Constitutional carry

[MONTANA]

For a long time now I have read the opinions of members who are advocates of a national concealed carry permit. I read with interest a section entitled "Tim's Thoughts" by Tim Schmidt in the United States Concealed Carry Association Magazine. I wonder if this movement is not the real answer for those who are advocates for a national concealed carry permit. The writer pointed out that Constitutional Carry began in Vermont but has now made significant progress. Alaska and Arizona enacted it and now Texas and Utah are in the process of enacting similar legislation.

Constitutional carry means you don't have to buy a permission slip from the government to exercise your natural-born right to self-protection.

I wonder if members don't need to stop advocating for a national concealed carry permit in favor of an addendum to the second amendment which states something like:

"The individual right of citizens of the United States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Congress shall have power to enforce constitutional carry by appropriate legislation".

I think one of the great failures of the Founding Fathers was their wording of the 2nd Amendment which should have read: A well regulated Miltia, being necessary to the security of a free Sate, the INDIVIDUAL right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Their writings separate from the Constitution, clearly explain that as their original intent, but I don't think they could envision a time when there would even be a question about their original meaning.

So what do members think? I have always been opposed to a national concealed carry permit since I have always lived in firearms friendly states; and since "what the government (thinks they give), they think they can take away". Also if they inplemented a national concealed carry permit, they would create ten-thousand pages of convoluted legislation which would require the services of an attorney to interpret.

An addendum for individual Consitutional Carry seems to be the way to go.

[Treo]

I'm all for it. If you can legally own a firearm you can legally carry it period

[G50AE]

I'm all for it. If you can legally own a firearm you can legally carry it period

That's what "bear" arms means.

[Danieljoe1]

The way I look at this issue is a small step. Once the anti's understand gunfights wont break out in the streets if your allowed to carry anywhere in the country can we start the fight to get rid of permit requirements.

We had a chance to get all the gun laws changed in one fell swoop, but our republican politicians failed to add anything to the healthcare overhaul. We all know its loaded with "pork" spending, so why not add amendments that would have advanced the return of our gun rights? The anti establishment would have soiled themselves with that one :)

[G50AE]

The way I look at this issue is a small step. Once the anti's understand gunfights wont break out in the streets if your allowed to carry anywhere in the country can we start the fight to get rid of permit requirements.

I agree, incrementalism is a political process that we can make work.

[Eagle2009]

Currently, any form of unlicensed carry in any populated area of the country is a federal felony. The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, Title 18 U.S.C §922(q), makes it a federal crime for an armed person to pass within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school in the country, unless they have a carry permit physically issued by the State in which the school is located. The Fed GFSZA 95 doesn't even recognize reciprocity agreements between States.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

[jg1967]

You make a very good point there but I doubt you can get the masses to go along with it or get an amendment like that thru. Too many people have been hearing all their lives that guns=violence. Sometimes I almost worry if those will manage enough votes to nullify the second altogether.

Part of the historical reason why the Supreme Court upheld the individual states ability to regulate firearms lies in the fabric of what the US are, a more or less loose conglomerate of states that have substantial influence over their affairs.

That's a built in conflict between federal law / the constitution and state laws or even state constitutions and I am not sure how to resolve that.

I find it irritating, too, that law abiding citizens with no record have to jump thru all sorts of hoops to do what the constitution clearly says they have a right to do.