What does the term "Constitutional Carry" mean to you?

[West Texas]

What does the term "Constitutional Carry" mean to you?

I KNOW about Az and Ak and Vt, and the laws they passed...I'm not looking for what those laws say, I've read them, thanks. I also don't want to discuss those laws...good, bad or indifferent.

What I need to know is this, when you read or hear the term "Constitutional Carry", what picture comes to mind...and what do you think the general "non-gun" public would thnk if they heard that term?

This is for a focus group, and your help is greatly appreciated!

 

[KAK]

To me it means if you legally obtained your firearm then it is your property, which you should be able to carry with you wherever you see fit concealed or openly.

I also believe that the reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against the government. And for that reason I believe that the 2nd amendment should NOT be regulated by the institution it was designed to protect us from.

 

[TexasFats]

It means that I can carry a firearm that I legally possess anywhere it is legal (which should be almost any place), openly or concealed, without the need for a license or permit. I would forbid carry any place, like a prison or jail, where cops are required to disarm and lock up their weapon. By the way, except for jails and such, I would make carry legal just about everywhere, including schools, churches, hospitals, and colleges.

 

[matefrio]

It's the right to bear arms an individual and personal right to have a gun on or about your person open or concealed with very limited government, state or federal, involvement.

This right should be protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment and it's strict scrutiny, applicable to the States as was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, has stated the argument that the Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation. "Let's assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right," said Strossen, "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance."

In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in declaring the Second Amendment applicable to state and local governments, declared he reached the same conclusion only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Since no other justice, either in majority or dissent, attempted to question his rationale, this is considered by some as a revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

 

[txinvestigator]

I have never really thought about it. I suppose that what I think of when I read or hear it depends on who is saying or writing it, and my experiences of their statements about guns, carry, etc.

Since the 2nd seems to mean different things to different folks, and our supreme court is still deciding the matter, there is no one meaning.

I will tell you that the SC, in Heller, stated that the second amendment is not unlimited. That leaves the issue of what limits are reasonable.

I need to think about what the term "constitutional carry" should mean. I support the constitution, and all laws should be constitutional. Therefore, in my mind, what laws about the carry of arms would be constitutional? I'll give it some thought and get back to this thread.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think of this...

"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."

and it makes me sad because the first thing I think about are the many who nothing about our government or our history. I think of how educated, articulate, and thoughtful our founding fathers were. I think of how purposeful each word was, with whole debates over single words in some cases. I think of how great of a gift, of an opportunity they gave us. And I think of how we are wasting this opportunity because people just don't care to educate themselves and allow apathy, ignorance, self delusion and self indulgence to cloud their view. I get a mental picture of Benjamin Franklin trying to have a conversation with Paris Hilton.

Then I remember the rumors that Franklin was a womanizer and I laugh about him trying to chat up Paris while trying to ignore her senseless banter.

The General Non-Gun Public
I think they don't know what it means and are scared of "cowboys and rednecks" coming out of the woodwork shooting everyone.

 

[cuate]

Take a look at Arizona's gun statutes, make them nationwide to all law abiding citizens. (But not felons).

 

[Bithabus]

"Shall not be infringed" has a very clear meaning. It means there shall be no infringement, great or small, on our right to keep and bear arms. The framers envisioned our government becoming bloated and corrupt and so they stated this as an absolute.

Power hungry politicians and cowardly types who hate guns have decided to "interpret" this clause to fit their agenda.

The general public, by that I mean neither gun people nor the gun haters, probably don't really have an opinion. I can say I've meant plenty of people who aren't into guns but still realize why they are important, and many who believe guns cause crime and ignorantly are in favor or restriction.

 

[txinvestigator]

"Shall not be infringed" has a very clear meaning. It means there shall be no infringement, great or small, on our right to keep and bear arms. The framers envisioned our government becoming bloated and corrupt and so they stated this as an absolute.

What, exactly, does that mean to you? Does it mean anyone should be able to have and carry any type of arm they wish, anywhere they wish?

 

[Bithabus]

Yes. I admit I am uncomfortable with the idea of some of my fellow citizens owning nuclear weapons, but I bet the framers never anticipated that.

 

[outdare]

What, exactly, does that mean to you? Does it mean anyone should be able to have and carry any type of arm they wish, anywhere they wish?

To me yes, with the exception of high security areas. (prisons, military bases, and other restricted access areas) We the citizenry should have to give the trust to the government not the other way around. (That is what I think of when I think of constitutional carry) I also think there shouldn't be a class 3 status. It seems the older I get the more libertarian I am. I think the public social standards will ultimately decide what is proper and polite to carry where etc. A slung AK may be a bit awkward to carry to church.

I guess I should put on my flame retardant underwear.

 

[KAK]

I think full auto, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns all have their purpose and they also should not be regulated. I should also be able to buy a completely modded out military bulletproof humvee with a 50 cal machine-gun on top IF I WANTED TO.

I also think that if you wanted to sling an AR to walk your dog through your neighborhood at night that should be not legal... UNREGULATED!

 

[M. Sage]

To me, "Constitutional Carry" means that a State has chosen to respect the original intent of the 2nd Amendment with regard to bearing arms. The Constitution plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We all know what keep means - own, possess, store. To bear arms is to carry them. Words have changed meaning over the years, two of them in the 2A included. The first is "regulated". Today, we say "regulated" where the Founders would say "governed". Another is "infringed". At the time of the writing and signing of the Constitution, to infringe meant to defeat or invalidate. Looking at other clauses related to the right to keep and bear arms from State Constitutions at the time, you get things like Virginia's "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." It's pretty plain to me that "shall not be infringed" would translate today as "shall not be invalidated" if we go by the Founders' intent.

Poll taxes and reading tests at the polls have been ruled unconstitutional because they invalidate a right. No other constitutionally guaranteed right has the prerequisites placed upon it like the right to bear arms. Not a single one. I didn't take a test or get a license to star posting on the internet about whatever I wish. TX1911 didn't have to do either to start this site, either. Both acts are universally viewed as an exercise of our 1st Amendment rights.

It actually disturbs me that this double standard exists, especially that it exists in the gun community.

Properly interpreted, the Constitution guarantees our right to buy, own and carry any arms needed to protect our homes and nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

What, exactly, does that mean to you? Does it mean anyone should be able to have and carry any type of arm they wish, anywhere they wish?

Except on private property where the property owner wishes them not to... yes.

Yes, I think it's Constitutional for me to guy buy a Javelin (as if I had the money) and then drive around with it in a gun rack. The 2nd Amendment is meant partly as a tool of national defense, but mainly as a way to make sure we have the weapons we need to resist homegrown tyranny.

 

[Texan2]

any limits? personal ownership of nukes or other WMDs is ok? Just curious.

 

[M. Sage]

any limits? personal ownership of nukes or other WMDs is ok? Just curious.

Would you use nukes to defend your country against invasion or tyrannical government? Probably not. WMD is too loose a term for me to be able to answer that one.

Most of that stuff would simply be too expensive for anybody to even consider anyway. I could see certain neighborhoods banding together to buy something like an Abrams tank, though...

My litmus test of "how much is too much" is to ask "would Washington have been happy or disturbed if I showed up with one or several?" Nukes? Probably disturbed. A truckload of Javelins? Probably pretty damn stoked. A couple of antiship missiles? He'd definitely have welcomed that. An Abrams tank? He'd adopt you on the spot.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

any limits? personal ownership of nukes or other WMDs is ok? Just curious.

What he said was NO. I think we can all understand why not just anyone should be able to own a WMD. The world wouldn't last 1 week before being blasted back into molten rock.

As far as small arms (machineguns, SBS, SBR, suppressors, etc), yes I personally think they should be pretty much unregulated. A machinegun may be a little more inherently dangerous than a semi auto, but it is no weapon of mass destruction. Besides, instead of our society treating people like idiots, we could work towards training as many people in safety as possible. The original intent of the 2A was that the average citizen should be able to be armed similar to that of a soldier so as to have the capability of providing defense to the country if needed. Yes we have a standing military and police which, for the most part negate the need, but the fact still remains that if we stayed true to the original intent of the 2A, and if a large percentage of our citizens took advantage of their 2A rights, the American people as a whole would be the largest armed "force" in the world. That is a significant deterrence against crime, invasion, military or other types of attacks, etc.

 

[KAK]

Would you use nukes to defend your country against invasion or tyrannical government? Probably not. WMD is too loose a term for me to be able to answer that one.

Most of that stuff would simply be too expensive for anybody to even consider anyway. I could see certain neighborhoods banding together to buy something like an Abrams tank, though...

My litmus test of "how much is too much" is to ask "would Washington have been happy or disturbed if I showed up with one or several?" Nukes? Probably disturbed. A truckload of Javelins? Probably pretty damn stoked. A couple of antiship missiles? He'd definitely have welcomed that. An Abrams tank? He'd adopt you on the spot.

I love it, price would be the deterring factor. There is not a chance any gangbanger would be able to afford a tank. What do they cost? Half a million?

I would want the humvee for a daily driver.

No more 4473s i want to pay for my gun and leave.

I could use some C4, a few Javlens, some flash bang grenades would be awesome for dealing with home invasions. I would also silence my sig 226 and AR.

 

[West Texas]

What he said was NO. I think we can all understand why not just anyone should be able to own a WMD. The world wouldn't last 1 week before being blasted back into molten rock.

As far as small arms (machineguns, SBS, SBR, suppressors, etc), yes I personally think they should be pretty much unregulated. A machinegun may be a little more inherently dangerous than a semi auto, but it is no weapon of mass destruction. Besides, instead of our society treating people like idiots, we could work towards training as many people in safety as possible. The original intent of the 2A was that the average citizen should be able to be armed similar to that of a soldier so as to have the capability of providing defense to the country if needed. Yes we have a standing military and police which, for the most part negate the need, but the fact still remains that if we stayed true to the original intent of the 2A, and if a large percentage of our citizens took advantage of their 2A rights, the American people as a whole would be the largest armed "force" in the world. That is a significant deterrence against crime, invasion, military or other types of attacks, etc.

You missed one other reason...defense FROM our OWN Goverment. The Founding Fathers remembered when King George tried to take away thier weapons so they couldn't revolt, and wanted us to be have that same option should this government ever do something like....oh....what it is doing NOW.

Now, back to the original question....

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

You missed one other reason...defense FROM our OWN Goverment. The Founding Fathers remembered when King George tried to take away thier weapons so they couldn't revolt, and wanted us to be have that same option should this government ever do something like....oh....what it is doing NOW.

This.

I also noticed that they didn't say "would be nice", or "may be necessary", they said "necessary" to secure a free state. You would need to have access to the same weapons the government does to do that. I know they didn't intend everyone to have nukes, but I have to say that worded as it is now it allows for them (in my opinion).

This is one of those rare instances where a Constitutional amendment would be good...."No private citizen can own or bare WDMs, everything else is cool." I'm pretty sure that 3/4 of the states would agree to at least the first part of the wording.

 

[West Texas]

This.

I also noticed that they didn't say "would be nice", or "may be necessary", they said "necessary" to secure a free state. You would need to have access to the same weapons the government does to do that. I know they didn't intend everyone to have nukes, but I have to say that worded as it is now it allows for them (in my opinion).

This is one of those rare instances where a Constitutional amendment would be good...."No private citizen can own or bare WDMs, everything else is cool." I'm pretty sure that 3/4 of the states would agree to at least the first part of the wording.

The only problem is that then they start re-defining what a WMD is to the point that a 10/22 falls under it...let's face it, you can tear some stuff up with a .22...or a BB gun....all those broken window...thats mass destruction....

but once again, we are WAY off the topic here...