Quote of the day—Sebastian

Constitutional Carry is the new frontier.

April 3, 2015
Then There Were Six: Constitutional Carry Now Law In Kansas
[I recently had a long chat with Mike B. our friendly lobbyist at Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance about this very topic. He doesn’t really understand why so much emphasis is placed on Constitutional Carry. His point is that more benefit for more people can be achieved while consuming less political capital by getting better reciprocity and carry in places like school campuses, parks, and state and Federal lands.

I find it hard to disagree with Mike from a practical basis but ultimately we want “constitutional carry”. And the more people we have carrying without a license or proof of training and there is no “blood in the streets” the easier it is to get more lenient laws in the repressive states.

But probably the most important reason Constitutional Carry is so popular issue these days that it’s easier to get people fired up about something big than it is something incremental. Sebastian captures that with “the new frontier”.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sebastian

  1. Why not both? Push for Constitutional Carry every year in every state legislature, using it as a benchmark issue of where legislators stand on individual rights versus the omnipotent regulatory state. Simultaneously push every incremental bit of progress one can imagine, moving the goal posts ever closer to CC each legislative session until the whole edifice of irrationality that is gun control collapses.

    The important thing is that the legislative and judicial ratchets should only work in our direction, incrementally or in large changes, such that we are always on the offensive against gun control, not on the defense fighting back onerous irrational laws.

  2. mikee’s point is well taken. So many 2A supporters get wrapped around the axle by the incremental efforts by SAF or the NRA-ILA to regain what seem to be relatively small bits of the totality of the RKBA. They want the whole enchilada and won’t settle for less.

    But keep in mind, our opponents put us where we are today through creeping incrementalism. Each little chink was touted as “a good first step” – even when the anti’s fully admitted that the proposed (and passed) legislation wouldn’t really do anything. That’s why “if it saves one child” became such a catchphrase – because most of the anti-gun laws passed would barely even do that.

    We’re currently in a position (with some exceptions – e.g., I-594) to press on both fronts. We should take advantage of that, as the antis did – e.g.,go for the entire ban on handguns, but settle for the “points” system to prevent the import of short-barreled semi-autos. Rinse and repeat. Let them see the camel’s nose under the tent flap for a change.

  3. Well, whether on a Federal, State or Local Level, IMHO ANY Restrictions to the RKBA that are Reduced/Eliminated should be met with a Smile and a renewed Vigor to keep going.

    Trust me, does anyone think that we’ll regain MORE Second Amendment Freedoms from the White House/Congressional Thieves while the Anointed One still OCCUPYS the Oval Office? ESPECIALLY with Chuckie Schumer taking over from Harry Reid in the Senate?

    Yes, there are cases working through the Courts, but since Obama has packed them with Uber-Liberal Judges, that will take a while.

    But on a STATE level, Forward Progress is doing well. Case in point: As of last week, in OHIO, ANY VALID CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HAS FULL RECIPROCITY WITH OHIO’S!

    Don’t know about the Constitutional Carry States vis-a-vis Ohio Law, though. Hate to see someone from Kansas get caught Carrying Concealed on their Driver’s License in Ohio, but I admit, that would be another Battle that should be resolved.

    It takes a lot of Little Skirmishes that add up to Battles to win a War. So let’s keep up the Fight, okay?

  4. I find it easy to disagree with the fellow from ISSA. First of all, carrying weapons is a Right, and no matter how much ‘Shall Issue” is fluffed up having to acquire a permit to stay out of jail is an affront to said Right. For a whole host of reasons both pragmatic & principled any licensing or permit system is an evil we shouldn’t put up with any longer than we have to.

    On the pragmatic side of things, this fellow Mike B is just wrong. I’d estimate at least 1 person (perhaps 2 or 3 or more) carries without a license in “shall issue” states for every CCW holder. This could be daily, semi regularly, or just now & then when they sense some sort of danger. A lot of folks cannot afford permits in their respective states ($200-$300-ish is still a lot of cash to some folks) & others, such as myself, simply won’t pretend the state has any say in how a Right is exercised. So if Constitutional, or even permitless carry, does nothing else, it keeps (at minimum) an equal number of folks from being arrested for exercising a basic, inherent human Right as there are folks with CCW’s in that state.

    & he claims that’s not as much a benefit as increasing reciprocity or getting more exemptions for permit holders? How many permit holders travel to a state where reciprocity matters? Then compare that number to the number of folks in state who likely carry without a permit (the total number of permit holders is a good start, but probably a conservative estimate). Even pragmatically the idea of not really pushing hard for Constitutional carry just doesn’t measure up.

    Look, that guy just ain’t on my side. If he’s sincere perhaps he can be educated. But part of the problem is that fellows like him are getting paid to lobby for our Rights when he seems to have little clue as to what a Right is or why it’s really a big deal. Hell, in Colorado the biggest opponents to Constitutional or even permitless carry have been the NRA state affiliate & CCW instructors. There are just too many folks sitting on boards of gunowner orgs who are cool with “assault weapons” bans, or background checks (at least at the point of sale), or who think permits are a good idea for whatever reason. If we’re actually going to have our Rights respected it’s gotta involve removing The Fudds v.2.0 from allegedly pro-gun orgs.

    Oh, about that incremental stuff – I’ve argued for decades that it’s a good strategy for taking away something but not so great for regaining something. You’ll note Miss Parks didn’t sit 4 seats from the back of the bus one week, then inch closer to the front over the course of a year. That being said, folks are likely less enthused about incremental strategies because for us they don’t really seem to accomplish much. Florida’s had “shall issue” ccw for almost 30 years now right? But no Constitutional carry, or permitless carry, or even open carry. I suppose the next increment is making it legal to carry more than 2 oz of pepper spray without a permit?

    It’s real cool that Kansas has adopted Constitutional carry (or is it permitless? – haven’t delved into what the law says), & that we have 5 or 6 now (depending on how one views Arkansas) but incrementalism seems slow when folks learn that a Right delayed is a Right denied.

  5. “His point is that more benefit for more people can be achieved while consuming less political capital by getting better reciprocity and carry in places like school campuses, parks, and state and Federal lands.”

    So what he is saying is that he is willing to give up some of our rights as long as we get to keep what they are willing to allow us to have. I have never understood this mentality. Why is it that we always have to give up our rights in negotiations with tyrants? Why are we always making deals with people who want to strip us of our liberty under the guise of keeping us safe? I cannot in good conscience negotiate against my values or morals. If someone wants me to do something I believe is evil or wrong I DO NOT meet them part way. I do not tell them that I will give up my ability to speak freely about any given subject just so they will allow me to speak freely about other subjects. I do not bargain with them to allow me to worship Jesus on Sunday but not on Monday and Wednesday. I will not allow them to quarter troops in my home in July as long as they are out by August. It is the weakness of men like this that has allowed all of our rights to be slowly eroded over time. Unfortunately guys like this are all we have. If you try to take a harder line then you are labeled an extremest and outcast from the system. So, as we all know, the system is the problem after all. The rights of the minority were protected until we became the minority. Then mob rule took over and our Republic was turned into what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid, a democracy.

    • “So what he is saying is that he is willing to give up some of our rights as long as we get to keep what they are willing to allow us to have. ”

      Well not necessarily. I mean your *entire* precept is that Mike B is willing to concede on Con Carry in return for other issues.

      But… what if that’s not what he’s saying? To me, Mike B’s point seems to be that given finite political capital Con Carry might not be a wise allocation of resources and effort.

      Heck let’s turn things around. Do you think repealing the NFA or going for Con Carry is more important?

      Because either way you answer I can use your own logic to decry you for exactly what you’re saying Mike is guilty of.

      • Please read the rest of my post,not just the first part. What I am saying is that we should not have to give up anything when it comes to our rights. I am saying that the NFA and any law (I still have to beg permission from my local Sherrif to CC) requiring us to get permission to exercise any of our rights is a violation of the Constitution. I am also saying that anyone who is willing to give up any part of our rights just so we can keep other parts is a tool.

        If they were actually following the Constitution why would they need political capital when it comes to the God given rights of the people?

  6. It may not apply to this particular lobbyist, but I find that most of them, since they are not just politicians but failed politicians, wouldn’t know a principle if it bashed them upside the head.

Comments are closed.