Concealed Carry Types and Crime — 3 Comments

  1. I really take exception to the term “Constitutional Carry”, considering the FACT that it is NOT “Constitutional”.
    If it were truly “Constitutional” there would be NO INTERFERENCE by the “government” …. I often wonder, just exactly, what part of “shall not be infringed” is being to totally mis-understood, ot totally IGNORED.
    The Second Amendment is a GUARANTEE that our “government” will not interfere with out PRE-EXISTING, GOD-GIVEN, RIGHT to go armed, at all times, in defense of self, family, society, and country. According to our Founders, the “militia” is, “the whole of the people, well-trained to arms”.
    According to the Constitution, any, and all, “gun-control legislation” is NOT “Law” since it breaches the GUARANTEE of the Second Amendment.
    Also, any, and all, State legislation regarding “gun control” is, likewise, NOT “Law” since the matter is covered by the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment only allow the States to deal with those things NOT covered by the Constitution.

    According to the supreme court – “any legislation, abhorrent to the Constitution, is NOT LAW and NEED NOT BE OBEYED.
    Unfortunately, “they” have more guns, bigger guns, and are much more willing to use them than we are.

  2. Perhaps add a sentence up top emphasizing that the bar graphs are ALL instances of crime in the selected state — not crime BY ARMED CITIZENS in those states. Those graphs were beginning to worry me until I realized I was misinterpreting them.

  3. The key question is: Do the laws of the State of X concerning carry “infringe” on the right to bear arms?

    Arguably, the laws of VT do not infringe, at least not much. Sixteen-year-olds carry without a permit, either openly or concealed. They may only carry to school for school-sponsored events. All in all, not bad.

    Those of May-Issue states DO infringe; at least to the extent that a permit is denied to one who has not lost his 2A rights by due process of law. (And, assuming that the issue addressed is Constitutional, e.g. a felony conviction.)

    Those of Shall-Issue states are debatable. In PA, the fee is $21/5-years and there is no test or live-fire qualification performance. The word “infringe” in the 18th Century meant “to break” as in “breach of contract”. What would infringe/break have meant regarding firearms laws? We have to think about that. Do PA’s laws go so far as to “break” my right to bear arms? I think it’s really difficult to persuade an audience that such is the case.

    Conversely, DC has (likely) the most stringent Shall-Issue law. High fee; extensive training, testing and qualification. Do DC’s Shall-Issue prerequisites go so far as to “infringe” – that is to “break” – the right to bear arms? Arguably, they don’t go so far as to “break”, but they DO “bend” the right beyond the point where the 2A ought to apply.

    To be pragmatic, I doubt that SCOTUS would rule that DC’s Shall-Issue law is “infringing”. SCOTUS would rather NOT hear a case because it would be forced to rule on something that it does NOT WANT to rule on; e.g., that a cost of $X is too high or that it is NOT TOO HIGH. The scoring on the live-fire qualification is too stringent; or, that it is NOT TOO STRINGENT. SCOTUS is simply NOT LIKELY to take the case and so it will remain (for the foreseeable future) that DC’s law will survive.

    If we are to make ANY progress on discovering the metes and bounds of carry laws it will most likely be in challenging May-Issue laws that are tantamount to Won’t-Issue. There are cases in HI, NY and NJ that are pretty ripe for SCOTUS. Any of these cases – IF TAKEN – would strike-down the idea that a state can delegate to an officer/judge discretion to issue. I think that SCOTUS would insist that the grounds to refuse a permit be spelled-out in black letter law by the legislature. And, that such law withstand judicial scrutiny. E.g., you must be denied a permit if you beat your dog. Were you convicted of beating your dog? Is beating your dog a Constitutional impediment to carrying a gun? NOT merely because an officer/judge of the state thinks you beat your dog and that this is a good reason to deny your permit.

    If we can’t get SCOTUS to strike-down May-Issue then we can’t get SCOTUS to do anything whatsoever to uphold the right to arms.

    If we CAN get SCOTUS to strike-down May-Issue then carry will begin to be liberated in: CA, NY, NJ, MD, MA, RI, CT, and HI. The numbers of 2A supporters in those states will rise – over a decade or two – which will strengthen popular support for the 2A.

    These states will simply NEVER adopt Constitutional carry.
    Nor will SCOTUS EVER mandate Constitutional carry.
    Therefore, the question is:
    – Will you accept NOTHING short of your IDEAL? Or,
    – will you work toward defense of the 2A on a path with some potential for success.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Have You Donated To The Gun Facts Project Lately?


Donate Now!

Gun Facts is primarily funded by your contributions. Help us to debunk gun policy misinformation by making a small donation today.