New Utah Constitutional Carry Bill

[J_dazzle23]

I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles

Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.

No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.

Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.

It makes me a little nervous to envision a world where people as clueless as my own family could buy a gun, conceal it, and walk around without restrictions. Not only does it worry me from a standpoint of public safety, but also for their safety as well. Without at least some familiarity with basic safe handling skills, the chances of injuring themselves or others increase exponential in my opinion. In the old west, if you didn't have a clue and you were foolish enough to draw on someone that did, you were rather quickly removed from the gene pool, and chances are at least a few would learn from your mistake. Now days, unless you have a badge, carrying a gun isn't permit free permission to practice Darwinism. Yes, if you're threatened you can defend yourself, but that said, someone I respect recently said "Every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached to it." I certainly don't want to be a test case for having shot someone that fumbled their gun out of their holster and pointed it at me because they noticed I was carrying a gun, or I looked like the guy that beat up their sister last night, or any of a million other misguided reasons that someone might have for pulling their gun.

So, I agree, it's our constitutional right to carry, and I wouldn't make any of these comments in a public forum. Privately, I think with rights comes responsibility. And I would not be overly offended if choosing to exercise the right to carry came with the condition of demonstrating some safety skills. I understand that the constitution doesn't have a "but" in the wording. I will, however, point out that it was a very different world. To some extent, surviving required having basic gun skills. Particularly if you lived outside the cities. The founding fathers wrote a document based on the world they knew, and I'm not advocating changes, I'm just making the comment that they were human. They may not have thought everything through, particularly with no fore knowledge of the world to come.

Mel

While I agree that you should take upon yourself the responsibility of being proficient with the battery of arms you choose to carry, I simply do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility. Every single accident that could be had with a firearm(that I can think of) already is illegal. For example the lady that killed a toilet in a school (LOL).

I get what you are saying, and in theory I agree with everyone being proficient with their firearm, but I know that there is no way to enforce this without infringing on personal rights. (That I can think of, anyway)


I guess what I am getting likely puts us in the same boat. In theory, it would be nice, but i don't trust anyone, especially not the government to regulate this.

Right now, there are people who teach that western medicine is completely bunk, and have HUGE followings. This results in people dying from diseases by the thousands that they wouldn't have died from. This has a huge impact on our society. For the greater good, we could make them take some immunology and physiology classes before they get to spout their nonsense, but that would a violation of rights. I view this no differently, honestly.

Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.

[quychang]

Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.

No argument there, but I don't think showing someone the basic mechanics of safety is out of line. There's a world of difference between the lack of commonsense and the lack of a clue. You definitely can't legislate commonsense, and you most likely can't teach it. However, if a person has any commonsense at all, you can give them a clue.

Mel

[bagpiper]

I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.

No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.

Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.

I was actually using it more of a debating/rhetorical device than trolling for a response. But I do greatly appreciate your heartfelt explanation.

To be honest, I think a lot of us share those feelings in various areas including permit free carry, OC of long guns, OCing into businesses to make a point, and so on. And I think a board like this is the proper place to discuss them rather than in the all too common, "I'm a gun owner, but..." kind of letters to the editor. There are a lot of cases where I realize that we can get ourselves enough rope that in only takes a couple of fools among us to hang us all. The teacher killing the toilet in the school, teachers' restroom this year was a milestone we could have happily lived without ever having.

Our opponents made great progress for many years by dividing gun owners. Duck and dear hunters vs self defense vs long range shooters vs collectors. To the extent we can stick together, we much better protect our rights.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I'm less uncomfortable respecting the rights of others than I am with conceding government has just power to regulate or infringe those rights just so I am not uncomfortable.

And good luck properly parsing that sentence.

Charles

[bagpiper]

But if you alienate your core constituency you harm your chances of success. We on the pro-side are very hesitant to support anything labeled common sense, we will mistrust anything so labeled as having a hidden trap.

But our core responds well to rational arguments. We need the emotional language to get the fence sitters. We need to deny the use of that language to our opponents.

Or, hate the rhetoric and messaging, but do your best to support the bill (so long as it doesn't have fatal flaws).

Charles

[quychang]

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I'm less uncomfortable respecting the rights of others than I am with conceding government has just power to regulate or infringe those rights just so I am not uncomfortable.

And good luck properly parsing that sentence.

Charles

I guess there's something wrong in my head, because at first reading it made perfect sense. Going back and re reading it gives me a headache.

But, I don't disagree with what I read the first time. I truly do feel that if constitutional carry was enacted, and then non mandatory, completely voluntary training was offered, with possible incentives to urge people to take advantage of it, we could have the best of both worlds. I've pretty much said my piece on the subject, but did want to jump in and acknowledge your contribution. Our thinking really isn't that far apart, truth be told. I just waffle more on my convictions.

Mel

[gravedancer]

I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles

Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.

I think that all states should be "shall issue" and not "may issue", but I dont have a problem with the need to have a state issue a permit. I dont have enough faith in most of humanity to think that the permits (or more correctly the training/education that they typically require) arent needed.

[bagpiper]

I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles

Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.

I think that all states should be "shall issue" and not "may issue", but I dont have a problem with the need to have a state issue a permit. I dont have enough faith in most of humanity to think that the permits (or more correctly the training/education that they typically require) arent needed.

Well, sadly, I stand corrected.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your low opinion of humanity's intelligence and ability, I have to stand firmly on the side of constitutional rights.

I cannot support any more prior-restraint on the 2nd amendment that I would accept on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. I've read some really stupid things in newspapers, blocks, and tweats. But I can't support mandatory training before respecting freedom of speech.

I heard some downright offensive, ugly and dangerous things in sermons. But I can't countenance government presuming to require preachers to obtain a government license prior to embarking on their ministry, even if the license is "shall issue." I simply have too much respect for freedom of religion.

I know. It is easy to say that words and sermons don't kill anyone. But they foment riots. They persuade people to vote away their birthrights.

And at the end of the day, I don't think the responsible, intelligent, careful, or prudent among us (however slim a minority that might be) should have our rights infringed because of the stupidity of others. Plus, unlike driving, RsKBA is a constitutionally enumerated right.

I'm all for appropriate, harsh punishment if someone abuses his right and infringes on the rights of others. Such punishment might well be one component of encouraging folks to get and act upon proper training before acquiring, carrying, or using a gun.

Finally, I don't notice that the 6 States with permit-free Constitutional carry (Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, etc) nor roughly 16 additional States that allow permit-free open carry are experiencing any higher problem with firearms than either States with shall issue, nor fairly restrictive may issue permit systems.

In brief, the right demands that we not require a permit; and we have tons of objective evidence that not requiring a permit does not lead to the problems that concern you.

Charles

[Miss_Pink]

The same way that doctors dont give certificates in basic hand washing in order to prevent the common cold and other illness, the only way for people to truly learn not to be dumb with gun safety without infringing on their life/privacy etc. is to understand that humans will always make mistakes. There will never be any perfect safeguard against accidents or stupidity and I think its not the governments job to try to prevent problems. I hope to one day live in a world where family teaching gun safety was as common as potty training kids.

[Doctor Jenks]

I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.

[gravedancer]

I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.

I wouldnt actually throw a fit at a requirement to demonstrate basic firearm competency as a prerequisite for owning a firearm either, though I admit that that might be due to my being taught such skills before I learned to drive.

And I most certainly would vote in favor of a constitutional carry bill were one to come up on a ballot, because while i might express doubts and misgivings here among my peers as it were, I do believe in the need to maintain as much of a unified front as possible in front of the antis.

[quychang]

I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.

I don't know if it's still the case, but back when Dodge Vipers were relatively new, if you purchased one, you were required to take a drivers training course. Yes, they would still sell it to you if you had the money, but if you wanted a warranty you took the class. I guess Dodge got tired of replacing racing clutches for clueless drivers.

Perhaps something along that line would work with guns. Walk out of the shop without appropriate basic safety training, no warranty or even no concealed carry. Sure I'll sell you a gun. If you screw it up, or hurt someone, you're on your own. Just throwing out an idea that's been knocking around in my head I'm sure there arguments for and against, and details I've overlooked. Someone in a shop, assuming a range, could give you basic instruction in 30-60 minutes. If that's too long for you, fine. Walk out, take your chances That would spread out the range time issue, avoid the mandatory issue, and give everyone at least a chance at getting a clue.

I don't think there is one perfect answer. But I do think there are ways to get people involved in at least the basics, relatively painlessly. I mean, honestly, how many people would pass up a chance at free range time to try out their new purchase? You could easily exempt permit holders from the requirement. Again, I'm sure there are flaws, but training of any kind is always a good thing

Mel

[ObiRich]

Based on what I read on FB posts, I think that people should be required to attend mandatory English language and grammar training before being allowed to exercise their right to free speech. Also, they should be required to attend mandatory sessions on candidates and issues in every election before being allowed to cast a vote.

Ok...those are somewhat snarky analogies, but whenever you add in mandatory requirements in order to exercise a right, it then becomes a privilege. Do we have the "right" to conceal carry in this state? No, as we have to get the state's permission, i.e. a permit, in order to exercise it. I don't need a permit to attend the church of my choice, speak my mind, assemble with my friends in the park, or to exempt my home from warrantless searches. Some of the comments on this thread almost seem that some of you are ok with a "pistol permit" that's issued by the state before you can even buy a pistol, similar to the New York or Massachusetts systems. Is it a good idea for anyone that's going to carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, to learn not only how to use it, but when it's permissible to use it? Of course. But should it be a government imposed requirement? Not if you believe in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So I say an unqualified YES to constitutional carry.

[quychang]

Based on what I read on FB posts, I think that people should be required to attend mandatory English language and grammar training before being allowed to exercise their right to free speech. Also, they should be required to attend mandatory sessions on candidates and issues in every election before being allowed to cast a vote.

Ok...those are somewhat snarky analogies, but whenever you add in mandatory requirements in order to exercise a right, it then becomes a privilege. Do we have the "right" to conceal carry in this state? No, as we have to get the state's permission, i.e. a permit, in order to exercise it. I don't need a permit to attend the church of my choice, speak my mind, assemble with my friends in the park, or to exempt my home from warrantless searches. Some of the comments on this thread almost seem that some of you are ok with a "pistol permit" that's issued by the state before you can even buy a pistol, similar to the New York or Massachusetts systems. Is it a good idea for anyone that's going to carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, to learn not only how to use it, but when it's permissible to use it? Of course. But should it be a government imposed requirement? Not if you believe in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So I say an unqualified YES to constitutional carry.

Oh, but education is mandatory in our country. You can't force people to remember or use what they've learned however. And while not mandatory, there are usually sufficient opportunities to learn about the candidates and issues prior to an election. Those being an example of not mandatory training, not being taken advantage of. I'm not so sure that an IQ test wouldn't be a good requirement before being to allow to post to social media. I have friends that fall prey to every scam that is posted. If not an IQ test, then at least a reverse image of the word gullible tattooed on their forehead so when they look in the mirror, they are reminded not to post stupid stuff.

Yes those are sarcastic replies to your snarky examples, sorry that I'm incapable of responding to the requirement to use sarcastic fonts on this forum, perhaps I should be banned, or forced to attend mandatory training.

On a more serious note however, I said up front, that I do and would support constitutional carry. I would never, in a more public forum even suggest such reservations. But I think it's a healthy debate, food for thought, and has made for some interesting conversations and points of view. And I think this is the appropriate place for such conversations to take place in. I won't dignify the gun grabbers arguments about the wording or intent of the second amendment, or the complete disregard by the president of other aspects of the constitution.

Yes, I support the constitutional RsKBA and would vote for it both locally and nationally without reservations. That doesn't mean that I don't have private concerns about an uptick in mistakes being made by clueless people being armed for the first time. I think would then become matter of society as a whole to at least offer safe handling training along with honoring that right.

Do I believe that mandatory or voluntary training either one would put a stop to stupid mistakes? Of course not. No more than mandatory eduction puts a stop to stupidly on social media.But I shudder to think what FB would be like without it.

In short, I think it's a healthy discussion for us to have, here among us. When it comes to public forums I'll stand proudly along side you and with no reservations support constitutional carry, as well as condemn all forms of government infringement upon our constitutional rights.

Mel

[JoeSparky]

Quychang, et.al.

Education in this country is NOT mandatory! Attendance Is!

[dewittdj]

I've come to loathe the words "common sense".

I'm offended that they think open carry is offensive. [logical conclusions since they say concealed is more polite]

+1... either offensive or impolite... either way it is illogical reasoning on their part.