• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Open carry vs Concealed Carry

Should people Open Carry, Conceal Carry, or no carry


  • Total voters
    31
South Carolina. There are many states where open carry isn't legal.


Now if you're walking down the road wearing hunter's camo and carrying a shotgun or deer rifle along the treeline, nobody is going to bother you. You can carry loaded guns in your car without any permits and it is legal. But if you want to carry on your person it is concealed and CCW. :shrug:


We're working on it
.

well I hope you succeed
shouldnt be any place in america like that accept government property, DIRECT government property like courthouses etc schools and libraries dont count
 
Last edited:
It really is, the person who declares what they have is probably not going to commit a crime, logically it would follow that you can't ambush.

agreed not to mention its a huge loophole against the 2nd, quick background checks are one thing, flat out not allowing it is another
 
agreed not to mention its a huge loophole against the 2nd, quick background checks are one thing, flat out not allowing it is another
I don't have a problem with the background check system, it could be more efficient but as long as it's a one time thing per purchase it's fine, open carry is as honest as it gets so outlawing it is really just making a law for the sake of making a law. I do tell people that concealed carry permits are a legitimate compromise due to the fact that criminals tend to engage in it more often than open carry and police could use that law as a tool to get them off the streets for a while before they hurt someone.
 
I don't have a problem with the background check system, it could be more efficient but as long as it's a one time thing per purchase it's fine, open carry is as honest as it gets so outlawing it is really just making a law for the sake of making a law. I do tell people that concealed carry permits are a legitimate compromise due to the fact that criminals tend to engage in it more often than open carry and police could use that law as a tool to get them off the streets for a while before they hurt someone.

Agreed thats why i was shocked some states outlawed that, like i said some things should not be a state decision and IMO that is one of them.

Im fine with a background check and license but I feel my license would be nation wide like my drivers license.
 
Agreed thats why i was shocked some states outlawed that, like i said some things should not be a state decision and IMO that is one of them.

Im fine with a background check and license but I feel my license would be nation wide like my drivers license.
I'm fine with a federal carry license, if that's too much for people to handle I'd also be fine with states recognizing other state issued CCW permits under the 2A. Where it boils down with me is that states should retain all powers not delegated to the federal, federal needs to remand non-delegated powers back to the states in a reasonably timely manner, and BOR protections should not be within the purview of either the state or federal, though we could reasonably ask the limits of every right under necessary and proper. IOW, the only limits upon rights should be provable harm to the rights of others, owning and bearing a weapon for instance doesn't hurt anyone rather it's the illicit or negligent use of such that does, same with the bad side of the first amendment, curse words hurt no one, but fraud, perjury, slander, etc. is a different story.

The best saying I've ever heard is "your rights end at the other person's nose".
 
I'm fine with a federal carry license, if that's too much for people to handle I'd also be fine with states recognizing other state issued CCW permits under the 2A. Where it boils down with me is that states should retain all powers not delegated to the federal, federal needs to remand non-delegated powers back to the states in a reasonably timely manner, and BOR protections should not be within the purview of either the state or federal, though we could reasonably ask the limits of every right under necessary and proper. IOW, the only limits upon rights should be provable harm to the rights of others, owning and bearing a weapon for instance doesn't hurt anyone rather it's the illicit or negligent use of such that does, same with the bad side of the first amendment, curse words hurt no one, but fraud, perjury, slander, etc. is a different story.

The best saying I've ever heard is "your rights end at the other person's nose".


yep and I agree with that 100% in its essences.

I typically just say your rights end when they infringe on mine which is basically the same thing.

I just wish the system worked better and with more streamlines. Yes I dont went the fed to have to much control but the state shouldnt be able to make laws that drastically effect rights, freedom and liberty compared to other states.

IMO the gun law is an example of that, marriage law is an example of that, bank laws, hell even something as obscure as drug and prostitution laws. Its not that Im in favor or against these laws its that I understand that allowing just a state to do them or not to do them undermines the whole system because of their impact to individual and group freedom at the same time. TO me those things are on a national importance level because as a country they are tied directly to our freedoms, rights, liberty, constitution/Bill of rights etc etc

sometimes things take to long to bounce back and fourth or at the state level go to far.

examples of what I mean

Drivers license good everywhere in the nation and should be and overall controlled by fed. But one state might limit speed to 60 and another 75, another state might want you to have cars inspected and one not, im pretty ok with that.

My CWP SHOULD be legal through out the nation, the fact that its not is BS to me. This should be controlled by the fed but if individual states wanna say it needs renewed every 10 years or 5 or 3 whatever or I might even say its ok if states dont allowed concealed or make you wait till your 21 but open should be legal everywhere
 
"A well regulated militia?" I'm not sure I follow you. If you are implying that regulated means that the government reserved the right to restrict the 2nd through regulation, the rulings have said otherwise. Basically, the term means the government's obligation to train and discipline, nothing more.

Wait, so, the 2nd Amendment relates to the training of militia, not common citizens? I'm not following you.
 
Wait, so, the 2nd Amendment relates to the training of militia, not common citizens? I'm not following you.


Check some founder quotes on the 2A and the meaning becomes obvious enough.


The militia was considered a local organization, informally of all armed free men willing to participate. It was run at the state level. "Well-regulated" meant, in military terminology of the time, properly equipped and trained and organized and ready for battle... which would have been done at the state or local level.

Some states still have militias seperate from the National Guard, which latter is a Federal institution. For the most part though, we've moved away from the concept of the citizen-militia, particularly the notion that all citizens are, potentially, part of the militia.

Nonetheless the concept of every free person being armed and ready to resist crime, help restore order in the event of disaster, or otherwise act in the best interests of their community and/or state remains valid. Founder quotes on the 2A clearly show they intended private arms to be used for defense of self and property at need, as well as militia service.

As for what arms the government can regulate, I stick with the "strict Constitutional scrutiny" standard.... those restrictions can be implemented that are absolutely necessary for the maintenance of society, provided they are narrowly construed and the least restrictive means possible to address the issue.
 
Interesting. After reading all of this, I'm starting to think that if open carry is okay, what's so bad about allowing concealed carry as well? Haven't committed to the switch, however.
 
Interesting. After reading all of this, I'm starting to think that if open carry is okay, what's so bad about allowing concealed carry as well? Haven't committed to the switch, however.

There are states that allow both open or concealed carry, with or without a permit.... and they're doing just fine, no "blood in the streets" or anything.

Alaska and Vermont to name two... some western states also IIRC.
 
Wait, so, the 2nd Amendment relates to the training of militia, not common citizens? I'm not following you.
Common citizens are considered to be the militia, though it has gotten convoluted over the history of this country. The militia as defined originally was to be seperate from the organized military, consisting of all able bodied males 18-45 years of age who could be "called to muster" in a time of national or local distress, these citizens were expected to either have arms in good working order(well regulated) or have the ability to obtain such. The well regulated militia was expected to train and drill upon call up or "be in regular working order".

Things got convoluted as the Army National Guard, Coast Guard, United States Air Force Reserve, and other state militias were created due to the confusion of the actual term militia. The state militias do not drill as thouroughly as the regular military, and during a call up the citizen militia would be expected to drill to satisfaction. Due to the nature of state body drills they would qualify as an organized militia, and there are private militias within the U.S. but the simplest term is that all of us in the male 18-45 age who are able to serve form the general U.S. militia.
 
Interesting. After reading all of this, I'm starting to think that if open carry is okay, what's so bad about allowing concealed carry as well? Haven't committed to the switch, however.
People against unlicensed concealed carry have two good points: 1) Criminals prefer to carry concealed and to add to that an officer who catches one doing so has a legal tool to get them off the streets before they can commit a crime, or commit further crimes. and 2) Irresponsible conceal carry endangers innocents and the bearer, this is true so I have no problem with having a class requirement in the specific area of concealment.
 
Common citizens are considered to be the militia, though it has gotten convoluted over the history of this country. The militia as defined originally was to be seperate from the organized military, consisting of all able bodied males 18-45 years of age who could be "called to muster" in a time of national or local distress, these citizens were expected to either have arms in good working order(well regulated) or have the ability to obtain such. The well regulated militia was expected to train and drill upon call up or "be in regular working order".

Things got convoluted as the Army National Guard, Coast Guard, United States Air Force Reserve, and other state militias were created due to the confusion of the actual term militia. The state militias do not drill as thouroughly as the regular military, and during a call up the citizen militia would be expected to drill to satisfaction. Due to the nature of state body drills they would qualify as an organized militia, and there are private militias within the U.S. but the simplest term is that all of us in the male 18-45 age who are able to serve form the general U.S. militia.

That makes sense.

Hell, I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten, with an emphasis on both clarity and defending the right of citizens to have guns.

People against unlicensed concealed carry have two good points: 1) Criminals prefer to carry concealed and to add to that an officer who catches one doing so has a legal tool to get them off the streets before they can commit a crime, or commit further crimes. and 2) Irresponsible conceal carry endangers innocents and the bearer, this is true so I have no problem with having a class requirement in the specific area of concealment.

#1 is a good point. #2, however, is just a matter of being smart and not leaving the firearm in a compromised position.
 
People against unlicensed concealed carry have two good points: 1) Criminals prefer to carry concealed and to add to that an officer who catches one doing so has a legal tool to get them off the streets before they can commit a crime, or commit further crimes. and 2) Irresponsible conceal carry endangers innocents and the bearer, this is true so I have no problem with having a class requirement in the specific area of concealment.

I agree IF we can do the same thing for voting rights, whatever the requirement is for CCW permits is also the requirement for voting. The reason I want to couple these constitutional "rights" is to prevent the majority from imposing a "sin tax" on a constitutional right currently exercised by a tiny minority. We have seen the taxation of alcohol and tobacco rise due to voting for them as "sin taxes", in Texas a CCW permit is now $240 thanks, in large part, to the NRA that gets $100 for a 10 hour CCW permit class (required to apply for the $140 CCW permit). I am sick of the objections to a $20 ID card for voting "rights" yet hearing that it is reasonable to require 12x that amount to KEEP your right to bear arms (handgun open carry is ILLEGAL in Texas). To turn a constitutional right into a CRIME, if you do not pay the appropriate state fee(s) in advance is, to quote Obama, UNPRECEDENTED.
 
Last edited:
I agree IF we can do the same thing for voting rights, whatever the requirement is for CCW permits is also the requirement for voting. The reason I want to couple these constitutional "rights" is to prevent the majority from imposing a "sin tax" on a constitutional right currently exercised by a tiny minority. We have seen the taxation of alcohol and tobacco rise due to voting for them as "sin taxes", in Texas a CCW permit is now $240 thanks, in large part, to the NRA that gets $100 for a 10 hour CCW permit class (required to apply for the $140 CCW permit). I am sick of the objections to a $20 ID card for voting "rights" yet hearing that it is reasonable to require 12x that amount to KEEP your right to bear arms (handgun open carry is ILLEGAL in Texas). To turn a constitutional right into a CRIME, if you do not pay the appropriate state fee(s) in advance is, to quote Obama, UNPRECEDENTED.

Got to admit you have a point there. If we're required to have CCW to exercise 2A carry rights, then it ought to be free of charge since any fee to vote would raise a howl they'd hear on Jupiter... and they are both guaranteed Constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
I agree IF we can do the same thing for voting rights, whatever the requirement is for CCW permits is also the requirement for voting. The reason I want to couple these constitutional "rights" is to prevent the majority from imposing a "sin tax" on a constitutional right currently exercised by a tiny minority. We have seen the taxation of alcohol and tobacco rise due to voting for them as "sin taxes", in Texas a CCW permit is now $240 thanks, in large part, to the NRA that gets $100 for a 10 hour CCW permit class (required to apply for the $140 CCW permit). I am sick of the objections to a $20 ID card for voting "rights" yet hearing that it is reasonable to require 12x that amount to KEEP your right to bear arms (handgun open carry is ILLEGAL in Texas). To turn a constitutional right into a CRIME, if you do not pay the appropriate state fee(s) in advance is, to quote Obama, UNPRECEDENTED.
I think that there is no problem with requiring ID to vote or even to buy a gun from a licensed dealer. The CCW class isn't the problem, it's the certification process which keeps the market non competitive and favors the provider and should be streamlined, I think as well that CCW should be no more than 20$ and permanent but revokeable for misuse. That's the easiest fix IMO.
 
Got to admit you have a point there. If we're required to have CCW to exercise 2A carry rights, then it ought to be free of charge since any fee to vote would raise a howl they'd hear on Jupiter... and they are both guaranteed Constitutional rights.
I'm willing to grant that a nominal charge for processing could be okay, but it should only apply to the processing of paperwork and not to exceed 20$.
 
That makes sense.

Hell, I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten, with an emphasis on both clarity and defending the right of citizens to have guns.



#1 is a good point. #2, however, is just a matter of being smart and not leaving the firearm in a compromised position.
I'm not a fan of rewriting the BOR to be honest, simply because I don't trust politicians to do so in a way that would only clarify the amendment, with the current batch we would end up with something much worse than arguments of the right's scope.

To the second point, there are techniques to drawing from a concealed postition that are better than others, and the holster at times can make all the difference in the world. The second point against unlicensed concealment is weaker than the first admittedly.
 
I'm willing to grant that a nominal charge for processing could be okay, but it should only apply to the processing of paperwork and not to exceed 20$.

...yup, and frankly some states are treating CCW as a "cash cow", using it to turn a profit to go into the general fund. That shouldn't be the case with a Constitutional right.
 
I agree IF we can do the same thing for voting rights, whatever the requirement is for CCW permits is also the requirement for voting. The reason I want to couple these constitutional "rights" is to prevent the majority from imposing a "sin tax" on a constitutional right currently exercised by a tiny minority. We have seen the taxation of alcohol and tobacco rise due to voting for them as "sin taxes", in Texas a CCW permit is now $240 thanks, in large part, to the NRA that gets $100 for a 10 hour CCW permit class (required to apply for the $140 CCW permit). I am sick of the objections to a $20 ID card for voting "rights" yet hearing that it is reasonable to require 12x that amount to KEEP your right to bear arms (handgun open carry is ILLEGAL in Texas). To turn a constitutional right into a CRIME, if you do not pay the appropriate state fee(s) in advance is, to quote Obama, UNPRECEDENTED.

Unless I'm missing something, I think that the price of a CCW permit should only cover the cost of a background check. And heck, I'm willing to go even lower than that--yes, down to $0.

But the right to keep and bear arms should in no way, shape or form be tied to the right to vote. They are two distinct yet important rights.
 
Unless I'm missing something, I think that the price of a CCW permit should only cover the cost of a background check. And heck, I'm willing to go even lower than that--yes, down to $0.

But the right to keep and bear arms should in no way, shape or form be tied to the right to vote. They are two distinct yet important rights.
The same principle applies though, rights are one of the few things that exist in life just because, and to limit one arbitrarily exposes the rest to that standard. I don't think anyone but anarchists would argue absolute rights, but they must have a high standard for limitation, for instance the right to conceal a weapon to permit actually does have a necessary and proper component in that it can lead to arresting a criminal prior to commission of a more serious crime, this isn't a limit on bearing the weapon but rather on a very specific use. Same with voting, we expect that everyone casts one vote properly in their district and the responsibility is to simply be honest, that we have fraud is reason enough to ask someone to prove in some way who they are. I'm even okay with someone doing a vote by sworn affadavit if they cannot produce an ID and then if they try to commit fraud the vote is not only thrown out but we've got the person on perjury AND voter fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom