Possible implications for constitutional carry

[DawgHammarskjold]

Guest column: Possible implications for constitutional carry should be considered​

Rome Ferrell
Guest columnist

We must consider what “constitutional carry” actually means. Does it mean that anyone who wants to carry a gun, can? Because if that’s the case, clearly those who advocate for this have not thought it through.

Am I a second amendment supporter? Yes. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
In fact, I work in a gun shop. Having established that, do I feel that not having constitutional carry legislation infringes on my rights as a gun owner? No, I do not. More importantly, do I feel that anyone should be able to carry or possess a firearm? No, I do not.

With constitutional carry legislation, a person who legally owns a firearm may carry it in public, visibly or concealed, at almost any time or place, without training, registration or government licensing.

Simply put, not everyone should have a firearm. There are myriad of reasons why this is true. For instance, sometimes there might be a medical reason, or someone might have a criminal history. Sandy Hook is a prime example of this. After a troubled 20-year-old (reportedly with Asperger's syndrome) murdered his mother at their home, he fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before taking his own life.
Now, given that this legislation will inevitably pass, consider this: If the legislation gives everyone the right to carry a firearm — that means everyone. This isn’t a problem for those of us who are regular “Joe Citizens.” However, if you grew up in an environment that was imbued with stereotypes, you now must consider that although you may have felt before that certain people from certain walks of life were possibly armed, they will most certainly be armed now. Moreover, they will be legally armed.

If you’re comfortable with this, then constitutional carry is great. However, if this bothers you ... well, it’s something to think about.
It should also be considered that the market for well-trained and well-armed American citizens is no longer cornered. It has grown and is quite diverse. I personally believe that all citizens should be trained before carrying a firearm.

At the end of the day, a clear and well thought-out process should be implemented.

Rome Ferrell is the general manager of St. Augustine-based Sentinel Security Group, a firearms manufacturer, dealer and training company. He is a retired U.S. Air Force Security Forces member, a veteran and certified firearms instructor.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Guest column: Possible implications for constitutional carry should be considered​

Rome Ferrell
Guest columnist

We must consider what “constitutional carry” actually means. Does it mean that anyone who wants to carry a gun, can? Because if that’s the case, clearly those who advocate for this have not thought it through.

Am I a second amendment supporter? Yes. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
In fact, I work in a gun shop. Having established that, do I feel that not having constitutional carry legislation infringes on my rights as a gun owner? No, I do not. More importantly, do I feel that anyone should be able to carry or possess a firearm? No, I do not.

With constitutional carry legislation, a person who legally owns a firearm may carry it in public, visibly or concealed, at almost any time or place, without training, registration or government licensing.

Simply put, not everyone should have a firearm. There are myriad of reasons why this is true. For instance, sometimes there might be a medical reason, or someone might have a criminal history. Sandy Hook is a prime example of this. After a troubled 20-year-old (reportedly with Asperger's syndrome) murdered his mother at their home, he fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before taking his own life.
Now, given that this legislation will inevitably pass, consider this: If the legislation gives everyone the right to carry a firearm — that means everyone. This isn’t a problem for those of us who are regular “Joe Citizens.” However, if you grew up in an environment that was imbued with stereotypes, you now must consider that although you may have felt before that certain people from certain walks of life were possibly armed, they will most certainly be armed now. Moreover, they will be legally armed.

If you’re comfortable with this, then constitutional carry is great. However, if this bothers you ... well, it’s something to think about.
It should also be considered that the market for well-trained and well-armed American citizens is no longer cornered. It has grown and is quite diverse. I personally believe that all citizens should be trained before carrying a firearm.

At the end of the day, a clear and well thought-out process should be implemented.

Rome Ferrell is the general manager of St. Augustine-based Sentinel Security Group, a firearms manufacturer, dealer and training company. He is a retired U.S. Air Force Security Forces member, a veteran and certified firearms instructor.

The government in place will attack constitutional carry in its argument over the right of citizens to own guns.

The right to own guns as a citizen should never be in question. You have to watch the government carefully in what it wants. The government wants its citizens gunless, period.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Certainly, an intellectual argument can be made for limiting access to guns. However, the second amendment not only guarantees the right of the citizens to own guns, it states this right shall not be infringed. Now, I'm not a rigid ideologue by any means but what good is a governing document if that document is simply ignored by the governing as a function of convenience.

If you wish to have a debate about limiting the 2nd amendment by a constitutional process, that would be a legitimate topic. However, if you wish to strip rights from individuals without due process or wish to force citizens to earn what is a guaranteed right, you might as well flush the governing document. The beauty of the Constitution is the founders foresaw the need for laws to be updated from time to time but it also made changing the document a function that would not occur frivolously. Ignoring the constitutional process would not only harm innocent law abiding citizens that own firearms, it would also cheapen any other right codified by the document.

 

[OlecountryDawg]

These attacks on constitution carry are really just attacks on the second amendment. Because these people haven’t spent time reading the law .