What are the opinions of 'Constitutional Carry' here?

[flamin lib]

'Constitutional Carry' is the open carrying of a firearm without any background check, training or permitting.

[stone space]

1. Carrying the Constitution is much better than carrying something really stupid like a Gun. (nt)

[NashuaDW]

2. Okay, I'll bite ...

I believe that you have constitutional rights until the courts say you no longer do. Once you're convicted and sentenced to death -- There goes the LIFE part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Once you're sentenced to jail/prison -- there goes the liberty part.

I believe my permit to carry a concealed weapon, just like my drivers license, should be valid in all 50 states. Crossing the border from NH into MA shouldn't be enough to turn me into a felon.

In other words -- you have the right until the court order says you don't

[sarisataka]

3. why do you ask? nt

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

4. Actually, no

it is not, exactly.

'Constitutional Carry' is the nickname given to a policy that used to be known as 'Vermont Carry' in that a law abiding handgun owner had the law on their side if they chose to carry either openly or concealed without a license.

It was known as Vermont Carry for many decades, due to Vermont being the only state with this policy until recently.

One of the first states to follow this route in recent times was Alaska, which until then mandated open carry only and had no provision for concealed. That could be messy with their weather, many folks simply wanted to 'cover up' the handgun due to protecting it from the weather. They can do that now without a license.

Vermont and Alaska treat Constitutional Carry differently in that AK does issue licenses for the purpose of reciprocity (travel to other states which recognize out of state licenses) as opposed to VT which does not issue licenses.

In my region (northeast), Maine has gone Const. Carry recently, yet New Hampshire has declined to do so. NH does have a non-resident carry license available by mail, however.

The vast majority of states in the US do now fit the description in the OP - this is known as 'Unlicensed Open Carry' (UOC) - still most of the states with UOC do require a license for concealed.

There are very few states that do not have some provision for open carry - as a matter of fact it is only about a half dozen or so.

Florida - which was one of the first states to begin the current trend towards a more carry-friendly atmosphere, still prohibits OC, even with a license, I cannot imagine mandatory concealment in that heat.

New Jersey and Maryland - are so anti-gun that anyone lucky enough to get a license should only carry deeply concealed in order to avoid alerting anti-gun civilians or even police officers for that matter.

California - is a patchwork of rules depending on the friendliness of the local police bureaucracy.

Now York - open carry is ill advised unless one is deep in the woods during hunting season when guns are all over the place anyway.

As for the question - I always advise anyone who carries for self defense to seek out training to approximate the level of a law enforcement officer (50 to 100 hours of training) and to qualify on-record each year. This can be done in many states by fulfilling the requirement for armed security through a reputable training organization or the local LE agency.

EDITED to add: DO NOT bring a handgun into NY, NJ or MD without a license to carry in that state. There is NO reciprocity and a felony charge will result. Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer

[ileus]

5. OC without training or a permit has been the standard for many 2A progressive states.

Many are moving toward Constitutional Carry that allows for conceal carry without a permit.

IMHO it's hard to find anywhere in society now that's expanding individual freedom/rights so that's a good thing, some would even say progressive.

Most of us have lived in states that allow open carry without a permit for ever, but few people take advantage of that as a right, but with permit less conceal carry I can see loads of citizens taking the time to protect themselves and family with the government obstacles removed from the process.

As always, safety first.

[hack89]

6. It has worked just fine in Vermont for decades

I have no problem requiring permits but no permits doesn't seem to be a big problem. Lets not forget that felons will carry concealed regardless of the law.

[Eleanors38]

7. I prefer reasonable certification for any carrying in public...

though there seems little problem with Vermont's approach. Not something I worry about.

[Kang Colby]

8. The 2A should be the only permit you need...

Several states have adopted the model popularized in Vermont. Kansas, Maine, West Virginia, Alaska, most of Montana, Arizona, Wyoming (for residents only), it seems like every year a few more states do away with the requirement to ask permission prior to excercising constitutionally protected rights.

[gejohnston]

9. ambivalent

I haven't seen any empirical that shows that it has a negative affect, so I question the need for the restriction. IOW, I kind of equate restrictions with the WoD.
Then again, it is important to at least learn the local use of force laws and decent training.

Since you mention open carry, Wyoming has always had liberal open carry. In fact, it has to be in plain view in a car without permit or residence, unless unloaded in the trunk. Yet, it has never been customary. The only nonLE open carry I have seen was a guy on who rode motorcycle to the range. At the time, it was the only legal means of transport for him. I don't see a valid reason to change the status quo. That's the civil libertarian in me. That said, I don't open carry my phone let alone a pistol.

It also depends on the specific situation. I can't remember if it was Open Carry Texas or some county affiliate that had ARs etc slung in a ready position like they were on patrol in Iraq. Either way, they were stupid and did more harm than good.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

10. Long Gun Open Carry

Also known as LGOC is another topic entirely. Many pro-handgun-OC individuals and groups think LGOC is a very bad idea except for deep in the woods where it can be explained-away as hunting.

Even in the woods, it would look odd in my region (northeast) to be seen with an AR type rifle for any reason. Customarily (and by law), rifles of any type would be locked in the vehicle's trunk or in the hunting cabin unless carried afield.

Even in handgun-OC-friendly areas in the northeast, LGOC in a populated area (except smaller villages during hunting season) would most likely end up with a police response. Not pretty.

[TeddyR]

11. Two thoughts

First, I think that there should be a reasonably priced licensing requirement for anyone who wants to carry a firearm, whether open or concealed. This should include training in firearm operations, safety, storage, etc. The training should take approximately 4-6 hours and should include range time. I also think that the Supreme Court should hold that concealed carry is a constitutionally protected right and strike down all laws that bar concealed carry or make it practically impossible (i.e., DC's licensing requirement that requires "good cause" to carry).

Second, while I'm not adamantly opposed to open carry of long guns I'm not a real fan either. I'm not sure why anyone needs to open carry an AR-15 around town and I think it is often done as an intimidation method. I also think you could have someone call the police on you, which just makes everyone angry.

[beardown]

12. Agreed. License gun carriers not guns.

Big rigs on the roads are legal, but you have to get a CDL to drive one and maintain your license status.

However, you can earn a living by getting your CDL training and therefore the expensive training course has a built in way to pay for it. The caveat for requiring gun handling training is that in no time at all you will find that the courses and costs basically make it a well to do white person's right as has happened in the past.

I'm all for different levels of gun carry-possession qualifications, but they HAVE to be affordable (both in time and money) and they have to be tightly restricted to prevent them from becoming defacto gun denial pathways. We already have a version of this now with regards to owning automatic weapons, etc.

[DonP]

13. It's a Great Success, it drives gun control people crazy ... again

Doesn't seem to have any more of an appreciable effect on crime than concealed carry does, but makes all the gun control fans bat shit crazy.

It's right up there with; the "Terror of Open Carry" in annoying the shit out of them.

They all go to the bottom of their sock drawer, haul out all the old tropes of; "Blood in the streets", "Cops won't know who the bad guy is", et. al. and then ... nothing happens and they fade away, rather than admit they were wrong ... again.

Still waiting on those promised reports on the massive body count from "Guns Everywhere" Georgia last year.

So, that's a pretty good measure of success in itself.

[benEzra]

14. A couple of years ago, I'd have been "meh" about it.

I have always felt that shall-issue CCW licensure is a compromise I could live with, satisfying both RKBA and the concerns of non-gun-owners.

Then, I went to renew my NC CHL again, that I've had since I moved here from Florida in 2003-2004, and found out that the state is now taking in excess of four months to issue your new permit, even though the background check requirements take only a few weeks and going past the already-excessive 120-day limit is illegal. At least in my county, NC is routinely violating that legal time limit, because the mental health records check that takes literally 5 minutes on an NC mental health records system wasn't being done because the agency doing them doesn't give a shit about legal requirements. And that to get an NC permit, you may end up paying upwards of $200 for the class and fees and losing a couple days of work to complete the process, pricing the working class right out of the picture. This directly targets the lawful and responsible members of the working class, while not addressing misuse at all. And the only way to carry during the illegally extended waiting period was to open carry, which I prefer not to do.

And then the Attorney General of Virginia announced he was unilaterally revoking the VA-NC reciprocity agreement, even though NC's training and licensure requirements are stricter than VA's, apparently as a personal favor to Bloomberg. Again, directly targeting the licensed, lawful, and responsible, and requiring open carry as the only legal alternative whenever I visit Virginia.

Meanwhile, criminals in NC *already* have permitless carry. If they want to carry a concealed gun today, they stuff it in their waistband and carry it. They don't care; why should they?

So, now? Yes, I'm all for "constitutional carry". Maybe it will help the gun control lobby stop setting its agenda based on hatemongering against gun owners, and pull them back toward the common ground that shall-issue carry licensure represents. If we have "constitutional carry", then prompt licensure easily accessible to the working class and based on reasonable de minimis requirements doesn't look so bad, does it?

[MohRokTah]

15. I don't need no "Constitutional Carry" here in Wyoming.

I already have an absolute right to own, keep, and carry any weapon, even a concealed handgun, with no training or permitting. I can walk into a store and walk out with a Glock 2 fifteen minutes later, and carry it concealed.

No problems here.

[gejohnston]

16. That is Constitutional Carry

Before I went in the Air Force, Wyoming's CCW was limited to specific occupations like private investigator, pharmacist, MD who does house calls, and a couple of others I don't remember. It applied to all weapons including nonfolding knives and sling shots. However, I knew some women who worked around the oil field and truck stops that thought the eight hundred dollar fine was worth the risk.