Constitutional Carry in your state, are you FOR or AGAINST it?

This is a discussion on Constitutional Carry in your state, are you FOR or AGAINST it? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; OK I am posting this here as it has to do with both Concealed Carry and Open Carry... AZ has followed AK and VT with ...

View Poll Results: Do you support constitutional carry?

Voters
231. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! We should have the freedom to carry anyway we like!

    223 96.54%
  • No! We need Government regulations to keep everyone safe!

    8 3.46%
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 102

Thread: Constitutional Carry in your state, are you FOR or AGAINST it?

  1. #1
    Member Array SCJeffro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Laughlin, NV
    Posts
    71

    Constitutional Carry in your state, are you FOR or AGAINST it?

    OK I am posting this here as it has to do with both Concealed Carry and Open Carry...

    AZ has followed AK and VT with their "Constitutional Carry" law, (Basically anyone who is able to legally purchase a handgun, can also carry a handgun concealed or openly with NO Permit) Would you support Constitutional Carry in your state and WHY or WHY NOT?
    "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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array SCJeffro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Laughlin, NV
    Posts
    71
    My reasoning, I guess I am just more for following the United states Constitution... Take the 2nd Amendment, It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it does not say "Except when carrying a gun, then you must get a permit..." it says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    By definition requiring a CCW is a clear infringement on our rights under the 2nd amendment. CCW laws are, in reality, Un-constitutional! Once we give up this right, how long before we give up the right to free speech? Or the right to a fair trial or the right to plead the fifth? (None of the other rights protected under the amendments of the constitution require you to have a permit by the way...) You know the first amendment is actually also under attack (by the left) as we speak... We need to Revert to the Constitution and go back to being The United States of America! and turn away from becoming the USSA... (Unites Socialist States of Amerika)

    I believe Ben Franklin said it best when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Feel free to give up your rights, I prefer to keep mine, and protect them from all attacks, foreign and domestic! Thank you very much!!
    Last edited by SCJeffro; June 11th, 2010 at 06:07 PM. Reason: I voted YES by the way ;)
    "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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SCJeffro View Post
    My reasoning, I guess I am just more for following the United states Constitution... Take the 2nd Amendment, It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it does not say "Except when carrying a gun, then you must get a permit..." it says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    By definition requiring a CCW is a clear infringement on our rights under the 2nd amendment. CCW laws are, in reality, Un-constitutional! Once we give up this right, how long before we give up the right to free speech? Or the right to a fair trial or the right to plead the fifth? (None of the other rights protected under the amendments of the constitution require you to have a permit by the way...) You know the first amendment is actually also under attack (by the left) as we speak... We need to Revert to the Constitution and go back to being The United States of America! and turn away from becoming the USSA... (Unites Socialist States of Amerika)

    I believe Ben Franklin said it best when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Feel free to give up your rights, I prefer to keep mine, and protect them from all attacks, foreign and domestic! Thank you very much!!
    +1 Well said.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    But a license gives you the ability to boast about passing the FBI anal probe....

    On a serious note I don't see the disadvantage. The person can legally own a gun but can't carry it? Just never made a whole lot of sense.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  6. #5
    Member Array Alf87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    217
    Naturally I support it. I would also make it so that if you come from a Constitutional Carry State, your drivers license would be all that is needed as you travel outside your state. If your state recognizes it as a constitutional right, then I believe your drivers license or State ID would be all that is needed to prove you have the right to carry in other states. Of course, this is a dream world I speak of, but that's my quick thought on the subject.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    I do support Constitutional Carry.

    All the arguments for restrictions on carry (e.g., “may issue”, OKs from the chief LEO, prior training, proficiency testing, checking more frequently to see if a person is still fit to carry a weapon) are exactly the same as those that the hoplophobic use for restricting carry in the crazy patchwork quilt of hurdles to be cleared before exercising and to continue the exercise of our RKBA.

    However, there is no evidence that there is any higher rate of gun related problems in those States with little or no such nonsense, as there is in those States with draconian restrictions on the 2A.

    During a public panel Q & A session, I saw a leaders of the Antis, here in Virginia, sandbagged into actually defining what “reasonable restrictions” and adequate “training & proficiency” he would agree to as the minimum for carry. I know what Washington DC thinks is reasonable (no carry), what his-dishonor-from Chicago thinks is reasonable (only the connected), and what his-dishonor-from NYC talks about as reasonable. They are all extremely high hurdles or outright blocks to serve as prior-restraints on a right they do not want you (the average citizen) to have.

    These antis are convinced that it is better to deny “the many” the right to protection because it could stop some small number from [fill-in-the-blank] in the future – all the while being in denial of the criminals’ disregard for those very laws that create vast “unarmed victim zones” on which those very criminals prey. They preach “It could be, but never mind what it is doing”-- and that is not logical.

    Wake up and take a breath the free air of those States w/o this hoplophobic nonsense. Then look around at the lack of carnage in Constitutional Carry States , such as we see reported from the major anti-gun States & cities.

    The bottom line is that all these prior-restraints do not work. The blood baths that the antis hope that their manta might stop sometime in the future are happening, right now, in the “unarmed victim zones” as they continue to preach their trust-us-we’ll-take-care-of-you. OTOH, in places where the prior-restraints are being reduced crime is being reduced.

    Want to live in a safer place either move to a State w/o this hoplophobic nonsense, or work to get it reduced in your State or removed altogether by adopting Constitutional Carry, but don’t buy into “let’s keep or increase increasing the prior-restraints on the RKBA.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by SCJeffro View Post
    My reasoning, I guess I am just more for following the United states Constitution... Take the 2nd Amendment, It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it does not say "Except when carrying a gun, then you must get a permit..." it says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    By definition requiring a CCW is a clear infringement on our rights under the 2nd amendment. CCW laws are, in reality, Un-constitutional! Once we give up this right, how long before we give up the right to free speech? Or the right to a fair trial or the right to plead the fifth? (None of the other rights protected under the amendments of the constitution require you to have a permit by the way...) You know the first amendment is actually also under attack (by the left) as we speak... We need to Revert to the Constitution and go back to being The United States of America! and turn away from becoming the USSA... (Unites Socialist States of Amerika)

    I believe Ben Franklin said it best when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Feel free to give up your rights, I prefer to keep mine, and protect them from all attacks, foreign and domestic! Thank you very much!!
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    +1 Well said.
    +2 I second this, well said indeed.
    "Don't start none, won't be none!"

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    I voted yes.


    The negative choice is mind numbing:

    No! We need Government regulations to keep everyone safe!
    Government regs do little, other than protect it's own interests. At least as far as 2A rights.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  10. #9
    Member Array SCJeffro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Laughlin, NV
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    I voted yes.

    The negative choice is mind numbing:

    Government regs do little, other than protect it's own interests. At least as far as 2A rights.
    I couldn't agree more, however... you would be surprised at how many self proclaimed Gun people voted NO on other forums and as well as on a recent poll I did on gun related facebook page!
    "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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by SCJeffro View Post
    I couldn't agree more, however... you would be surprised at how many self proclaimed Gun people voted NO on other forums and as well as on a recent poll I did on gun related facebook page!
    You might be surprised that there are a certain number on this forum, also. They are the minority, but quite outspoken.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  12. #11
    Member Array SCJeffro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Laughlin, NV
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    You might be surprised that there are a certain number on this forum, also. They are the minority, but quite outspoken.
    I am not surprised anymore... lol It has become painfully clear that just because people claim to be pro gun, own guns or are gun enthusiasts that doesn't mean they agree with or even support the 2nd Amendment! Sad but true!!
    "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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    The constitution is the supreme law of the US and that's good enough for me. So in short... yes I support constitutional carry.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  14. #13
    Member Array Big Larry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by SCJeffro View Post
    OK I am posting this here as it has to do with both Concealed Carry and Open Carry...

    AZ has followed AK and VT with their "Constitutional Carry" law, basically anyone who is able to legally purchase a handgun, can also carry a handgun concealed or openly with NO Permit) Would you support Constitutional Carry in your state and WHY or WHY NOT?
    Where is that in the 2nd amendment? All I'm saying, is that I don't think it's as cut and dry as some people make it out to be. At what point are you no longer pro 2nd amendment? When you don't believe felons should be allowed to buy guns? If you believe the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right then what restrictions should be placed upon it?
    Walk quietly and carry a big stick.

  15. #14
    Member Array SCJeffro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Laughlin, NV
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Larry View Post
    Where is that in the 2nd amendment? All I'm saying, is that I don't think it's as cut and dry as some people make it out to be. At what point are you no longer pro 2nd amendment? When you don't believe felons should be allowed to buy guns? If you believe the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right then what restrictions should be placed upon it?
    you will get no argument from me that the highlighted text is to be found anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, it isn't...

    "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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"

    I believe our freedom and right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is my stance.

    I tend to agree with this point of view...

    Gun Rights for Felons?
    July 22, 2008
    Don B. Kates, Jr.
    New York Post

    The Supreme Court last month voided Washington, DC’s extreme gun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now, across America, public defenders and other lawyers for rapists, robbers and murderers are filing motions contending that their vicious clients have a Second Amendment right to have guns.

    If this were correct, the Second Amendment would be a very bad thing. Happily, it’s not so.

    The high-court opinion vindicated the constitutional right of ordinary, responsible law-abiding adults to have a handgun to protect their families, homes and themselves. It also flatly stated that this right does not apply to criminals.

    Federal and state laws against convicted felons having guns are still valid: The Second Amendment protects a right of self-defense for “good” people only.

    The fact is, virtually all violent criminals have long criminal records—which disqualify them from owning guns under our laws against felons having guns.

    For instance, 90 percent of US adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies.

    As criminologist Delbert Elliott said, in summarizing studies of murderers, robbers and rapists: “The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.” (Most of the few murderers who lack criminal records are disqualified from gun ownership by our laws banning firearms possession by lunatics.)

    If such people obeyed gun bans, there would be virtually no gun crime in America. But, of course, criminals won’t obey gun laws any more than they obey other laws.

    Is there any chance the Supreme Court would eventually buy the arguments of the criminals’ lawyers? Not if it pays any attention to the clear record of the Second Amendment’s history.

    The amendment guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms”—and the Founding Fathers did not think “the people” included criminals. Under the law as they knew it, felons were “civilly dead”: They had no legal rights whatever. All their property (including guns) was forfeit. (Moreover, they were subject to execution—which made their rights irrelevant.)

    In all societies recognizing a right to arms, that right was limited to “the virtuous citizenry.” In this, as in much else, our Founders looked back to the ancient Greek and Roman republics. There, every free man was armed so as to be prepared both to defend his family against criminals and to man the city walls in immediate response to the tocsin’s warning of approaching enemies. Thus did each good citizen commit himself to the fulfillment of both his private and his public responsibilities.

    In sum, the constitutional right to arms simply does not extend to people convicted of serious criminal offenses. By “serious,” I refer to the early common law—under which felonies were real wrongs like rape, robbery and murder.


    Unfortunately, modern legislatures have added a host of trivial felonies. For instance, in California an 18-year-old girl who has oral sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend has committed a felony. The courts should rule that conviction of such a trivial felony can’t deprive such a “felon” of her right to arms.

    But the fact remains that people who have been convicted of serious criminal offenses have thereby lost their rights under the Second Amendment. They are subject to our laws against felons possessing firearms.
    Other than the restrictions placed on criminals (as stated above) I do not believe any restrictions should be placed on the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding, upstanding citizens! I guess in essence I agree with the true intent of the founding fathers in regard to 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."
    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  16. #15
    Member Array Mr Sir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    LOL, FL
    Posts
    95
    Wow! 35 to 0 so far! I wonder is there is a predisposed bias amongst this group?

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Colorado introduces Constitutional Carry into State Legislature
    By Sticks in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: March 25th, 2011, 06:07 AM
  2. Wyoming 4th State in Union with Constitutional Carry
    By Jeff F in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: March 6th, 2011, 03:50 PM
  3. National Constitutional Carry...
    By Toorop in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: January 10th, 2011, 05:24 PM
  4. AZ Constitutional carry update
    By azchevy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: April 20th, 2010, 04:34 PM
  5. Constitutional Carry is signed in AZ!!
    By MinistrMalic in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 17th, 2010, 09:26 PM

Search tags for this page

against constitution carry

,
can a 18 year old carry a handgun under constitutional carry
,
felon constitutional carry
,
is there a background check under constitutional carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.