UPDATE!! Montana constitutional carry bill & the I'm pro 2A but" crowd.

Wvroach

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
226
To those unaware Montana state legislature is trying to enact constitutional carry legislation currently and it is being meant with fierce opposition. Including Kimber's former VP. I do not live in the state but thought I would share my opinion (for what it is worth). This will be a bit long winded for those willing to stay.

I'll preface this saying I am a firearms instructor as well who makes profit off of teaching concealed carry classes among other things to students. So I have a vested interest in having students come to train and receive certification before getting their permits through the state.

I fully support constitutional carry, I do think training should be sought after but in no way shape or form should it be a requirement. Individual responsibility should dictate what you need to do not government bureaucrats. I also live in a recently enacted constitutional carry state.

Whenever it was passed through my home state just as many of the other 15 states with constitutional carry legislation it was meant with fierce opposition from both the openly anti gun crowd as well as the "pro 2a but" crowd with all the typical mumblings about "it'll be like the wild west", "shootings on every corner", "think about the children" and all the other mantra that goes along with it. None of that happened and violent crime has decreased.

This needs addressed though it is bad enough we have to fight the antis without having to fight our supposed supporters as well.

Self defense is a right granted to us by God and the only reason we have a constitution is to prevent government overreach it is prescriptive for what bounds authorities have to govern within, not for what we are limited in as citizens.

The "Pro 2-a but" crowd has let in over the past 40 years all sorts of nonsense legislation that does nothing to prevent crime or "gun violence" but only serves to restrict otherwise law-abiding citizens rights. We are at a impasse as a community to sit idle and do nothing (how we got to this point) or take a stand together against all future gun control and go on the offensive to take back what is granted to us by our Creator, not man.

I would hope some within the passive group of hunters and sport shooters would see this even though it doesn't directly effect them (for now) and take the time to voice for it. I am not saying everyone needs to be armed, but those of us who desire to be as defenders have a absolute right to and collectively our community can make a difference.

Constitutional carry is a civil right and should be unrestricted, arbitrary lines shouldn't dictate where you are allowed to defend yourself.

I encourage all of you reading this to contact your state representatives to oppose any restrictions on any of our liberties and to encourage pro 2a legislation through your statehouses.

That includes your congressman and senators on both the federal and state level. It takes 10 minutes of time to pen a letter or make a phonecall or do both weekly.

We should also be reaching out within our community to help shine light on these issues, not with the I'm right your wrong attitude either, but with sincere dialogue with our community members and voicing the concern of why we feel that way.
I'd also like to encourage everyone to try and find someone on the fence about guns and take them out to the range for a day, I have yet to have one leave unhappy and though we disagree on virtually every other policy afterwards they tend to come around to the idea of being armed and lose the "guns are evil" mindset.

The banter back and forth and argument online doesn't get us anywhere but community outreach will and we can not sit idle any longer if we want any hope of defending what liberty we have left.

We can all be more involved, myself included as I'm more reclusive by nature, if I can get out and talk to my community you all can as well.
 

DudeBro

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
139
Location
Virginia
I agree that CCW should be easily obtained w/o bureaucratic hurdles (I'm thinking of you CA, MD, and DC). However, I strongly believe that training should be a prerequisite. I believe training and "licenses" should be a prerequisite for virtually any dangerous endeavor. I wish my state would require training and licensing for boaters/PWC users. I agree that drivers should be required to have training and licensing (I don't think current driver training/testing goes far enough; I'd include tire replacement, car part identification/nomenclature, and more). I agree that motorcycle riders should be required to have different training and licensing than auto drivers; same with CDLs. I agree that hunters need training prior to setting off on their first hunt (I personally don't think that modern hunter safety is enough; I'd include marksmanship training/qualification, meat care, and more). However, in all of those instances, I think the applicant should be able to "test out" of the training via a pre-test; this would be similar to most state's CCW training requirement that is waived if the applicant can prove military pistol marksmanship training.

I strongly believe that everyone except violent criminals should be able to own a firearm in virtually any configuration. However, to carry the firearm in public or while hunting, we should be able to trust that the person knows what they're doing with it. The only way I see to guarantee that is through training and licensing.

I think if we all accepted robust training and qualification as a prerequisite to public carry (open or concealed), that might go a long way to fending off the opponents who say "it'll be like the wild west," "shootings on every corner," "think about the children," and any other concerns about innocent bystanders being hurt.
 
Last edited:
OP
Wvroach

Wvroach

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
226
I agree that CCW should be easily obtained w/o bureaucratic hurdles (I'm thinking of you CA, MD, and DC). However, I strongly believe that training should be a prerequisite. I believe training and "licenses" should be a prerequisite for virtually any dangerous endeavor. I wish my state would require training and licensing for boaters/PWC users. I agree that drivers should be required to have training and licensing (I don't think current driver training/testing goes far enough; I'd include tire replacement, car part identification/nomenclature, and more). I agree that motorcycle riders should be required to have different training and licensing than auto drivers; same with CDLs. I agree that hunters need training prior to setting off on their first hunt (I personally don't think that modern hunter safety is enough; I'd include marksmanship training/qualification, meat care, and more). However, in all of those instances, I think the applicant should be able to "test out" of the training via a pre-test; this would be similar to most state's CCW training requirement that is waived if the applicant can prove military pistol marksmanship training.

I strongly believe that everyone except violent criminals should be able to own a firearm in virtually any configuration. However, to carry the firearm in public or while hunting, we should be able to trust that the person knows what they're doing with it. The only way I see to guarantee that is through training and licensing.

I think if we all accepted robust training and qualification as a prerequisite to public carry (open or concealed), that might go a long way to fending off the opponents who say "it'll be like the wild west," "shootings on every corner," "think about the children," and any other concerns about innocent bystanders being hurt.
The problem with that is requiring someone to have training before issuing them a permit means it is not a right but a privilege. I do not need permission, do you have to ask for permission before you are given the right to speak freely and have the govt sign off that you are allowed to? No.

Plenty of individual circumstances that would prevent someone from going to take a course as well, though I offer some for actual material cost if I know they are struggling from a business standpoint I charge around $125 per head for a course a lot of people are priced out at that point, I'm not even talking tactical training either, plus factor in the cost of the permit another 75$ a lot of low income people can not afford to do that. Take for instance the single mom, or dad working to provide and living check to check the first hurdle of buying a inexpensive handgun and ammo is going to set them back 500, add in a course and the ammo needed for it you are right around 1000$ by the time you are done. I believe people should get training but as a prerequisite? Absolutely not.

Also for military pistol marksmanship that is a joke, I handled a handgun 2 days and 1 day of SAMT while I was in, trust me 80% of first time shooters I take out are better trained at the end of the day then most that went through RTC at least, other branches experience may vary.

Driving a vehicle is a privilege, owning a firearm and having the ability to defends one's self is not it is a right.

Lastly, violent felons shouldn't be able to own guns? I'll even disagree there, if someone is deemed safe to be out in society all rights should be restored. Make the punishment fit the crime, get rid of the prison industrial complex and start making inmates serve hard time and pay restitution and stop giving incentives to come back in to the system. If you continually treat someone as second class they will continue to act as such.

We can disagree that is fine, just hopefully others will see and at least think about the issues again.
 

TurboSportTSi

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
64
Location
Forest Hill, MD
I agree that CCW should be easily obtained w/o bureaucratic hurdles (I'm thinking of you CA, MD, and DC). However, I strongly believe that training should be a prerequisite. I believe training and "licenses" should be a prerequisite for virtually any dangerous endeavor. I wish my state would require training and licensing for boaters/PWC users. I agree that drivers should be required to have training and licensing (I don't think current driver training/testing goes far enough; I'd include tire replacement, car part identification/nomenclature, and more). I agree that motorcycle riders should be required to have different training and licensing than auto drivers; same with CDLs. I agree that hunters need training prior to setting off on their first hunt (I personally don't think that modern hunter safety is enough; I'd include marksmanship training/qualification, meat care, and more). However, in all of those instances, I think the applicant should be able to "test out" of the training via a pre-test; this would be similar to most state's CCW training requirement that is waived if the applicant can prove military pistol marksmanship training.

I strongly believe that everyone except violent criminals should be able to own a firearm in virtually any configuration. However, to carry the firearm in public or while hunting, we should be able to trust that the person knows what they're doing with it. The only way I see to guarantee that is through training and licensing.

I think if we all accepted robust training and qualification as a prerequisite to public carry (open or concealed), that might go a long way to fending off the opponents who say "it'll be like the wild west," "shootings on every corner," "think about the children," and any other concerns about innocent bystanders being hurt.

While I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying and acknowledge that it would be an easier pill for those on the fence to swallow, there's a big difference between the privileges you mentioned and an unrestricted right, in the case of carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise.

We cannot give up any ground and allow our rights to be reigned in - it defeats the purpose of the right itself. Just like the 'pro-2a, but' crowd, it cannot be that we claim a right and then, in the same breath, say 'constitutional right, but.' There is no 'but,' it is our right, period.
 

DudeBro

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
139
Location
Virginia
Roach/Turbo, the problem is, courts have been very clear that 2A does not guarantee a right to carry in public. In fact, the Heller decision in 2008 was the first time SCOTUS read an individual right to bear arms into the 2A. You and I may disagree with the courts, but that is the state of the law in this country. Accordingly, carrying in public is a privilege according to the law as it currently stands.
 
OP
Wvroach

Wvroach

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
226
We have always had the right to carry outside the home, heller just was the first modern case that showed that to the ninth circuit.

Just because a judge says something or is opinionated on it doesn't mean it is correct or lawful. Courts do not get to decide the laws, especially given the political bias climate of today. The constitution is the guidance for the courts and our republic, if they do not abide by that they are not fit for their role.

Roach/Turbo, the problem is, courts have been very clear that 2A does not guarantee a right to carry in public. In fact, the Heller decision in 2008 was the first time SCOTUS read an individual right to bear arms into the 2A. You and I may disagree with the courts, but that is the state of the law in this country. Accordingly, carrying in public is a privilege according to the law as it curr
 

DudeBro

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
139
Location
Virginia
Roach, Heller was a DC case; not a 9th Cir. case. It also did not rule that there is a right to carry outside the home; it actually focused on firearms inside the home. It ruled that 2A guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms, which is integral to self dense - especially in one's home. The decision went on to state that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

Additionally, court opinions - especially SCOTUS opinions - absolutely decide the law. You, Turbo, and I may disagree with judicial activism and the holdings of certain decisions, but that doesn't change the impact of a SCOTUS opinion, which is that it becomes the "law of the land."
 

Desk Jockey

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
3,839
Big 2A fan here. Glad to be in PA after 20 years in CA and NY. Here in PA you fill out a form. They do a background check at the courthouse and you walk out same day. There are some limits on where you can carry but compared to Los Angeles or NYC it is night and day.
 

DudeBro

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
139
Location
Virginia
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of sentence.
Also, stop looking to the Supreme Court to decide what is right. They once said that slavery was legal. Don’t look to them as a moral compass.
I do not look to SCOTUS for what is right or moral. I (much like every subordinate court in this country) look to their opinions for the current state of constitutional law in this country.

Sadly, no matter what you, me, or even gun control nuts want/believe 2A to mean, that cannot overcome what SCOTUS has said it does mean.
 
OP
Wvroach

Wvroach

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
226
Roach, Heller was a DC case; not a 9th Cir. case. It also did not rule that there is a right to carry outside the home; it actually focused on firearms inside the home. It ruled that 2A guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms, which is integral to self dense - especially in one's home. The decision went on to state that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

Additionally, court opinions - especially SCOTUS opinions - absolutely decide the law. You, Turbo, and I may disagree with judicial activism and the holdings of certain decisions, but that doesn't change the impact of a SCOTUS opinion, which is that it becomes the "law of the land."
You are correct on the 9th part, my mistake. Does not change the point though. The ninth circuit just has put out so much garbage previously.

Even with heller and saying courts look to the supreme court for guidance that is clearly untrue when you still can't go armed outside of your home without a permission slip which in many states is next to impossible to get.

Given the current state of the Supreme Court refusing to take any 2a cases I have no faith in them. They just continually punt everything down the road.
 

Gutshotem

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
317
Location
USA
I agree that CCW should be easily obtained w/o bureaucratic hurdles (I'm thinking of you CA, MD, and DC). However, I strongly believe that training should be a prerequisite. I believe training and "licenses" should be a prerequisite for virtually any dangerous endeavor. I wish my state would require training and licensing for boaters/PWC users. I agree that drivers should be required to have training and licensing (I don't think current driver training/testing goes far enough; I'd include tire replacement, car part identification/nomenclature, and more). I agree that motorcycle riders should be required to have different training and licensing than auto drivers; same with CDLs. I agree that hunters need training prior to setting off on their first hunt (I personally don't think that modern hunter safety is enough; I'd include marksmanship training/qualification, meat care, and more). However, in all of those instances, I think the applicant should be able to "test out" of the training via a pre-test; this would be similar to most state's CCW training requirement that is waived if the applicant can prove military pistol marksmanship training.

I strongly believe that everyone except violent criminals should be able to own a firearm in virtually any configuration. However, to carry the firearm in public or while hunting, we should be able to trust that the person knows what they're doing with it. The only way I see to guarantee that is through training and licensing.

I think if we all accepted robust training and qualification as a prerequisite to public carry (open or concealed), that might go a long way to fending off the opponents who say "it'll be like the wild west," "shootings on every corner," "think about the children," and any other concerns about innocent bystanders being hurt.
Freedom is scary and you are a very scared individual.
 

Superdoo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Messages
445
Location
ND
Look at all the states that have passed constitutional carry. All of the “worry” surrounding it is then completely unfounded.
I live in a CC state. I remember the discussions and the worry over it. None of the worries came to pass.

Push hard and get it passed!
 

S.Clancy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
739
Location
Montana
We can open carry here now, Constitutional Carry is everyone (who can legally own firearms) can conceal carry without training or requirement?

I would support a bill that requires we had mandatory firearm training in elementary schools.
 

87TT

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,936
Location
Idaho
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein.

That said we have CC and it's not a problem.
 

DudeBro

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
139
Location
Virginia
I would support a bill that requires we had mandatory firearm training in elementary schools.
Me too. It would make for a more informed society about firearms and perhaps they would be less "scary" to the gun control left. It would also likely reduce the number of unintentionally inflicted firearm wounds/deaths by youth.
 
Top