothing wrong with requiring a 2 hour, or 3 hour, or whatever hour class is required to fully instruct the legalities of lethal self defense in their state, and an exam to make sure they get it.

And a 1 hour field test to make sure they know how to load and shoot a handgun safely.

Again, I know many folks believe that such training is NOT required by the Constitution. I get that. But that's not my question. My question is, is such training SMART? And I think it is.

This is NOT about undo burdens upon gun owners. Im talking class times only long enough to sufficiently teach these things. Not 35 hour courses. Minimal time frames. I cant imagine it would take more than say 4 hours to educate folks on self defense law.

How many lives might this save? How many good people might be kept out of prison? I say 1 a year is good enough for me.

And price? Should all be funded by the govt. Including the classes, the permit and the ammo.

I don't think anyone here will say that quality training is a bad thing.

Mandatory training is bad. Not because training is bad, but because it gives gun grabbers something to exploit. They've repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that for every inch given to them, they will take a mile. How do they do so in this case? Simple: by making it difficult to obtain said training. There are a multitude of ways they do this: make the training prohibitively expensive, make it difficult or impossible to become a qualified instructor, legally limit the availability or frequency of training... the list goes on and on. Gun grabbers are creative, if you give them a foothold, they will use it.

Want proof? NY's CCIA establishes training requirements. The ink is barely dry on that legislation and already gun grabbers are trying to prohibit NRA instructors from providing the training. Hell, the fact that the law was passed and took effect before the training requirements and qualification standards (for trainer and trainee) were established ought to be an eye-opener.

If you so strongly support mandatory education requirements, I have a suggestion: institute a half-semester gun safety class required for high school graduation. When I was in school, we had two such classes: Economics and Participation in government. If we want to ensure we are taking gun safety seriously, what better way than ensuring everyone is educated on the topic?

 

[pshift]

View attachment 191552

That will set you back about $3K for all of that stuff

 

[Saltwater60]

Prove to me how many lives are currently lost and how many people are in prison because of a lack of training. Is there some sort of epidemic that I am missing?

I despise this line of thought. Someone thinks their own opinion of what is "smart" should apply to everyone else and it just happens to require more government oversight. Take all the classes you want, just don't think your needs have to be applied to everyone else.

It could be everyone in jail for this but it doesn’t make it right or that these trainings would solve that issue either. Laws are constantly evolving so would you need this training every time something changed?

Local laws are a joke. I live in Erie county and we passed a county law saying it’s illegal to smoke in a car with your kid if under age. How many people know of that law or would even know if they went from one county to another? What am I supposed to do learn every law everywhere I could possibly go? Most laws never come off the books. Not venting at you but adding to the conversation.

 

[DoOver]

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

I thought this thread was a joke. Then I saw who originated it and realized it wasn't satire.

@JonStoh serious question, are you in favor of gun rights or gun control?

Stop feeding the troll. Oops ...... wait a minute.....I think a mod is at my front door.

 

[spat]

Im am in favor of gun rights and common sense gun regulations.

Hence my post stating that I fully support the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for self-defense.

the Governor and I, don't see eye to eye.

There is no such thing as "common sense regulation" because "common sense" no longer exists.

Are you in favor of "common sense" abortion control ?

"Common sense" voting security ?

I know what I consider common sense for both of those, wonder what your opinion is ?


But, the bottom line is that all guncontrol is indisputably a form of prior restraint. There is a reason that is a dirty word for legislation.


You outlaw behavior that causes direct harm to society, like murder. You cannot outlaw behavior because someone *might* cause harm.

That's why causing a riot is illegal, but you cannot gag people in public to prevent them from doing so.

 

[JonStoh]

There is no such thing as "common sense regulation" because "common sense" no longer exists.

Are you in favor of "common sense" abortion control ?

"Common sense" voting security ?

I know what I consider common sense for both of those, wonder what your opinion is ?


But, the bottom line is that all guncontrol is indisputably a form of prior restraint. There is a reason that is a dirty word for legislation.


You outlaw behavior that causes direct harm to society, like murder. You cannot outlaw behavior because someone *might* cause harm.

That's why causing a riot is illegal, but you cannot gag people in public to prevent them from doing so.

Yes I support limiting abortion to the point of viability and i support voter ID rules.

 

[DoOver]

...Judge, Jury and Executioner.

 

[Saltwater60]

I don't think anyone here will say that quality training is a bad thing.

Mandatory training is bad. Not because training is bad, but because it gives gun grabbers something to exploit. They've repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that for every inch given to them, they will take a mile. How do they do so in this case? Simple: by making it difficult to obtain said training. There are a multitude of ways they do this: make the training prohibitively expensive, make it difficult or impossible to become a qualified instructor, legally limit the availability or frequency of training... the list goes on and on. Gun grabbers are creative, if you give them a foothold, they will use it.

Want proof? NY's CCIA establishes training requirements. The ink is barely dry on that legislation and already gun grabbers are trying to prohibit NRA instructors from providing the training. Hell, the fact that the law was passed and took effect before the training requirements and qualification standards (for trainer and trainee) were established ought to be an eye-opener.

If you so strongly support mandatory education requirements, I have a suggestion: institute a half-semester gun safety class required for high school graduation. When I was in school, we had two such classes: Economics and Participation in government. If we want to ensure we are taking gun safety seriously, what better way than ensuring everyone is educated on the topic?

The class in school would likely be one of the best things ever done but we will never see it. This makes a lot of sense because kids find guns in places unexpectedly