Constitutional Carry tracker.

[oldgunner]

There will be movement but it will not come to fruition. The Governor has said he will sign it if it reaches his desk and there is broad enough support in the House. But.

It passed in the House last session but was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee when nine RINO Senators voted to kill it. One has since died, the other eight aren't up for reelection for another two years and we have open primaries (and lifelong RINO politicians ) precisely because so many of our lifelong public servants used to be Democrats.

There compromise was the decriminalization of Open Carry but that had strings attached such as allowing municipalities to prohibit any carry for a long, laundry list of places and events.

One step forward, two steps back.

the tide is slowly turning across the country as each state slowly, one by one opts for CC. That's one area (there aren't many) I've actually seen progress in. Slow and steady wins the race

 

[Hoover]

There will be movement but it will not come to fruition. The Governor has said he will sign it if it reaches his desk and there is broad enough support in the House. But.

It passed in the House last session but was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee when nine RINO Senators voted to kill it. One has since died, the other eight aren't up for reelection for another two years and we have open primaries (and lifelong RINO politicians ) precisely because so many of our lifelong public servants used to be Democrats.

There compromise was the decriminalization of Open Carry but that had strings attached such as allowing municipalities to prohibit any carry for a long, laundry list of places and events.

One step forward, two steps back.

Just as there used to be a difference between democrats from rural areas or states and urban dems (that difference has largely disappeared), there is a difference between older GOP (especially as you point out the old geezers in red states who used to be dems but switched to GOP because dems can’t win those states) and younger GOP who were never dems. Those old former dems still love govt the dem Governor of NC is term limited and up in 2024. The Lt governor is a GOP and very pro 2A. I think you’ll see him elected as the next NC governor and NC pass constitutional carry in 2025. If that happens, SC will be surrounded by constitutional carry states and the only solid red state without it. That’s when the pressure will really build and they’ll pass it.

Louisiana elections are this fall, they’ll elect a GOP governor so they’ll have constitutional carry next year ar the latest. The current dem governor vetoed it twice so the legislature has plenty of support to pass it

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1627832466990931970?cxt=HHwWhIC9zaHAnJctAAAA

 

[appraiser]

A CC bill is making its way thru the FL House and Senate, with enough votes to get it passed..... and DeSantis says he will sign it when it hits his desk !

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1628095179641978895

 

[xtry51]

What we need now in CC states is lethal force allowed for defense of property. Keep pushing. Keep expanding self defense rights.

 

[Waher]

What we need now in CC states is lethal force allowed for defense of property. Keep pushing. Keep expanding self defense rights.

The issue with that is activist and criminal baiting to take advantage of those laws. They have to clearly written and understandable to avoid abuse. Someone getting killed for trespassing on property that's not marked and the like is something you don't want happening.

 

[Broc]

There will be movement but it will not come to fruition. The Governor has said he will sign it if it reaches his desk and there is broad enough support in the House. But.

It passed in the House last session but was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee when nine RINO Senators voted to kill it. One has since died, the other eight aren't up for reelection for another two years and we have open primaries (and lifelong RINO politicians ) precisely because so many of our lifelong public servants used to be Democrats.

Their compromise was the decriminalization of Open Carry but that had strings attached such as allowing municipalities to prohibit any carry for a long, laundry list of places and events.

One step forward, two steps back.

I don't hear many negatives.

One is dead.

The other 8 have 2 years left. The people that vote for them are too stupid and will most likely forget by then.

 

[Hoover]

The issue with that is activist and criminal baiting to take advantage of those laws. They have to clearly written and understandable to avoid abuse. Someone getting killed for trespassing on property that's not marked and the like is something you don't want happening.

You could also have swatting like situations where people post an ad for a free lawn mower, etc, at 5 Main Street Watertown. Mower is next to the shed, just take it. It would be very easy for innocent people to be killed by a set up like that. I think there are far too many potential negatives for that to ever pass. If you try to deal with the possible abuse of it etc the law would be gutted or so confusing a court would toss it.

 

[KBCraig]

What we need now in CC states is lethal force allowed for defense of property. Keep pushing. Keep expanding self defense rights.

Even in places where it's legal, it's a very bad idea. Not just for financial reasons, but for the sake of your own mental health.

 

[Hoover]

Even in places where it's legal, it's a very bad idea. Not just for financial reasons, but for the sake of your own mental health.

The only state which allows it is Texas and the allowance is very limited with many restrictions. Agree, it’s a very bad idea. Is any property worth possibly spending life in prison?

 

[xtry51]

The only state which allows it is Texas and the allowance is very limited with many restrictions. Agree, it’s a very bad idea. Is any property worth possibly spending life in prison?

No one is saying you MUST shoot.

I'm saying shooting a thief should be allowed. Period.

People who murder without cause will be arrested for murder. Don't fear monger over freedom. You sound just like antis. "We can't let everyone have guns! It'll be the wild west."

This is insane BS. TX allows lethal force for your and others property. There aren't "bodies in the streets"

 

[Hoover]

No one is saying you MUST shoot.

I'm saying shooting a thief should be allowed. Period.

People who murder without cause will be arrested for murder. Don't fear monger over freedom. You sound just like antis. "We can't let everyone have guns! It'll be the wild west."

This is insane BS. TX allows lethal force for your and others property. There aren't "bodies in the streets"

TX is the only one who allows it and it’s still restrictive.

Lethal force in defense of property is a very bad idea hence why only Texas allows it and it’s very limited and not recommended to do in Texas. There are not bodies in the streets in Texas because very very few people see it as wise to shoot someone over property.

Anytime you fire a gun at someone there is a chance a Prosecutor will see that as unlawful and charge you. If you kill the person, the punishment is up to life in prison. Any person on trial, even the most innocent person, has a chance to be convicted and sentenced to decades to life in prison is there is a fatality from the shot.

What property is so important to you that you want to risk the rest of your life in prison is a prosecutor decides to charge you and a jury buys the argument? What is so important and irreplaceable for property you own where you’d risk your life? Even if you win at trial, is the property worth the years of trial, the stress of the entire ordeal? The $250k or more you’d probably spend on your defense?

There are A LOT of negative aspects to lethal defense of property and few positives.

Believing lethal defense of property isn’t a great policy isn’t being anti, it’s being rational. If you want to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars for a legal defense and possible life in prison, I think that’s a very risky or poor choice.

Shooting in self defense of yourself or others is worth it. Life can’t be replaced like property, so the risk of prosecution and prison is an acceptable risk considering the negative impacts of doing nothing.

Btw, non lethal defense of property is an option always.

 

[xtry51]

It is your opinion property is not worth lethal defense. Your opinion should not restrict the freedom of others and protect criminals from consequences.

Your thought process is exactly how our country ends up protecting criminals.

 

[Howland]

Stealing what someone has worked for and earned which belongs to them is the equivalent of slavery. Is lethal force justifiable now?

On a related note, I'd like to hear the NH courts explain how the statutes prohibiting lethal force to protect property are not fundamentally in conflict with the provision of the State Constitution which declares, "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." Art. 2[a]

I'll wait.

 

[Hoover]

It is your opinion property is not worth lethal defense. Your opinion should not restrict the freedom of others and protect criminals from consequences.

Your thought process is exactly how our country ends up protecting criminals.

It’s a really stupid idea, that’s why no state allows it other than Texas and it’s very restricted in Texas and almost or completely non existent.

What property would you kill someone over?

 

[Hoover]

Stealing what someone has worked for and earned which belongs to them is the equivalent of slavery. Is lethal force justifiable now?

On a related note, I'd like to hear the NH courts explain how the statutes prohibiting lethal force to protect property are not fundamentally in conflict with the provision of the State Constitution which declares, "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." Art. 2[a]

I'll wait.

Scalia, Thomas etc have all said no rights are absolute. You have the right to self defense but the force you use must be reasonable in the situation. If someone slaps you, you can’t shoot them. Case law have developed these limits over hundreds of years. The US constitution, state constitution and fed and state laws are based on things going back 400 or more years.

 

[Hoover]

It is your opinion property is not worth lethal defense. Your opinion should not restrict the freedom of others and protect criminals from consequences.

Your thought process is exactly how our country ends up protecting criminals.

What is your proposal for deadly for in protection of property? Any limitations?

 

[pastera]

It’s a really stupid idea, that’s why no state allows it other than Texas and it’s very restricted in Texas and almost or completely non existent.

What property would you kill someone over?

What property do I believe I should have the right to defend is a better question.

Any property the offender is willing to do harm to me or mine in order to take is property they accept the risk of death or serious injury to get.
If they have accepted that risk, who am I to question?

 

[Hoover]

What property do I believe I should have the right to defend is a better question.

Any property the offender is willing to do harm to me or mine in order to take is property they accept the risk of death or serious injury to get.
If they have accepted that risk, who am I to question?

So no limitations on whom you can use deadly force against in a property theft incident?

 

[pastera]

So no limitations on whom you can use deadly force against in a property theft incident?

I have finite life.
In order to have property, I must give up a portion of that life to get the property.
The thief is willing to take that property that represents that lost portion of my life, they are also willing to take the entirety of my life to have my property.

So in fairness if the thief is willing to take my life to attain my property, why should I not be willing to do the same?

Not saying I would take a life for simple property but I believe there should be the right.

If the law allowed lethal force in the protection of property there would be a lot fewer people willing to take the risk leading to far fewer thefts

 

[Hoover]

I have finite life.
In order to have property, I must give up a portion of that life to get the property.
The thief is willing to take that property that represents that lost portion of my life, they are also willing to take the entirety of my life to have my property.

So in fairness if the thief is willing to take my life to attain my property, why should I not be willing to do the same?

Not saying I would take a life for simple property but I believe there should be the right.

If the law allowed lethal force in the protection of property there would be a lot fewer people willing to take the risk leading to far fewer thefts

So if some 14 yr old breaks into a car and steals toll change and trinkets, it’s legal to shoot them? You don’t think people will do a swatting type thing where they post an ad saying free lawn mower at 5 ma8n street. It’s next to the garage, just take it.

Non lethal force is always available.

Most theft is drug related. I doubt the risk of dying would stop junkies from stealing.

 

[Dench]

I have finite life.
In order to have property, I must give up a portion of that life to get the property.
The thief is willing to take that property that represents that lost portion of my life, they are also willing to take the entirety of my life to have my property.

So in fairness if the thief is willing to take my life to attain my property, why should I not be willing to do the same?

Not saying I would take a life for simple property but I believe there should be the right.

If the law allowed lethal force in the protection of property there would be a lot fewer people willing to take the risk leading to far fewer thefts

I don't think it would be sustainable in a society. Say you killed my brother for simple theft. Whose ass you think is next? Yours. or mine. Either way, killing people over trivial and petty bullshit would have us in a perpetual war with each other.

 

[pastera]

So if some 14 yr old breaks into a car and steals toll change and trinkets, it’s legal to shoot them? You don’t think people will do a swatting type thing where they post an ad saying free lawn mower at 5 ma8n street. It’s next to the garage, just take it.

Non lethal force is always available.

Most theft is drug related. I doubt the risk of dying would stop junkies from stealing.

Did say it was legal.
Did say that I would.
I said that it should be legal, period.
Stop staw manning.

All you have is that I must suffer the illegal acts of others because they don't respect their own life (druggies) or other's (thieves and swatters).

Your "just grab the lawnmower" example is silly since in the real world people would simply put a sign on the unwanted item or place it by the curb.
The person looking to grab the item would also know to contact the homeowners before grabbing property if the laws allowed deadly force property protection.
Junkies - sorry but you can't run a functional society around the whims of the dysfunctional underbelly

 

[pastera]

I don't think it would be sustainable in a society. Say you killed my brother for simple theft. Whose ass you think is next? Yours. or mine. Either way, killing people over trivial and petty bullshit would have us in a perpetual war with each other.

Society worked fine when it was expected to be shot for being caught in the act of breaking into a home or business.

 

[Dench]

Society worked fine when it was expected to be shot for being caught in the act of breaking into a home or business.

I think people can still be shot for breaking into homes, right?

Also, not what I was talking about really either.

 

[pastera]

I think people can still be shot for breaking into homes, right?

Also, not what I was talking about really either.

The discussion was property in general.
I agree that shooting someone over low value stuff is BS. An percussive instructional session - sure.
As soon as the theft involves direct or implied threat of violence then the only correct response should be lethal force

 

[Dench]

As soon as the theft involves direct or implied threat of violence then the only correct response should be lethal force

Man it would be easy to kill people you didnt like when no one else was around.

 

[Hoover]

Did say it was legal.
Did say that I would.
I said that it should be legal, period.
Stop staw manning.

All you have is that I must suffer the illegal acts of others because they don't respect their own life (druggies) or other's (thieves and swatters).

Your "just grab the lawnmower" example is silly since in the real world people would simply put a sign on the unwanted item or place it by the curb.
The person looking to grab the item would also know to contact the homeowners before grabbing property if the laws allowed deadly force property protection.
Junkies - sorry but you can't run a functional society around the whims of the dysfunctional underbelly

Very silly, "Free stuff" really wasn't up for grabs, family scammed

It’s happened a decent number of times around the country.

Deadly force over property is a really dumb idea and fraught with numerous issues. That’s why no state has it. Texas really doesn’t have it, it’s very restrictive and doesn’t ever really happen.

 

[Hoover]

I think people can still be shot for breaking into homes, right?

Also, not what I was talking about really either.

That’s the castle doctrine. What you can do as far as deadly force varies by state.