Constitutional carry v. licensed CCW????

[Dave Workman]

'Right to carry' may heat as W. Va. governor vetoes carry bill

The debate over right-to-carry may warm up anew following yesterday's veto of so-called "constitutional carry" legislation by West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, who used as justification his concerns about public safety.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Gunguy45]

Considering WVA accepts NRA basic pistol class as training, the Governor is frankly full of it.

Basic pistol has ZERO content about how to use a defensive weapon, concealed carry techniques, special safety concerns about drawing or holstering or use-of-force law.

In other words, the accepted standard for "training" required before you can apply for a CCW has ZERO bearing on concealed carry.

The antis and the FUDDS always go on about "training." How about you have to pony up $100 on a civics class before you can vote? I mean hey, if a training requirement is acceptable for one right, surely it's acceptable for the rest.

 

[Stomper]

Well said.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Considering WVA accepts NRA basic pistol class as training, the Governor is frankly full of it.

Basic pistol has ZERO content about how to use a defensive weapon, concealed carry techniques, special safety concerns about drawing or holstering or use-of-force law.

In other words, the accepted standard for "training" required before you can apply for a CCW has ZERO bearing on concealed carry.

The antis and the FUDDS always go on about "training." How about you have to pony up $100 on a civics class before you can vote? I mean hey, if a training requirement is acceptable for one right, surely it's acceptable for the rest.

You know they won't spend $100 for a civics class since they want to claim it's racist to make them spend $54 every 6 years for a WA state I.D. . . .

 

[ikemay]

Ok, I know I am opening a can of whoop-bubblegum on myself. Please indulge me and do not beat me up. I am first and foremost PRO 2nd Amendment along with being licensed to conceal carry, and an NRA member. In this thread https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/new-medford-textbook-says-2nda-is-for-military-purposes.193178/
I commented on the word "militia" contained in the 2A and how I am trying to formulate good arguments defending the 2A. This topic of Constitutional Carry vs. licensed CCW has me intrigued. So, again please do not beat me up too badly.

Ok, we are obviously all familiar with the 2nd Amendment. However, this question of Constitutional Carry vs. licensed CCW may fall under the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

One could argue that as long as the States do not "infringe" upon the "peoples" right to keep and bear arms ..... meaning an all out ban which would be prohibited under the 2A. The State or it's people could place conditions on how (open or concealed) you carry, where you can carry, training requirements, etc. In other words, the State it seems could legislate it much like alcohol is treated differently in different States even though it is legal per the 21st Amendment.

What I want to do is reason out an effective argument FOR Constitutional Carry but am having a hard time based on the 10th Amendment.

Please, I am not trolling or trying to start anything. I am sincerely trying to formulate better, well reasoned, hopefully smarter rebuttals to the anti-gun crowd.

Your comments please.
Mike

 

[Stomper]

Alright guys, let's get a rope and hang this rable-rouser who made his screen name from the pig-latin version of his first name!

 

[TastyWheat87]

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

Infringement does not mean an all-out ban.

Requiring one to obtain a permit to bear arms is clearly an infringement of an individual's 2nd amendment right, as it limits one from bearing arms without a permit. This is especially true in places like Portland where you cannot carry openly OR concealed without a CHL, meaning you cannot bear arms at all until you pay the necessary taxes (fees), and let the waiting period elapse (30 days in WA, 45 days in OR?).

Washington's CPL "must be presented upon demand, to any law enforcement personnel." This is a tool used to violate an individual's fourth amendment right, since now you are required to identify yourself just because a police officer utters the phrase "show me your CPL" even if they have no reason to suspect you would even have such a permit, and no cause to ask you for the permit.

These two reasons, among many others, are why I am for constitutional carry. I am very pleased to see this movement spreading across the country.

 

[ikemay]

Excellent points TastyWheat. I threw in all out ban because it seems that's what the goal is. What we call infringement, they call regulation. So the core point comes over the definition of infringe, infringement, infringed. I do agree with your assessment, but now I have to hone my debating skill (lack there of) to explain "infringe" versus "regulation" to an anti-gunner. Now, I never try to change anyone's mind, I just try to debate respectfully. But I have found people's reaction to firearms is generally an emotional one ........ much like a phobia. And man, the eyes get wide, breathing increases and huffiness gets spewed all over my shoes.

Again, thank you for your comments. I hope others chime in as well.
Mike

 

[Stomper]

Keep in mind that most anti-2A's will misquote "well regulated militia", which means in the vernacular of the day it was forged meant "well supplied/equipped militia".

 

[TastyWheat87]

Keep in mind that most anti-2A's will misquote "well regulated militia", which means in the vernacular of the day it was forged meant "well supplied/equipped militia".

To date, this is the most thorough breakdown of the 2nd I have ever seen.

 

[Gunguy45]

Well theoretically, states can "infringe" all to Hell and gone. Heller is really vague and we lack, at this point, any direction from the SC on where and how those limits apply.

 

[Stomper]

Governments are like children... They constantly push the boundaries, then push some more to see what they can get away with.

 

[boogerhook]

Open Carry

Governments are like children... They constantly push the boundaries, then push some more to see what they can get away with.

No kidding... I shall rename my children

 

[boogerhook]

I maintain that Madison was more concerned about casting in stone the right of the states to form well equipped militias to defend themselves against the federal government. The individual's right to bear arms for self protection was never challenged in these days and assumed to be a natural right. Standing armies, especially federal ones on the other hand were of big concern. So the 2nd Amendment reaffirms the individual right, and forbids any limitation (shall not be infringed) so that a state militia is never disadvantaged compared to the federal forces.

 

[dbpep]

Seems like quite a few states are working on passing constitutional carry. I'd like to see Oregon added to that list sometime soon! If someone is eligible to buy a handgun, then they should be able to conceal carry. CHL's are just another money-making scam...

 

[Stomper]

Well, then you start getting into the weeds on the process of determining who is "eligible". UBC's can be used as a means to establishing a gun registry, not to mention the whole "prove your innocent first" and "a right delayed is a right denied" issue when (not if) there's a SNAFU with the NICS process.

 

[dbpep]

Well, then you start getting into the weeds on the process of determining who is "eligible". UBC's can be used as a means to establishing a gun registry, not to mention the whole "prove your innocent first" and "a right delayed is a right denied" issue when (not if) there's a SNAFU with the NICS process.

Good point, and I'd like to see the "guilty until proven innocent" system go away as well... However, I think of purchasing and CHL's as two separate issues since different departments handle them. CHL's serve no purpose other than to make the sheriffs department money. If someone is already allowed to purchase a concealable firearm, then what sense does it make to require a permit from a separate entity just to carry it? Obviously someone could just carry the handgun that they legally bought and not get caught (if they carry properly). It's complete BS that people have to fork over cash in order to exercise their rights.

 

[44Brent]

Ok, we are obviously all familiar with the 2nd Amendment. However, this question of Constitutional Carry vs. licensed CCW may fall under the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

One could argue that as long as the States do not "infringe" upon the "peoples" right to keep and bear arms ..... meaning an all out ban which would be prohibited under the 2A. The State or it's people could place conditions on how (open or concealed) you carry, where you can carry, training requirements, etc. In other words, the State it seems could legislate it much like alcohol is treated differently in different States even though it is legal per the 21st Amendment.

Who gave this guy permission to post these comments? I checked the registry of people approved to write postings, and I don't see that this guy took an internet safety course. Therefore, he's not licensed to practiced 1st Amendment Rights, nor 10th Amendment Rights.

 

[RicInOR]

What is the argument in favor of a CHP?

The Government has restrictions on who may possess a firearm. By getting a background check, you verify you are able to possess an FA at that time.


Heard a cop ask once - Are you certain you have no wants or warrants? Sure was the answer. Then you are on parole? right the cop responded? The only people who are not incarcerated who can be certain they have no outstanding warrants are generally those who are checking. Are you absolutely certain some EX- did'nt' get bubblegummy and file something on you?


Why else is a permit needed?


No reason I can think of, help me out here ....


backdoor gun registration, or is that too much tin-foil.

 

[dbpep]

What is the argument in favor of a CHP?

The Government has restrictions on who may possess a firearm. By getting a background check, you verify you are able to possess an FA at that time.


Heard a cop ask once - Are you certain you have no wants or warrants? Sure was the answer. Then you are on parole? right the cop responded? The only people who are not incarcerated who can be certain they have no outstanding warrants are generally those who are checking. Are you absolutely certain some EX- did'nt' get bubblegummy and file something on you?


Why else is a permit needed?


No reason I can think of, help me out here ....


backdoor gun registration, or is that too much tin-foil.

You should've responded with "Guess I'll know depending on how this encounter turns out. Me in handcuffs, or us driving our separate ways."