Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
DUDLEY BROWN, Liberty Ink Journal
In the 1990s and early 2000s, several states created concealed carry gun permit laws, which have certainly captured the attention of our nations gun owners. These laws set standardized criteria for issuing concealed carry permits and removed the ability of law enforcement and government bureaucrats to develop their own arbitrary requirements.
However, there is a stronger, more principled movement afoot, surfing on the waves of the Constitutions resurgence. That movement is permitless carry or Vermont Carry, but is most properly called Constitutional Carry, which means carrying a concealed handgun without a concealed carry permit. The state of Vermont started the movement when it drafted its constitution in 1777. Vermont has not criminalized concealed carry privileges. Something that is not specifically listed in law as illegal or criminal is, by definition, allowed. Thankfully, its not the other way around, because if everything was prohibited by default, freedom and innovation would be dramatically stifled.
So, Vermont residents can carry concealed weapons without first seeking permission from Big Brother. And though its residents can still acquire permits for concealed carry, they arent required to do so. Vermont, not coincidentally, is by most measures the safest state in our nation when judged by any violent crime statistic. Why shouldnt gun owners demand Constitutional Carry? By necessity, permit systems create lists of gun owners who are considered dangerous.
Though many states have tried to pass Constitutional Carry laws, they have been opposed by the institutional gun lobby and state-level minions. What is the reasoning for opposing real concealed carry reform? Ive heard, We cant have just anyone carrying a gun, or, Theres no training required, so it would be dangerous. However, there is no evidence that either objection is valid.
In his book, More Guns Less Crime, Professor John Lott proves the case that more firearms per capita mean less crime per capita. The bumper sticker sums it up: Criminals Prefer Unarmed Victims. Does this mean anyone will be carrying? The argument implies that those who are not legally eligible to possess firearms will carry concealed weapons without ramifications. However, this ignores both state and federal law that prohibits them from even possessing the firearm. Constitutional Carry does not give criminals the right to carry concealed weapons any more than does a permit system.
Debates about how much training is required usually come down to the precise amount of training the training-requirement advocate possesses, regardless of the cost or burden placed on the citizen. Lets be clear: Voluntary training for anyone who might come in contact with a firearm is just plain common sense, and for those who plan to employ firearms for self-defense, extensive training is needed. However, government requirements will make it a slippery slope. Is bearing arms a right or a privilege? Privileges can be revoked, rights, theoretically, cannot.
After all, I practice my First Amendment right to free speech without government-mandated training. A member of the press or a free citizen who was required to seek government approval prior to practicing their First Amendment right to free speech would naturally think their rights were violated yet dont even blink at the suggestion that gun owners must do the same for their Second Amendment rights.
Most likely, the objections stem from either ignorance of the facts or objections that Constitutional Carry is not a cash-cow industry. Im a firearms instructor myself, and train many students in the carrying of concealed handguns, but Id gladly trade that income for the freedom to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Thankfully, we dont have a government training mandate for mere possession of a firearm. Only the most radical gun-haters would suggest we institute one. In Colorado, where open carry is unregulated and relatively unrestrictedonly a few areas ban itthere is clearly no training requirement. Why, then, does putting your jacket over the handgun mean training is suddenly a compelling requirement?
Ive been involved in pushing for Constitutional Carry for more than 17 years, and it is exciting that there now seems to be momentum for passing this law in a broad range of states. In 2003, Alaska passed a measure to decriminalize permitless carry while still leaving their permit system intact. However, it seemed like this was an anomalyuntil the last two years. Arizona passed a Constitutional Carry law in its 2010 legislative session but it was overshadowed by the uproar over the illegal immigration legislation. Nevertheless, Arizona residents can now carry concealed without a permit. Despite a limited 30-day budgetary session, Wyoming passed a Constitutional Carry bill out of the state house. That measure died in its state senate but only because of time. And both Iowa and Montana had Constitutional Carry bills offered in the last few years.
Though Im not opposed to concealed carry permit systemsI have a permit after all, and have trained hundreds of men and women in order to get their permitsId much rather pass a Constitutional Carry law wherever possible. The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners organization has pushed Constitutional Carry bills in Colorado many times and will continue to do so until it is passed.
Because most gun owners oppose regulation, registration and restriction on carrying concealed, I believe it is a smart move for our community to set Constitutional Carry as a goal. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make our best efforts for real liberty.
Dudley Brown is the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Colorados largest gun rights organization, and the National Association for Gun Rights. Mr. Brown has been a guest on dozens of local and national television programs, including Hannity & Colmes, Geraldo Live, NBC Nightly News and Fox News.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, several states created concealed carry gun permit laws, which have certainly captured the attention of our nations gun owners. These laws set standardized criteria for issuing concealed carry permits and removed the ability of law enforcement and government bureaucrats to develop their own arbitrary requirements.
However, there is a stronger, more principled movement afoot, surfing on the waves of the Constitutions resurgence. That movement is permitless carry or Vermont Carry, but is most properly called Constitutional Carry, which means carrying a concealed handgun without a concealed carry permit. The state of Vermont started the movement when it drafted its constitution in 1777. Vermont has not criminalized concealed carry privileges. Something that is not specifically listed in law as illegal or criminal is, by definition, allowed. Thankfully, its not the other way around, because if everything was prohibited by default, freedom and innovation would be dramatically stifled.
So, Vermont residents can carry concealed weapons without first seeking permission from Big Brother. And though its residents can still acquire permits for concealed carry, they arent required to do so. Vermont, not coincidentally, is by most measures the safest state in our nation when judged by any violent crime statistic. Why shouldnt gun owners demand Constitutional Carry? By necessity, permit systems create lists of gun owners who are considered dangerous.
Though many states have tried to pass Constitutional Carry laws, they have been opposed by the institutional gun lobby and state-level minions. What is the reasoning for opposing real concealed carry reform? Ive heard, We cant have just anyone carrying a gun, or, Theres no training required, so it would be dangerous. However, there is no evidence that either objection is valid.
In his book, More Guns Less Crime, Professor John Lott proves the case that more firearms per capita mean less crime per capita. The bumper sticker sums it up: Criminals Prefer Unarmed Victims. Does this mean anyone will be carrying? The argument implies that those who are not legally eligible to possess firearms will carry concealed weapons without ramifications. However, this ignores both state and federal law that prohibits them from even possessing the firearm. Constitutional Carry does not give criminals the right to carry concealed weapons any more than does a permit system.
Debates about how much training is required usually come down to the precise amount of training the training-requirement advocate possesses, regardless of the cost or burden placed on the citizen. Lets be clear: Voluntary training for anyone who might come in contact with a firearm is just plain common sense, and for those who plan to employ firearms for self-defense, extensive training is needed. However, government requirements will make it a slippery slope. Is bearing arms a right or a privilege? Privileges can be revoked, rights, theoretically, cannot.
After all, I practice my First Amendment right to free speech without government-mandated training. A member of the press or a free citizen who was required to seek government approval prior to practicing their First Amendment right to free speech would naturally think their rights were violated yet dont even blink at the suggestion that gun owners must do the same for their Second Amendment rights.
Most likely, the objections stem from either ignorance of the facts or objections that Constitutional Carry is not a cash-cow industry. Im a firearms instructor myself, and train many students in the carrying of concealed handguns, but Id gladly trade that income for the freedom to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Thankfully, we dont have a government training mandate for mere possession of a firearm. Only the most radical gun-haters would suggest we institute one. In Colorado, where open carry is unregulated and relatively unrestrictedonly a few areas ban itthere is clearly no training requirement. Why, then, does putting your jacket over the handgun mean training is suddenly a compelling requirement?
Ive been involved in pushing for Constitutional Carry for more than 17 years, and it is exciting that there now seems to be momentum for passing this law in a broad range of states. In 2003, Alaska passed a measure to decriminalize permitless carry while still leaving their permit system intact. However, it seemed like this was an anomalyuntil the last two years. Arizona passed a Constitutional Carry law in its 2010 legislative session but it was overshadowed by the uproar over the illegal immigration legislation. Nevertheless, Arizona residents can now carry concealed without a permit. Despite a limited 30-day budgetary session, Wyoming passed a Constitutional Carry bill out of the state house. That measure died in its state senate but only because of time. And both Iowa and Montana had Constitutional Carry bills offered in the last few years.
Though Im not opposed to concealed carry permit systemsI have a permit after all, and have trained hundreds of men and women in order to get their permitsId much rather pass a Constitutional Carry law wherever possible. The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners organization has pushed Constitutional Carry bills in Colorado many times and will continue to do so until it is passed.
Because most gun owners oppose regulation, registration and restriction on carrying concealed, I believe it is a smart move for our community to set Constitutional Carry as a goal. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make our best efforts for real liberty.
Dudley Brown is the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Colorados largest gun rights organization, and the National Association for Gun Rights. Mr. Brown has been a guest on dozens of local and national television programs, including Hannity & Colmes, Geraldo Live, NBC Nightly News and Fox News.
