"COnstitutional Carry?"

[PlayboyPenguin]

First, I do not like the term "constitutional carry" since I believe it sets the in favor argument up for failure right off the bat by making it sound that we believe the constitution addresses carrying a firearm in public...which it does not.

Still, I am starting to warm to the idea if not to the labeling.

At first I was pretty set against...ummm...let's call it "legal carry." Meaning making it legal for any lawful person to carry a legally obtained firearm on their person. I am way to in favor of training to carry a gun. I am also of the opinion that there are a lot of people out there that should not be allowed to handle scissors in public, much less a firearm. There are some real unstable and unhappy people out there. Still, I think that sometimes you have to allow things to just be and deal with the consequences. You cannot preemptively stop bad people from doing bad things at the expense of everyone else's freedoms.

As I sit here and read some of the posts over the past few days regarding "legal carry" I find myself altering my opinions a bit. When I start to think about it I realize that the only difference between this and the process used in WA (where I also have a non-res carry permit) is a fee paid to the state. WA does not do any type of training. It just runs a background check and issues a permit after you pay your $65. Since people already go through a background check to buy the gun in the first place (under most circumstances) the only difference between this policy and "legal carry" is the $65.

Since anyone that is legal to possess a firearm will pass the check there is no real validation going on. If someone is caught with a gun who is not legal to possess one then they will be punished. And lets face it, people who are not legal yet still carry a gun are going to do it until caught regardless of legal requirements. So who would these requirements really stop? Just legal gun owners who do not have the time or money for the process and the really stupid illegal ones.

Could allowing anyone to carry cause issues? Of course it could. Do I think it will? I do not know. If it does cause any problems I do not believe they would be of the "shoot out" variety. I think they would be of the self inflicted ND injury variety. People that are going to try and hurt someone else are going to do it with a gun or a bat. They will not be more likely to do something because they have a gun. Especially if they think the other person might have a gun too. These types of people do not usually like fair fights. In fact some people might even mature a bit from having a gun on them. It really does make you feel less vulnerable and less angry. It makes you think more about your actions. So it might be good for a lot of people. Like I said before, I feel the ones most likely to suffer will be people that do not bother to educate themselves and end up harming themselves through mishandling of their firearm.

PS: One of the statements that started me moving in this direction was one in another thread where the statement was made that it would now be legal for a woman to place a handgun in her purse for protection. That made me think of a lot of women I have known that were threatened by ex boyfriends or spouses who could have armed themselves for peace of mind during the ordeals.

Read More

 

[Father of four]

You seem like a good guy and well respected but I couldn't read past your first paragraph without disagreeing with you.

PlayboyPenguin: "First, I do not like the term "constitutional carry" since I believe it sets the in favor argument up for failure right off the bat by making it sound that we believe the constitution addresses carrying a firearm in public...which it does not."

I think one of our God given right is to carry a firearm, knife, mace, fists or what ever is legal to carry in Public to defend ourselves. Do you think that are ability to defend ourselves is to be exercised only in our homes. It is out in the public when we need it most!

 

[Father of four]

Ok, I read to rest of your post. No disrespect, but why does a person need your or my blessings for them to protect themselves? What you or I think would be good training of firearms handling and usage for someone may not be good enough or complete enough to others.

So only someone who is trained in what you or I consider to be adequate in self defense can use it?

A firearm is a tool that someone made and now alot of people use it for defenses purposes. One of many tools we use to defend ourselves. To tell people they can only defend themselves when we say its ok is absurd!

The right to bare arms...but not in public? Yeah right.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You seem like a good guy and well respected but I couldn't read past your first paragraph without disagreeing with you.

PlayboyPenguin: "First, I do not like the term "constitutional carry" since I believe it sets the in favor argument up for failure right off the bat by making it sound that we believe the constitution addresses carrying a firearm in public...which it does not."

I think one of our God given right is to carry a firearm, knife, mace, fists or what ever is legal to carry in Public to defend ourselves. Do you think that are ability to defend ourselves is to be exercised only in our homes. It is out in the public when we need it most!

I am sorry, but I just do not believe the argument for concealed carry can be won on constitutional basis. The argument for gun ownership yes, but not for concealed carry. The argument for concealed carry will have to be won with more practical arguments. The constitutional argument will not work very well considering the fact that public carry was indeed illegal during the time of the founders so why would one assume that they would intend differently for modern day? It is one of those misconceptions that people used to just be able to carry guns around with them into cities and towns. Even in wild west days you were required to check your guns with the town sheriff or saloon owner while in city limits. The stuff you see in movies is grossly exaggerated.

 

[Father of four]

Yes, the right to bare firearms is not in the Constitution. To me this is was more important!


The Deceleration of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

We as people have rights that should NEVER be taken away from us! Even if Somebody or a group of Somebodies makes a law that takes it away.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Yes, the right to bare firearms is not in the Constitution. To me this is was more important!


The Deceleration of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

We as people have rights that should NEVER be taken away from us! Even if Somebody or a group of Somebodies makes a law that takes it away.

People are simply going to respond to that line of reasoning with questions of how not being able to carry an AK47 to the 7/11 is going to hamper your ability to fight back against a corrupt or oppressive government.

 

[Father of four]

The bull about the concealed carry laws are only about money and control. A person can choose not to buy into the concealed carry permission. They will not get the special privileges sense they didn't ask for permission. To some its a matter of the thing. Just like you said its all about paying a fee. Right?

 

[Father of four]

Well then maybe we should all carry .22's ? Or who gets the authority to decide what is sufficient?

 

[Father of four]

It just wrong! Here in Portland I cant even have a loaded magazine in my pocket to put in my unloaded gun to protect my wife and children in public. That is unless i ask for permission first and pay a fee.

 

[biggie24420]

If u don't have a permit so u can open carry...... just carry a pet rock lol it is so dumb that u have to have ur mag(s) unloaded or whatever...... stupid laws like that i don't pay attention to and when i get stopped i show my license and after the license check is done i ask AM I UNDER ARREST OFFICER…? NO? Ok sir/ma'am have a nice day and i walk away......simple.

I did that to portland police when i was OCing and they got booty hurt and they reported me to washington co. And county called me to find out why i was OCing hahahahaha so i explained why and i asked the sheriff if he knew that i can open carry with my valid ccw.... he said yes he knew the law and i was thinking to myself...... WHY R U CALLING ME SHERRIF…...... but i was nice and he was for the most part and it wished him a good day and got off the phone. In conclusion......they will do anything and everything specially when ur doing what ur doing legally so just be nice and stay under the raidar and if needed tell them what the law is and the LESS U TALK THE BETTER OFF U R.... DON'T TALK TO POLICE... even if ur telling the truth they will use anything and everything against u so use ur right and remain silent. U will never talk yourself out of getting arrested. Sorry if i am off topic but that is how i feel.
GOOD DAY.

 

[willseeker]

If u don't have a permit so u can open carry...... just carry a pet rock lol it is so dumb that u have to have ur mag(s) unloaded or whatever...... stupid laws like that i don't pay attention to and when i get stopped i show my license and after the license check is done i ask AM I UNDER ARREST OFFICER…? NO? Ok sir/ma'am have a nice day and i walk away......simple.

I did that to portland police when i was OCing and they got booty hurt and they reported me to washington co. And county called me to find out why i was OCing hahahahaha so i explained why and i asked the sheriff if he knew that i can open carry with my valid ccw.... he said yes he knew the law and i was thinking to myself...... WHY R U CALLING ME SHERRIF…...... but i was nice and he was for the most part and it wished him a good day and got off the phone. In conclusion......they will do anything and everything specially when ur doing what ur doing legally so just be nice and stay under the raidar and if needed tell them what the law is and the LESS U TALK THE BETTER OFF U R.... DON'T TALK TO POLICE... even if ur telling the truth they will use anything and everything against u so use ur right and remain silent. U will never talk yourself out of getting arrested. Sorry if i am off topic but that is how i feel.
GOOD DAY.

Please...enough with the ur and the ru!

Thanks for a good another good thread Playboy Penguin.


Will.

 

[biggie24420]

Please...enough with the ur and the ru!

Thanks for a good another good thread Playboy Penguin.


Will.

Please....... i will ur and ru all i want WILL.... u don't like it? Tough cookies bro.

 

[Gunner3456]

Oregon's constitutional right to keep and bear is much stronger than the US constitution because it lacks the pesky "militia" phrase. I hope we all realize that the "militia" at the time was the ad hoc members of society.

I see nothing in either constitution which requires "training" to exercise any of my rights. I see the rights as accruing to me at birth apart from any permission of government.

For those of us who grew up with guns and hunting, our elders taught us gun safety. Most of them were vets of WWII or Korea and they took us hunting. One time when I was pretty young I picked up a rifle to use the scope to better see a group of unknown hunters on another ridge. Stupid yes, but did I ever get my butt chewed by the whole group of men with us? Did I ever get my butt chewed if I ever accidentally pointed my gun in a poor direction, or did anything else stupid?

I am grandfathered with my CHL and never had to take a class. I took one voluntarily not too long ago to learn the laws about my rights to pull my gun (without "brandishing") or to actually shoot someone. Frankly, it didn't help much and I've had to research it in other venues.

As with all things about freedom, I'd rather have the small risk of something going wrong than to bind people with laws. A lot more people are killed by cars than by guns and we never consider taking away cars. We do however require proof of competency with cars, for what good that does. It certainly doesn't remove all risk.

You can't teach good judgment. There are risks in this life and I accept them as necessary, and prefer them if they come with freedom. How many times do we have to remember that criminals carry guns illegally and without "training" in many cases?

$.02

 

[Gunner3456]

Please....... i will ur and ru all i want WILL.... u don't like it? Tough cookies bro.

It's hard to read. I skip over your posts even though you have important things to say. It's handy for you to take shortcuts, but it puts the extra work onto someone else who would like to read, but who then has to translate your writing. I have no idea what "ru" means.

It also causes you to appear uneducated, and some folks simply won't care what an uneducated person has to say.

Sure, you have a "right" to post any way you'd like. I have no obligation to try to read it. Help us out a little here?

Just sayin'...

 

[biggie24420]

Okay...... I shall do my best for you guys. YOU ARE it is....... sorry I can't be perfect 24/7.....

 

[Atroxus]

First, I do not like the term "constitutional carry" since I believe it sets the in favor argument up for failure right off the bat by making it sound that we believe the constitution addresses carrying a firearm in public...which it does not.

Wrong! Lets take a look at the wording of the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then lets look at the dictionary.com definition of the word "bear".

bear1   /bɛər/ Show Spelled [bair] Show IPA verb,bore or (Archaic) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2.to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3.to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4.to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5.to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6.to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7.to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8.to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9.to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10.to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11.to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12.to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13.to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14.to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15.to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16.to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17.to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18.to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19.to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20.to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21.to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22.to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.

I don't see how the 2nd amendment could be interpreted any other way than that we have the right to own and carry firearms.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Okay...... I shall do my best for you guys. YOU ARE it is....... sorry I can't be perfect 24/7.....

No need to be perfect, none of us are. But if you want your posts to be understood, you might consider a more traditional approach to expressing yourself with a keyboard and text.

 

[2zuks]

Yeah, I think it is rediculous that anyone would try to reason that we have the right to own and keep arms in our house, but not to keep them with us when we need them the most! What needs to be looked at is the INTENT of the constitution as the framers asked. A very small amount of research into the writings of the framers immediately points to the conclusion.

There should be no chl, period. If you are legal to own a gun, you are legal to carry a gun, and whatever gun you choose to cary. Everyone has the RIGHT to protect themselves and their family. That is a basic god given right. I am getting a bit fed up with people trying to tell us how, when, and whereweare legal to protect ourselves and our families. If there is a threat, I will use whatever means neccessary, anytime, anywhere, and anyplace necessary to eliminate said threat. If that means that I do so with a ak rather than a .22, that is my choice. I would expect that others would do the same thing.

There needs to be a stand made in my opinion. We need to pass along the message that we will not compromise on our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

 

[Gunner3456]

This is not a religious argument on my part. Believe what you wish.

For those who believe there is no God, then it seems to me that it would be hard for them to accept the idea the there are "inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator."

IMHO that leaves the rights subject to man, probably a government. It seems to me that makes the rights permissive rather than inalienable.

Again, not an argument for or against, just an observation.

$.02

 

[gogoDawgs]

Wow Penguin, so much to learn....I will start with this....

No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.