Category: RKBA

I used to attribute this to ignorance. No longer. This is straight up stupidity and mendacity

Warriors Coach Steve Kerr Wants Gun Laws that Already Exist in Wake of Sacramento Shooting

Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr reacted to Sunday’s shooting in Sacramento by pushing gun laws that already exist in California.

FOX News quoted Kerr saying, “I don’t think moments of silence are going to do anything. At some point … our government has to decide are we going to have some common sense gun laws, it’s not going to solve everything, but it will save lives.”

He added, “Despite the fact that 80 to 90% of Americans support background checks and you know, you think about all of the common sense laws we could and should put in place.”

Background checks via the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) have existed in every state since the mid-1990s. Moreover, California adopted universal background checks in the 1990s, which means every gun sale in the state–retail or private–requires a background check in order to be legal.

So the background checks Kerr is pushing already exist in California.

Breitbart News noted that President Joe Biden also responded to the Sacramento shooting by pushing gun controls that are already the law in California.

FOX News quoted Biden:

Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police and fund the crime prevention and intervention strategies that can make our cities safer. These are just a few of the steps Congress urgently needs to take to save lives.

California already bans “ghost guns,” has universal background checks, bans “assault weapons,” and bans “high capacity” magazines.

Police noted there were multiple gunmen involved in the Sacramento shooting and also pointed out that the incident was preceded by a fight.

CNN quoted Sacramento Police Chief Kathy Lester saying, “We know that a large fight took place just prior to the shootings. And we have confirmed that there are multiple shooters.”

A stolen gun was recovered at the scene of the shooting.

Comment O’ The Day

Let’s pause for a moment and consider how they are simultaneously blaming “ghost guns” (i.e. home-made firearms with no known manufacturer) at the same time they want to hold gun manufacturers liable for guns being used in crimes.

Statement by President Joe Biden on the Mass Shooting in Sacramento | The White House

Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence. In a single act in Sacramento, six individuals left dead and at least a dozen more injured. Families forever changed. Survivors left to heal wounds both visible and invisible.

I want to thank the first responders in Sacramento, and all those across the United States, who act every day to save lives. We know these lives were not the only lives impacted by gun violence last night. And we equally mourn for those victims and families who do not make national headlines.

But we must do more than mourn; we must act. That is why my Administration has taken historic executive action to implement my comprehensive gun crime reduction strategy — from standing up gun trafficking strike forces to helping cities across the country expand community violence interventions and hire more police officers for community policing.

We also continue to call on Congress to act. Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police and fund the crime prevention and intervention strategies that can make our cities safer. These are just a few of the steps Congress urgently needs to take to save lives.

Question O’ The Day. I think the answer just might be ‘Reverse Gears!‘

California has toughest U.S. gun laws. After Sacramento shooting, what else can lawmakers do?

They’ve banned high-capacity magazines and cracked down on assault weapons. They’ve made it so Californians have to pass a background check to purchase a gun and ammunition. They’ve prohibited buyers from having ammo or “ghost” gun parts shipped directly to their homes.
When it comes to gun laws, California’s legislators have passed some of the most stringent regulations in the country, checking off nearly every box on national gun control advocates’ wishlist.
A mass shooting early Sunday that left six dead and 12 wounded just a block from the Capitol — the very building where these laws were enacted — immediately prompted new calls for legislation to curb gun violence, from California elected officials and gun-control advocates across the nation.
“The scourge of gun violence continues to be a crisis in our country, and we must resolve to bring an end to this carnage,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s already signed 15 gun-control laws, said Sunday in a prepared statement.
The call for action on the federal level reached as far as the White House.
“Ban ghost guns,” President Joe Biden said, expressing his sorrow for the Sacramento victims. “Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.”
But what else can California’s lawmakers do to restrict guns that they haven’t already done — and have their laws survive the inevitable challenge by Second Amendment advocates?
Even before Sunday’s shooting, Democratic legislators planned to do more. One new bill, introduced by state Senator Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, would give citizens the “private right of action” to sue gun manufacturers and suppliers. The bill, SB 1327, is modeled after an anti-abortion law enacted in Texas.
State Sen. David Min, D-Irvine, introduced Senate Bill 915, which would prohibit the sale of firearms or ammunition on state property, effectively ending gun shows on 73 state-owned fairgrounds. Previous efforts on a blanket-ban on gun shows at fairgrounds have failed.
“These are all practical actions we can take today to stop gun violence,” Hertzberg said Sunday.
But the fact is, the recent legislation pending in California is relatively modest compared to some of the sweeping reforms that gun-control advocates are demanding in other states and on the federal level — simply because most of the toughest curbs are already part of California law.

Continue reading “”

Armed school staff bill advances in Ohio statehouse

Constitutional Carry may be the biggest Second Amendment-related bill to win approval in Ohio this year, but hopefully it won’t be the last. Nearly four months after the Ohio House approved a measure that would once again allow for school districts across the state to have trained and vetted volunteer staff serve as an armed first line of defense against attacks on school grounds, the state Senate is now taking up the issue.

House Bill 99 received its first Senate hearing Wednesday in the Veterans and Public Safety Committee, with bill sponsor Rep. Thomas Hall, R-Madison Township, saying local schools need to be able to make decisions to protect students.

“At the end of the day, what we are talking about here is empowering our local schools to make the best decision for their students and educators so that our children feel safe and are safe in Ohio schools,” Hall said. “We have worked tirelessly on this bill to do our part in protecting our schools and our communities.”

For several years districts across the state were able to have armed school staff in place with no issue, but after several parents sued the Madison School District (with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety), the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately ruled that under current state law all armed school staff must undergo more than 700 hours of law enforcement training.

Under HB 99, those training standards would be dropped to a much more reasonable 20 hours, with 4 hours of annual training. Those volunteering to protect their school don’t need to waste hours of their time learning about processing evidence, defensive driving, and a host of other activities that police officers regularly perform but armed school staff members would never have cause to do. These staff members aren’t cops, and they’re not supposed to be. They only reason they’re carrying on campus is to stop a deadly attack aimed at students or staff members. Period.

The duty of those volunteers was one of the points raised in opposition to the bill by one police union in Ohio, whose representative warned that teachers may have to abandon their students if there is a threat on campus.

“If a school employee, regardless of her position, is carrying a firearm, they are considered on duty according to [the Ohio Revised Code],” Mike Weinman testified on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio. “When armed, the teacher’s primary responsibility is no longer teaching but an armed first responder. She will be required to abandon her students and respond to whatever threat may be in the building at a moment’s notice.”

Six school districts and two county sheriff’s departments, however, testified in favor of the bill. “Trust the locally elected officials to do their jobs and govern on behalf of the people who elected them and put them in their positions. Trust that they care for the safety and well-being of their students and staff,” Ira Wentworth, superintendent of Indian Valley Local Schools, testified. “The school boards and those staff members who are selected and volunteer to conceal and carry are not the bad guys; they are the good guys wanting to protect others from the bad guys. Put your trust in the good guys.”

There are currently thousands of Ohio educators who have undergone the three-day FASTER training course and who were already carrying on campus before the state Supreme Court decision disarmed them on the job, and as far as I’m aware of there had been no issues reported in any of the districts that had set up an armed school staff policy. Many of these school districts are rural or smaller in size, and simply don’t have the budget to have a school resource officer in every building. In some districts it might take police ten minutes or more to arrive on campus, even in the most dire of circumstances, and that’s far too long to wait for an armed response when there’s someone actively attacking the students inside the school.

HB 99 would restore some sanity to the current law, and would be a huge boost to student safety in those districts that choose to have armed school staff members in place. I’m really glad to see the state Senate start to move on this bill, and I hope that, just like Constitutional Carry, it too will soon be sent to Mike DeWine’s desk for his signature.

Observation O’ The Day
You might conclude rational thinking is outside the area of expertise of anti-gun people. The evidence does support that hypothesis.
Another hypothesis, also supported by the same data, is that they are liars who will say whatever they think will work to achieve then objectives and at least one of their objectives is to disarm their intended victims. That would be us.
—Joe Huffman

Biden Supports Gun Rights – Just Not for Americans

****

This is the same Joe Biden, after all, who orchestrated a catastrophically mismanaged surrender of Afghanistan to ragtag nomads with small arms.  Moreover, one would think that a man who came of political age during the Vietnam War would possess a better working understanding of the value of small arms in fighting off a far superior military.  Then there’s the American Revolution itself, in which patriots with small arms defeated the world’s most powerful military.

But here’s the most bizarre aspect of all.

The White House concedes that Biden personally interrupted delivery of 28 Polish MiG-29 fighter jets repeatedly requested by Ukraine in its desperate fight for survival.  According to his logic, supplying Ukrainians with deadly small arms, antitank weaponry and other deadly devices are far more effective against the Russian military than advanced fighter aircraft.   As reported by Politico, the Biden Administration determined that, “the warplanes wouldn’t materially improve Ukraine’s chances.”………

 

 

Observation O’ The Day

Post image

The largest study of modern society and firearms is in progress here in the U.S. It’s called ‘constitutional’, or ‘permitless’ carry.
So far it’s a grand success. The data seen provides such a conclusion, and really, no further study is needed.
To put it simply, self defense with firearms in the hands of common people works (for everyone but government and criminals, that is)
But since that doesn’t fit the narrative, it can’t be correct.

Then there was 25

Constitutional Carry Passes In Georgia, Gov. Kemp Will Sign

The Georgia Legislature has passed legislation to allow the carrying of firearms without a permit, bringing the number of “constitutional carry” states to 25, and setting the stage for a political confrontation over the right to bear arms in states clinging to permit systems.

Gov. Brian Kemp says he will sign it. The legislation was backed by the National Rifle Association, which issued a statement Friday.

“The NRA paved the way for constitutional carry by first leading the charge for right-to-carry nearly 40 years ago,” said Wayne LaPierre, CEO and executive vice president. “Today, every state, and the District of Columbia, provides for the carrying of a firearm for self-defense outside the home in some form, and half the nation recognizes the Second Amendment protects law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense as an inherent and inalienable right. NRA members have led this extraordinary brick-by-brick effort in building and expanding America’s self-defense laws and we are not done!”

“This is a monumental moment for the Second Amendment, NRA members and gun owners nationwide,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Half the country now rightfully recognizes the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense as enshrined in our Constitution – as opposed to a government privilege that citizens must ask permission to exercise. Passing this essential legislation has been a priority for the NRA for many years, and we’re thrilled to celebrate this huge success.”

Continue reading “”

Alabama SAPA

Alabama Senate passes bill to prohibit state enforcement of federal gun control measures

The Alabama Senate on Thursday passed legislation to prevent state law enforcement from recognizing federally-enacted regulation of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition.

Sponsored by State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa), the “Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act” notes that “the federal government has no authority to force a state or its officers to participate in implementing or enforcing its acts.”

In a statement applauding the bill’s passage, Allen declared that progressive gun control measures pose “a serious threat” to the citizenry’s Second Amendment rights.

“Any Democrat gun control order poses a serious threat to the Second Amendment rights of the people of Alabama, and it is important that we take steps to prevent this from ever happening in our state,” proclaimed Allen. “The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, and this bill is about safeguarding our God-given rights to protect our families and homes.”

“As an elected official, I will do everything in my power to preserve the rights of Alabamians, especially those granted by the Second Amendment, and I will always push back on any proposals that seek to limit the freedoms bestowed upon us,” added the senator. “This is a huge victory for the people of Alabama and preserving our Second Amendment rights.”

Senate President Pro Tem Greg Reed (R-Jasper) commended Allen for his work in passing the legislation. The Senate leader also spoke to the Senate GOP Caucus’ efforts this legislative session in advancing legislation to protect Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights.

“The Alabama State Senate has made it crystal clear this session that the Second Amendment shall not be infringed upon in our state,” advised Reed. “Senator Gerald Allen has been a fearless champion for Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights, and I am honored to stand alongside him and our Senate colleagues in fighting against federal overreach by the Biden Administration. We will always protect Alabamians’ personal liberties, the Constitution, and the right to defend our families.”

The Second Amendment Preservation Act now heads to the Alabama House of Representatives for consideration.

Georgia House Republicans approve ‘constitutional carry’ bill to allow guns without a permit

A “Constitutional Carry Act” that Gov. Brian Kemp pledged his support for during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign was passed by Georgia Republican legislators on Wednesday.

Georgia is expected to soon become the latest state where people can carry firearms in public without a license.

On Wednesday, House Republicans passed Senate Bill 319, permit-less carry legislation that’s a top priority for state and national gun rights groups that argue carrying guns is a constitutional right that shouldn’t require permission from the government.

Many gun rights organizations have stepped up their campaign to roll back gun restrictions, claiming that liberal politicians and progressive groups like Moms Demand Action will trample gun owners with gun regulation lobbying.

Wednesday’s 100-67 party-line vote marks the second time this month that the House advanced a bill ending licensing requirements for handguns. House Bill 1358, an identical bill, had already cleared the House and is now in the Senate chamber.

Continue reading “”

So this jerk of a professor feels that if you can’t successfully stop all of the assailants attacking you with a “low capacity” mag then you deserve to die for your lack of “marksmanship training”

How gun control proponents might win over some Second Amendment advocates

The writer is a is a professor of psychology at Elon University.

I’m no expert on firearms engineering or policy, just a concerned citizen who has spent my lifetime around knowledgeable and responsible gun owners.

From this personal experience, one thing is clear to me: A considerable number of proponents of gun control seem to know very little about the firearms they seek to regulate and so often sound ignorant when discussing gun control.

Those in favor of expansive gun rights are keenly aware of this lack of understanding, making it difficult for Second Amendment advocates to take serious proposals to further regulate guns.

It’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon” and the cosmetic features that qualify a firearm as an “assault weapon.”

There is one functional feature of many “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shootings — high-capacity magazines. A ban on such magazines would be a meaningful step to reduce the potential damage a firearm can cause in a mass shooting scenario.

There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine.

Creating a regulatory environment where the possession, sale and manufacture of such magazines could be phased out over time would be a substantial advancement from a harm-reduction standpoint. It could include a multi-year plan where low-capacity magazines would be made widely available to law-abiding gun owners before anything was banned outright.

Common-sense gun regulations (such as extensive owner training, licensing, and perhaps the registration of all firearms) that treat guns and shooting the same way we treat motor vehicles and driving are worthy of significant discussion. But this dialogue becomes challenged when the proponents of such regulation are fixated on the form of particular firearms, rather than their function.

Mat Gendle, Elon

Ukraine war reintroduces U.S. politicians to the Second Amendment
Ukrainian police should burn their gun registration records now

Will Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military overrun Ukraine like Adolf Hitler’s army overran France in 1940, or will Kyiv become Mr. Putin’s Stalingrad? Ukraine’s armed population could play an increasingly decisive role, from house-to-house fighting in the cities to guerilla strikes in the countryside. In the United States, Second Amendment supporters see Ukrainian resistance as exemplifying the virtues of an armed citizenry, while detractors are aghast at the implications.

On Feb. 23, as Russian troops stood poised to attack, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) passed a law granting citizens the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside their homes. Ukrainians could buy AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles.

When Russia launched its attack on Ukraine the following day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — who previously resisted liberalizing firearm laws — directed that any citizen who wanted to defend the country would be given a weapon. More than 25,000 automatic rifles reportedly were distributed in Kyiv alone.

Ukrainians obviously have no wish to be part of Mother Russia. In the “Holodomor,” the Soviet-induced famine of 1932-33, Stalin exterminated 7 to 12 million Ukrainians. Many thought the Germans would be liberators when they attacked in 1941, only to find that the Nazis regarded all Slavs as “Untermensch” (subhuman). Some would fight against both the Nazis and the Reds. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army continued to fight the Communists until 1950.

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine inherited Soviet restrictions on gun ownership, including strict licensing and registration requirements. Ukraine reported in 1997 that 722,739 civilians had registered firearms. According to GunPolicy.org, that left “uncounted a national stockpile of 1.5 million to 5.5 million undocumented, illicit small arms.” Illicit? When the state denies the right to have arms, subjects will do what is necessary to defend themselves. Should Mr. Putin win the current aggression, those with registered guns will be hunted down. Hunting down “undocumented” gun owners won’t be so easy.

As late as 2018, there were 892,854 registered firearms in Ukraine, compared to an estimated 3.5 million “illegal” firearms. This is the same pattern in states like California and New York, where laws requiring the registration of so-called “assault weapons” are largely ignored.

Ukraine has been the only European nation with no actual firearm statutes, though the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 1998 — seven years after independence — issued Order No. 622, which gave government officials discretion to decide who could obtain or carry firearms. Under this corrupt practice, officials gave hundreds of thousands of firearms to their friends in the elite.

Despite this aberration, Ukraine had been gravitating toward Western values and away from Russian domination. In 2013, Ukraine’s oldest law journal, the Law of Ukraine, published an issue on the U.S. Bill of Rights. Having read my book, “The Founders’ Second Amendment,” the editor invited me to contribute an article on the subject. George Mason University Law Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of “To Keep and Bear Arms,” also was featured.

Support was growing for liberalized gun laws at that time. The Ukrainian Gun Owners Association and some political parties were demanding action. My article highlighted the right to arms as the mark of a free people. Referring to “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,” James Madison wrote that the European monarchies “are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

In this period, Mr. Putin was promoting agitation over Crimea. On Feb. 22, 2014, the Rada ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, a long-time Soviet apparatchik who fled to Russia. The Rada then elected Oleksandr Turchynov as its chair, who immediately proposed a constitutional amendment that included the following three clauses.

First, military training was required for all able-bodied citizens.

Second, everyone had the right to defend their constitutional rights against the usurpation of power or encroachment on the sovereignty of Ukraine.

And third: “Every citizen of Ukraine has the right to possess firearms to protect his life and health, house and property, the life and health of others, constitutional rights and freedoms in case of usurpation of power, and encroachments on the constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

That broad language expressed the ideals held by our Founders, which found more concise expression in the Second Amendment. The Ukrainians seem to have improved on James Madison’s draftsmanship.

Mr. Putin did not recognize the legitimacy of the new government, and four days later, on Feb. 26, 2014, Russian troops invaded Crimea. Mr. Turchynov, who was also acting prime minister and commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, fought back against Russian surrogates engaged in terrorist activities. Still, Ukrainian forces were no match for the Russians and their toadies.

Mr. Putin hasn’t forgotten. Just days ago, amid the current invasion, Pravda called for bringing Mr. Turchynov to justice for his supposed “war crimes.”

Russia’s military annexation of Crimea brought the reform efforts to a halt, and the proposed constitutional amendment was not acted on. Only when the current invasion appeared imminent did the Rada enact a liberalized gun law, and the government handed out countless firearms to citizens.

When Nazi Germany overran France in 1940, Nazi military officials posted notices that all who failed to turn in their firearms within 24 hours would be executed. French police had gun registration records, making it convenient for the Germans to find the “legal” gun owners. But many Frenchmen had not registered their guns and, despite daily reports of executions, hid them. The arms would be used by the Resistance.

I can’t be sure if Mr. Putin’s invaders have been posting similar notices, but now would be a good time for Ukrainian police to burn their gun registration records. Those who never registered won’t have that specific worry.

While the 2014 constitutional amendment was not adopted, many Ukrainians now possess arms for the very purpose our Second Amendment was enacted: so citizens can protect their freedom, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country, and their lives and those of their families and countrymen.

So, next time you hear U.S. politicians propose restrictions on Second Amendment rights, you’ll know what to tell them: Remember Ukraine.

Florida Gov. DeSantis has called a special session that will include Constitutional Carry

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday he has called a special legislative session to be held next month, during which lawmakers could bring up other legislative issues, including constitutional carry.

“I would love to have property insurance, I would love to have data privacy, I would love to have constitutional carry,” DeSantis said Tuesday. “I will ask the legislative leaders, ‘Is there something that you can get across the finish line?’ And I will encourage them to do that.”

A joint statement sent by Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls said the special session could start April 19.

Currently, 24 states allow law-abiding residents to carry concealed firearms without government fees or permits.

“The power of Gun Control compels you!” Vermont legislates superstition in hospital gun ban

For the longest time, Vermont stood as a curious exception among states with Democrat- dominated governments, having practically no gun control laws. Constitutional carry was the tradition since the founding of the state and was sometimes called Vermont Carry in the Second Amendment community.

That sadly changed in 2018 when a swathe of new laws like (unenforceable) background checks for private sales, “high-capacity” magazine ban, a bump stock ban, red flag laws, and raising the age requirement were passed, proving to the Second Amendment community that no state is safe from the rapacious Gun Grab Lobby even if it has a centuries-long tradition of unimpeded gun ownership and low violence rates going back to the founding era.

Continuing the assault on the Second Amendment, the Vermont legislature passed a new bill which was signed into law by Republican Governor Phil Scott last week. This new law extends the background check “default proceed” duration from 3 days to 7 days, allowing the government to further delay the exercise of Second Amendment rights when the “instant” background check system doesn’t instantly return a clear answer.

Continue reading “”

On “permitless carry” vs “Constitutional Carry”

Recently a student of mine and reader of Bearing Arms reached out and asked me a question about permitless carry. With more and more states joining the ranks of those that don’t require any papers in order to exercise a constitutional right, the terms “permitless” and “Constitutional” get tossed around a lot.

The question he posed was rather simple:

My question is why do you use “permit-less carry” and not “Constitutional carry”?

Bringing this topic up is not to vilify, call out, or argue over semantics with any of my fellow writers, content creators, or advocates. But rather to at least put out there what the most accepted definitions and understandings are of the different terms.

FYI “Permit-less” is permitless. Regardless of different spell checkers.

Truth be told, the guy that asked me the question very much so reminds me of a dynamic I saw a friend of mine was in during his early 20’s. He worked at a fancy wine store after doing some time at the liquor department at a supermarket. He read Sideways because the store was pushing the book through some promotion and wanted to embrace wine snobbery the best he could. Embrace he did (and pretty much still does today, kudos!).  Most relevant and similar to the person who asked me the question, he became the type of guy that would talk about Champagne.

Picture a bunch of people celebrating and someone declares “Get the Champagne” in a gleeful exclamation. Scene in that one guy that has to step in and say “Actually, that’s sparkling wine. Since it does not come from the Champagne province of France you can’t call it Champagne.”

My answer to the question about permitless carry was a quick one talking about what it really looks like if a state or jurisdiction actually followed the Constitution. In essence, that would mean very few, if any, infringements (requirements, prohibitions, etc.) on our right to keep and bear arms. The response I garnered in reply was being told that some content creator (not any Salem Media contractors or personalities) I know prefers “Constitutional carry” over permitless. I’m like “Great. That YouTuber uses that term. I generally don’t.”

But, ya know what? That really did tick me off. This is a teachable moment though, perhaps for both of us.

Words and terms do have meanings. Personally, I try to describe things the best I can, as accurately as possible (often with too many words). Even the most astute writers won’t please all people all the time. I was once accused by a reader, who took the time to write to me, of being “woke”, and caving to progressive ideologies because I used non-gendered pronouns to describe another person. The person I was describing in the article was an anonymous source. Call me old fashioned, or maybe too cautious, but I assumed the anonymous person should also have their gender masked as well. That explanation was not good enough for a followup response or even a “thanks”. Haters gonna hate.

In the spirit of meaning, we need to define what these two dynamics are the best we can. The United States Concealed Carry Association defines these two terms in a very specific way (the accompanying video on their page is worth a watch).

Although the terms constitutional carry, permitless carry and unrestricted carry are often used interchangeably, definitions of the terms differ.

Constitutional carry: Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required. Sometimes, constitutional carry may be conditional such as in those states that have no laws prohibiting the open carry of a handgun but which require a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Permitless carry: Permitless carry includes constitutional carry states as well as states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry (Tennessee). Some states are fully unrestricted, meaning no permit is required for open or concealed carry. Others allow the open carry of a firearm/or handgun without a permit but require a permit for concealment.

The analogy would be that all Constitutional carry states are permitless, but not all permitless carry states are Constitutional. All men are humans, but not all humans are men.

US LawShield has their own way of discussing the nuance of the definitions.

Constitutional carry refers to the legal carrying of a handgun without a license or permit.

Stated differently, in a constitutional carry state, if you can legally possess a handgun, you can legally carry that handgun without the need for a license or permit. Keep in mind, even though constitutional carry states allow for permitless carry, age, location, and residency restrictions may still apply.

Those “age, location, and residency restrictions” are what separate these two terms.

Tennessee was mentioned as one state that has certain restrictions which would classify it as “permitless” v “Constitutional”, as does Maine. There are areas which one must have a permit in order to carry concealed in Maine, such as State Parks and Acadia. Handgunlaw.us covers Maine, noting:

The following locations are off limits to those carrying under Permitless Carry in Maine. You have to have a Maine permit or a resident permit from a state Maine honors to carry in the below listed areas.

  • Acadia National Park (Permit required; (12 M.R.S. 209 §756)
  • State Parks (Permit required; open carry not permitted; (12 M.R.S. 220 §1803) (7)
  • Regular archery hunting-deer only (Permit required; (12 M.R.S. 915 §11403)
  • Employees’ vehicles on work premises (Permit required; vehicle must be locked and firearm  must not be visible; (26 M.R.S. 7 §600)
  • Allagash Wilderness Waterway (Park Rule 2.19D) Open Carry Not Allowed.

The reason I’ll personally use the term “permitless” over “Constitutional carry” is simply because I don’t know all the laws in all the states that are permitless. I’d rather be inclusive and accurate by describing the lack of a scheme as being permitless, instead of being super technical and accurate by drilling down the classification to “Constitutional carry”. The risk of being wrong or inaccurate is too high in my opinion, even if having just a casual conversation on the subject.

This is not to say that I’m going to go out of my way (or that I advocate for people doing the same) to correct or undermine someone that uses one term over the other. Or someone that uses the terms synonymously. I’m just stating the why I use the term that I do.

This is not my Champagne. My Champagne is calling magazines clips and .45 Colts .45 Long Colts. That’s a whole other fun debate we can have another day.

As freedom marches on in the United States, and more and more states adopt the policy of not needing a license to carry, just keep in mind, like a good sweepstakes, some restrictions may apply. The headlines may read Constitutional, but the devil would really be in the details of the law. Besides, true “Constitutional carry” would mean every man, woman, child, felon, criminal, addict, mentally defective person, etc. would be allowed to carry a firearm. No?

17 Inconvenient Facts For the Gun-Control Movement

Imagine if you only read The Washington Post and only watched MSNBC and like-minded media outlets. If you did that, you might be deceived into thinking America is a regular Wild West Show of daily mass shootings. You might think guns themselves are evil and that crime is the fault of people who legally own firearms. You might even believe that an American citizen could simply go online and buy a machine gun, as former President Barack Obama (D) once told us. You might also think that suppressors are the tools of assassins, and that semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips are commonly used by criminals. Perhaps you’d even surmise that President Joe Biden (D) was making a good point when he suggested a ban on pistols chambered in 9 mm.

At best, many of these gun-control narratives are simply based on ignorance of firearms. At their worst, a considerable percentage of the mainstream media’s storylines regarding the Second Amendment are outright falsehoods meant to convince people to vote away their freedom.

Every issue of America’s 1st Freedom is filled with sourced facts and honest perspectives designed to arm citizens with the truth, but sometimes these kinds of list articles are needed to refute the shotgun patterns of anti-Second Amendment propaganda coming from the mainstream media and gun-control groups.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Veteran pollster Jim McLaughlin observed, “Unfortunately, Americans are seeing first hand through Vladimir Putin’s brutal, military invasion of the Ukraine the importance of our cherished Second Amendment rights. The brave Ukrainian citizens have been able to thwart Putin’s military aggression by arming themselves against the Russian invaders. Americans clearly associate the importance of their Second Amendment rights with maintaining a safe, free and democratic nation.”

‘Strong 2A Support Due to Ukraine Invasion’: McLaughlin Survey

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine one month ago has stirred strong support for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, according to the results of a new survey by McLaughlin & Associates, the nationally-known polling firm.

Continue reading “”

The Spread of Constitutional Carry Has Dealt the Moms and Everytown Their Biggest ‘L’ Yet.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about the amazing progress constitutional carry had made, though not without a number of failed efforts. The total at the time was 18 states, something that seemed unimaginable just a few years earlier. It wasn’t long ago that there were still fights to move no-issue states into the may-issue column, and may-issue states to shall-issue. No-issue is now ostensibly down to just a single state.

In other words, in the not-so-olden days, being able to carry, even with a permit, was a fight. Now an amazing amount of headway has been. With Indiana’s governor signing constitutional carry into law this week, we’re up to 24 states, making constitutional carry the most common model in the United States (it now far outnumbers shall-issue, may-issue, and no carry).

About this time last year, though, things didn’t quite look as optimistic. Yes, a few states, including “better late than never” Texas, had barely passed permitless carry laws. But Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown civilian disarmament subsidiary was only too happy to gloat about defeating constitutional carry bills in 15 states . . .

 

Now, a year later, things aren’t nearly as much fun for Everytown. We “gun extremists” managed to get the legislatures and the governors of ten of those fifteen states to pass constitutional carry either later last year, or this year. And, the legislative season isn’t over. Georgia seems poised to be next, and others may yet follow this year.

Continue reading “”