@Spence… I did 
That statement not only precisely describes criminals, but it precisely describes most concealed carriers of the law abiding sort.
I still contend what you’re talking about is CRIMINALS not CONCEALED CARRIERS.
The post I was replying to got a little confusing because Dee was responding to many of us. My reply was directed at her but let me reiterate.
I’m also pointing out accurately that it would be the rarest of incidents where someone carrying in the open suddenly decides to shoot up a theater, commit an armed robbery, rape, kidnapping etc.
Criminals rely on stealth and don’t want to stand out until they make their move so they hide their weapons until they decide to spring into action
Like I said originally it isn’t the people who are willing to OC that we see committing violent crimes except on the rarest of occasions. By their very nature criminals want to operate in the dark, without drawing attention to themselves until they are ready to spring an ambush.
Criminals and law abiding folks both eat, drink, and make babies too since we’re all human.
The law abiding folks aren’t carrying concealed for the same reason criminals are, and our intent for carrying to start with is not the same.
1 Like
@wildrose I’m going to nit-pick that … I say it IS infringed. not precluded, but definitely infringed.
here’s the definition of “infringed”
- act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
Telling me HOW I can carry DOES limit.
1 Like
Good.
Glad to hear it.
Yup - to Broad a statement ie “No one”.
I should have said - in this area, from what I have seen and heard in some cases/schools…
Its more like - pack a room full - get them out the door asap.
With no advise or apparent concern on further training.
It is/was just not addressed.
Leaving many people thinking they are now “Trained”.
When in fact very little “Training” was actually done.
but the ACT of concealed carry IS the same.
The problem isn’t carrying concealed. concealed carriers are not by definition more dangerous than open carriers. Criminals are, by definition, more dangerous than law abiding people. I am one, not the other. You’re lumping my carry behavior in with the criminal’s carry behavior. By your statement you’d like concealed carry restricted to allow only open carry. Your proposed solution (constitutional carry must be open) DOES restrict my rights. I’m not the problem, nor are the vast majority of law-abiding carriers.
No. Again I’ll refer you to Heller. Who are “The People”?
[sigh] @wildrose I honestly have no idea what you mean there. apparently I either need more coffee or you’re going to have to supply more words.
I’ll check back later. Right now I have to go deal with a situation where someone I know’s ability to carry concealed matters a lot because they are under threat. They’re the law abiding one in the situation and your idea on how they should be limited to open carry would definitely not serve their safety or right to self defense.
2 Likes
My CPL experience was quite the opposite. The class itself was extremely basic, but at the end of the classroom portion our instructor told us straight up this was not enough, even the legal portion. He was very correct. Every one of us left wanting more training, all of us have in, one way or another, sought out additional training.
Allow me a moment to pose a thought. While off topic it is related. This is the problem with the antigunners trying to squash gun culture. They are intimidating people into hiding their “lifestyle” which prohibits people getting additional training. If a true gun culture were allowed to flourish the comradarie of gun ownership and peer pressure from other enthusiasts would push more people to greater heights of training. This in turn would create a need for more instructors which would help drive prices down and provide more opportunities for training at closer locations. It would make training more accessible to all.
2 Likes
Follow the link to Scalia’s decision in Heller. I’m not arguing what I like or don’t like simply the meaning and intent behind the 2nd.
The Right to Keep and Bear is a collective right first and an individual right second. To understand it’s meaning you have to read the decision and the sources he used in arriving at his position.
Heller of course is also the “controlling legal precedent” and gives us our strongest argument to date for constitutional carry.
Following his logic in the decision as long as “The People” can carry openly without a permit the meaning and intent would be honored.
That we might prefer to carry concealed at times or for various reasons does not change that and it is a legitimate area for regulation, again, following Heller.
I have to say I find this very difficult to believe. I know literally hundreds of other instructors from all over the country and every one of them says in various ways that a permit does not mean you are now ready to carry and do so comfortably and confidently without further training.
I’m also a certified instructor for several organizations including the State of Texas and at every level, every certifying agency or organization tells their instructors to instruct students to always seek more and better training throughout their lives.
If this indeed is your experience the people who taught you should have their credentials revoked.
1 Like
Umm no Zee, no where did I say that concealed carry should be unlawful.
@Spence @Zee @WildRose I skimmed through some of that court report for Justice Scalia. It was a bit long and scattered I think for the average citizen to follow… Here was something I found from a podcast I listen to which was the best historically cited explanation for me and makes it easy for anyone to understand who is not familia with the historical premise of the second amendment. The Second Amendment: American Masterclass with Historian David Barton | Louder With Crowder - YouTube
I would guess the “miss rate” would be about 50-60%
2 Likes
You are right about the government only giving cheap ammo. I in my minds eye I was thinking more along the lines of being given a voucher to purchase any box of ammo you wanted (maybe like a 250 count limit) where the cost is covered by your townships taxes. Some people can’t always afford to go out and buy ammo after purchasing a gun… but it is important to shoot the firearm before just storing it away. I would still like them to get one box of rounds through it to see exactly why they need to keep practicing. Maybe it should be in the budget as “militia funds” lol.
2 Likes
If you’ll follow it through it’s very well organized by section. Scroll down to “the people”.
NO, Zee, he was just explaining what you just said yourself! You’ve had further training and no he didn’t know that but was saying someone that doesn’t have your qualifications should seek that before using their weapons in a manner or “situation” that will be totally different than a home invasion at night! I agree with Defender! Training is essential for both in my book!
Any guesses on how many have been shot beyond the person they were aiming at? If they had that training they’d know to look beyond their target!
That actually is what he said in the post @Zee and I both originally responded to. That our rights ended at our front doors and that there should be a training requirement for anyone who is going to carry in public.
1 Like
I know it’s such a very small number it’s almost impossible to find any cases where it occurred.
It isn’t law abiding citizens that simply spray and pray in a panic during deadly force encounters. Even the most untrained person understands they are responsible for every round that leaves their gun.
1 Like