How do we all feel about Constitutional carry, or permitless carry? With all these other states adopting it, I feel Ohio should as well. Especially considering we are an open carry state already. I feel it would be worth taking up the initiative. How do the rest of you feel? Is it something you would support?
Permitless Concealed Carry
- Thread starter Junior
- Start date
Personally, I am an advocate for training. I believe every one who owns and carry a gun should take it upon themselves to be properly trained. But with that being said, I believe American citizens have the right to keep AND bear arms and that regulation of that right is unconstitutional. I believe any regulation/restriction of that right, like all constitutional rights must be subject to strict scrutiny. That is, that the restriction must not only serve a compelling government interest, but also be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. This is a hard test to overcome, as it should be. I understand why historically concealed carry was restricted. However, we have come to a point in our society where the roles are reversed. No longer are the criminals carrying concealed to commit crimes discretely, while the good guys carry openly. We are at a place where typically the school of thought is that good guys should carry concealed and open carry is frowned upon (by the general public) and it's the criminals who no longer hide their guns to commit their crimes. Given that logic, I no longer see how laws restricting concealed carry can pass the strict scrutiny test and I am in favor of removing that restriction (as I'm in favor of removing all restrictions on our right that can't pass that test, i.e. repealing the whole of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, most of the National Firearms Act of 1932, and most of the rest of what I consider unconstitutional restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms).
While I do and always will believe the 2nd Amendment is necessary and applies to everyone, I believe there should be a training requirement for concealed carry. First, very few people that have their CCW and been through the state required training understand the law as they should. This is why we see people opening fire at a shop lifter outside a Home Depot in Texas; this is why we seen a home owner charged with murder after chasing an intruder out of his house and shooting him in the back as he ran away. Imagine how many more scenarios such as this we would hear about if all training requirements were lifted.....
2nd, I believe we would see a considerable number of states drop their reciprocity with Ohio if we eliminated all training requirements. They could easily look at it and say "no training required.....I don't want them carrying in my state...."
I will gladly take the necessary class (which is minimal) to have the ability to carry in 30+ different states.
I would love to be naive and think that people would get the training they need anyway, but I think we all know that a limited few currently seek training beyond what is required.....so why would we believe they would seek training if nothing is required?
2nd, I believe we would see a considerable number of states drop their reciprocity with Ohio if we eliminated all training requirements. They could easily look at it and say "no training required.....I don't want them carrying in my state...."
I will gladly take the necessary class (which is minimal) to have the ability to carry in 30+ different states.
I would love to be naive and think that people would get the training they need anyway, but I think we all know that a limited few currently seek training beyond what is required.....so why would we believe they would seek training if nothing is required?
While I understand and respect that position, I just don't think the government should be mandating it. And I also do not find the lack of knowledge of the law to be persuasive. Citizens are always required to know the law. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse to criminal conduct. If we require and expect people to be knowledgeable and hold them accountable for knowing the law in every other area, why not for guns?
As for reciprocity, the question as posed was based on other states going to a constitutional carry system. The fact is that under the current state climate, many states are eliminating requirements. The current reciprocity setup as we know it may not last long. Additionally, it has been proposed several times in congress about providing for national reciprocity. Again, I think if the trend were to continue that direction, we wouldn't see the reduction you predict in interstate reciprocity.
But my position will always be that regardless of what I think other people should do, what level of training I think they need, I fully believe the government shouldn't be the one making the call. Individual rights demand individual responsibility and accountability. State mandated training, even if wholly beneficial, is overreaching in my opinion. If I have to choose between the risk to the public involved with leaving a potentially dangerous activity up to the individual, and freedom from government intrusion, I will choose freedom every time. I simply can't justify it intellectually that I would argue against such regulation of my 1st amendment rights, so why should I not have the same position with my 2nd amendment rights just because guns are involved? Think of it like this, how would you feel if the government said only those who were trained in sensitivity could speak publicly. Would you support that type of state mandated training to exercise your first amendment right? I doubt it. And political speech can be far more deadly than a single gun. The pen is mightier than the sword after all. So why do we stand for the government telling us what training we need to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?
As for reciprocity, the question as posed was based on other states going to a constitutional carry system. The fact is that under the current state climate, many states are eliminating requirements. The current reciprocity setup as we know it may not last long. Additionally, it has been proposed several times in congress about providing for national reciprocity. Again, I think if the trend were to continue that direction, we wouldn't see the reduction you predict in interstate reciprocity.
But my position will always be that regardless of what I think other people should do, what level of training I think they need, I fully believe the government shouldn't be the one making the call. Individual rights demand individual responsibility and accountability. State mandated training, even if wholly beneficial, is overreaching in my opinion. If I have to choose between the risk to the public involved with leaving a potentially dangerous activity up to the individual, and freedom from government intrusion, I will choose freedom every time. I simply can't justify it intellectually that I would argue against such regulation of my 1st amendment rights, so why should I not have the same position with my 2nd amendment rights just because guns are involved? Think of it like this, how would you feel if the government said only those who were trained in sensitivity could speak publicly. Would you support that type of state mandated training to exercise your first amendment right? I doubt it. And political speech can be far more deadly than a single gun. The pen is mightier than the sword after all. So why do we stand for the government telling us what training we need to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?
Last edited by a moderator:
T.L., I fully agree with limited government and I don't like them "over reaching" as much as the next guy. However I pose this question, should we eliminate driver's ed training and allow any 16yr old to immediately be issued a license regardless of knowledge of traffic laws? Or does the minimal training required reduce the overall risk to the extent is just makes sense? I know ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but the famiky killed by an uneducated driver that makes an illegal left turn (given my above scenario)isnt really going to care if they knew a couple hours of training could have saved their lives.
I don't like the government mandating much of anything, but I will also chose the common sense approach even if at times it falls in line with what the government is actually doing.
It is a debate that could foster much discussion here. I appreciate your input.
I don't like the government mandating much of anything, but I will also chose the common sense approach even if at times it falls in line with what the government is actually doing.
It is a debate that could foster much discussion here. I appreciate your input.
I draw a very distinct line between constitutional rights and driver's training. Again, I am a staunch supporter of training. I am a licensed instructor. However, I am a much bigger advocate of our system of government. When we start throwing away constitutional rights like they are normal legislation (and that's where we've gotten), then we render the whole protection of the constitution meaningless. THAT is a far bigger risk to me than an untrained person with a gun. That threatens to destroy the very fabric of our free nation. That is the very reason the founders sought to protect those fundamental rights and insulate them from the whims of legislation.
I absolutely agree that there is an inherent risk with living in a free state, but it's worth it to be free. Sometime I just like to play devil's advocate. I wish more current CCW permit holders believed in training and personal responsibility as much as you and I do!
Agreed. One thing I always do for my students after impressing upon them the need for training, since most will never actually go out and take another follow up training course, is tell them that if any time they just want to shoot to call me and we'll go out and shoot. At least then I know they're getting some useful drills done instead of just punching holes in paper.
[QUOTE="Junior]How do we all feel about Constitutional carry, or permitless carry? With all these other states adopting it, I feel Ohio should as well. Especially considering we are an open carry state already. I feel it would be worth taking up the initiative. How do the rest of you feel? Is it something you would support?
[/QUOTE]
Personally I am all for Constitutional Carry and full nationwide receprocity, I belive that it is a right that we have been born with. .....that being said I've been watching the posts on this thread and soaking it all in if you will, there are valid points to be made from both sides, I do belive that training is very important yet I don't belive that the government be it Federal/State/or Local should have the right to dictate that to me, like the choice to buy a firearm it should be a personal responsibility. There are those of us that take this responsibility very seriously and there are those that do not, but that in my opinion (we all know what they say about opinions lol) is no different than getting behind the wheel of a car while your all tuned up from a hard night out all while knowing it's not the right thing to do....... it was stated earlier that ignorance of the law is no excuse and I fully agree(well maybe not in those exact words anyhow)
Quite a few States now have went from permitted CC to Constitutional Carry and the sky has not fallen, if I'm not mistaken in those States where CC requires no permit; to carry in a state that does still requires that individual to obtain a CCW ( if their State no longer offers one there are plenty of States that offer Non-resident licenses that will suffice, so receprocity should not be an issue if an initiative like this were taken up in the Great State of Ohio) when I was Stationed in Arizona it was still a state where you had to get your CCW if you didn't want to open carry but out there open carry was a normal everyday occurrence, they have been permittles CC for awhile now and things have worked out great there. (Gonna have idiots everywhere we go that have compete lack of respect for normal civilization)
Well I have a tendency to ramble on and on and on, regardless I support permitless carry but I'm also a HUGE proponent of proper training and knowledge of the law, seems to be a conversation that could carry on forever, talking is good though it's what enables us to broaden our viewpoints.
[/QUOTE]
Personally I am all for Constitutional Carry and full nationwide receprocity, I belive that it is a right that we have been born with. .....that being said I've been watching the posts on this thread and soaking it all in if you will, there are valid points to be made from both sides, I do belive that training is very important yet I don't belive that the government be it Federal/State/or Local should have the right to dictate that to me, like the choice to buy a firearm it should be a personal responsibility. There are those of us that take this responsibility very seriously and there are those that do not, but that in my opinion (we all know what they say about opinions lol) is no different than getting behind the wheel of a car while your all tuned up from a hard night out all while knowing it's not the right thing to do....... it was stated earlier that ignorance of the law is no excuse and I fully agree(well maybe not in those exact words anyhow)
Quite a few States now have went from permitted CC to Constitutional Carry and the sky has not fallen, if I'm not mistaken in those States where CC requires no permit; to carry in a state that does still requires that individual to obtain a CCW ( if their State no longer offers one there are plenty of States that offer Non-resident licenses that will suffice, so receprocity should not be an issue if an initiative like this were taken up in the Great State of Ohio) when I was Stationed in Arizona it was still a state where you had to get your CCW if you didn't want to open carry but out there open carry was a normal everyday occurrence, they have been permittles CC for awhile now and things have worked out great there. (Gonna have idiots everywhere we go that have compete lack of respect for normal civilization)
Well I have a tendency to ramble on and on and on, regardless I support permitless carry but I'm also a HUGE proponent of proper training and knowledge of the law, seems to be a conversation that could carry on forever, talking is good though it's what enables us to broaden our viewpoints.
[QUOTE="Junior]How do we all feel about Constitutional carry, or permitless carry? With all these other states adopting it, I feel Ohio should as well. Especially considering we are an open carry state already. I feel it would be worth taking up the initiative. How do the rest of you feel? Is it something you would support?
[/QUOTE]
Oh and I think this is a great conversation starter by the way!
[/QUOTE]
Oh and I think this is a great conversation starter by the way!
D
David
Guest
The only thing I wonder about is if it will affect the reciprocity agreements with other states. Other than that if its a granted right, why mandate training for it? You don't have to go through training for other rights you are given under the constitution.
I do think training is a great thing, and it goes hand in hand with being responsible, however I stop shot of saying it should be mandated by any government entity (the less government, the better)
I do think training is a great thing, and it goes hand in hand with being responsible, however I stop shot of saying it should be mandated by any government entity (the less government, the better)
Last edited:
Time for me to play devil's advocate again..... 
Given that it is a right granted under the Constitution, are you also against restrictions on mentally handicapped or clinically documented mental health patients from having any restrictions whatsoever on owning/concealed carrying a firearm? Would you consider that a government mandate?
Not saying I lean one way or the other....but it does run along the same lines as several comments. Thoughts?
Given that it is a right granted under the Constitution, are you also against restrictions on mentally handicapped or clinically documented mental health patients from having any restrictions whatsoever on owning/concealed carrying a firearm? Would you consider that a government mandate?
Not saying I lean one way or the other....but it does run along the same lines as several comments. Thoughts?
Ok.......I suppose I did not address this in my earlier posting and it is a hard thing to put to words but I'll try my best, (the joys of typing vs./ talking) as I said earlier I agree on points made by both sides; that being said I do agree that with rights more or less comes restrictions based on eligibility ( Mentally handicapped/clinically documented mental health/Violent Offenders/etc....as you stated) but I was under the assumption that we are talking permitless carry here and not solely about rights granted under the Constitution as a whole. There are laws in place that at this point that are supposed to prevent (If we would enforce them properly!) Violent Offenders from possessing/owning a firearm (although I am not versed if there are for Mentally handicapped or not) which makes that a topic of Constitutional rights for all vs. the topic of solely Constitutional Carry strictly under the 2nd Amendment.
So I suppose my stance on this is and I hope I'm not contradicting my earlier posting...... is that I still believe in Constitutional Carry and Nationwide reciprocity, there are many,many,many laws on the books that are not being enforced that could prevent so much of the bad that is going on.
Am I off my rocker here? Such an easier conversation to have in person lol
So I suppose my stance on this is and I hope I'm not contradicting my earlier posting...... is that I still believe in Constitutional Carry and Nationwide reciprocity, there are many,many,many laws on the books that are not being enforced that could prevent so much of the bad that is going on.
Am I off my rocker here? Such an easier conversation to have in person lol
[QUOTE="Chris Timmerman]Time for me to play devil's advocate again.....
Given that it is a right granted under the Constitution, are you also against restrictions on mentally handicapped or clinically documented mental health patients from having any restrictions whatsoever on owning/concealed carrying a firearm? Would you consider that a government mandate?
Not saying I lean one way or the other....but it does run along the same lines as several comments. Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
That's where the long line of case law that has developed on all of our constitutional rights comes into play. The current test to restrict a constitutional right is Strict Scrutiny. Which means "a compelling government interest" in restricting the right and a law that is "narrowly tailored" to meet that need. While I likely would agree that there are levels of mental deficiency that can justify a compelling government interest in restricting those people's rights for the protection of the public (public safety has been held to be a compelling government interest). So the question becomes are the laws "narrowly tailored" to meet that end. I personally feel like currently, the law is too broad. It prohibits a broad range of mental disorders, some of which don't make a person more dangerous with a gun at all. That's the opposite of narrowly tailored. It has gotten to the point where the executive agencies (veterans administration is a good example) are prohibiting people from having guns just because they've voluntarily seen a doctor or psychologist for some counseling or because they have a power of attorney to handle their finances. At that point, the law is not narrow and needs to be dealt with.
Given that it is a right granted under the Constitution, are you also against restrictions on mentally handicapped or clinically documented mental health patients from having any restrictions whatsoever on owning/concealed carrying a firearm? Would you consider that a government mandate?
Not saying I lean one way or the other....but it does run along the same lines as several comments. Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
That's where the long line of case law that has developed on all of our constitutional rights comes into play. The current test to restrict a constitutional right is Strict Scrutiny. Which means "a compelling government interest" in restricting the right and a law that is "narrowly tailored" to meet that need. While I likely would agree that there are levels of mental deficiency that can justify a compelling government interest in restricting those people's rights for the protection of the public (public safety has been held to be a compelling government interest). So the question becomes are the laws "narrowly tailored" to meet that end. I personally feel like currently, the law is too broad. It prohibits a broad range of mental disorders, some of which don't make a person more dangerous with a gun at all. That's the opposite of narrowly tailored. It has gotten to the point where the executive agencies (veterans administration is a good example) are prohibiting people from having guns just because they've voluntarily seen a doctor or psychologist for some counseling or because they have a power of attorney to handle their finances. At that point, the law is not narrow and needs to be dealt with.