Constitutional Carry or Stand your Ground Law ?

[demolitionman]

I got into a lengthy discussion with a friend of mine today that turned into a shit storm of back and forth concerning Constitutonal Carry being poised as useless among a myriad of reasons; one being “just because everyone in a constitutional state can carry doesn’t mean they are allowed to use their gun to protect themselves legally, but the Stand Your ground law is a much more important law to lawful gun owning citizens than constitutional carry, as it protects the individual far more than constitutional carry does.

I was asked, hypothetically, if given the choice between the two which would be the wisest decision for a state to pass if it can not have both(obviously I believe In shall not be infringed but we all see how that’s going) I am slightly embarrassed that I’m not sure I can come to a conclusion of which is the best of the two.
Well, hope I don’t come across as being an ignorant tool on the subject, but I wouldn’t be asking if I wasn’t.


Looking up states; 13 states have Constitutional Carry, and 25 states have Stand your ground law. Not all states that have Constitutional carry also have stand your ground and vice versa.

TLDR; which law gives more protection to our second amendment rights and which would you choose if you hypothetically had to choose one.

 

[candyx]

Guns laws to me are unconstitutional since they break the terms "Shall not be infringed". When it came to protecting my family or myself I never really took into consideration any fucking gun laws which I had to break in the first place to provide protection to my family which is a God Given Right where ever I maybe be standing at the time.

 

[DocRDS]

Depends on your state/jurisdiction.

Does Texas really need a "Stand your ground law?" meaning--if you shoot someone in self defense, in Texas, most people (jurors) will be like "He needed killin'" So TX could use a Loosened Carry law. SYG is basically the operating principle of the whole state regardless of what is on the books. Similar to the knife law they passed a while back. We all had knives, no one gave a crap about the law. You live in TX? You carry a knife. There might be cake. Or BBQ. Or someone who needs a stabbin.

Then there is CA. Liberal Prosecutors will try and nail you for anything including that stupid failure to retreat. Due to circumstances, CA would need it SYG 10X more than TX.

Everywhere could use some common sense and LEAVE YOUR CITIZENS ALONE.

(yes i realize TX has a SYG law. Point being even if we didn't, people would have the same attitude).
(yes all gun laws are illegal and laws don't grant rights. stfu and play along).

 

[Mwalex]

Which you would chose should never be a consideration. As free people we should have both WITHOUT government intervention or oversight. We are born with our rights, not granted freedoms by the government.

 

[demolitionman]

In my state we have SYG but not Constitutional Carry. I agree whole heartedly with the above sentiments you guys posted. It was just an awkward question and my friend believes if we can’t stop (well we can but you know the theme) the infringements on 2a, of the two SYG is far better than CC..... and I’m not sure what the commies in office don’t understand about “Shall not be infringed” yet here we are.

 

[...]

engaging this from a strictly hypothetical standpoint...ide imagine it would boil down to just how hard a carry license is to obtain. for normal life day to day shit.

Stand your ground is great.....but if no one can obtain a license, what good is it?

if you have a state where getting a license requires you to walk down to the police dept, and pay $15 and pass a NICS check......then yeah, if presented with these 2 options, i would go for Stand your ground.

if you live in a place like NYC, where you need to have the mayor put in a good word for you, and must renew your $800 license every year, have letters of reference from your past 6 ex-gfs, pass a shooting qual that the state police cant even pass......and even then you are limited to carrying a 5 shot revolver between the hours of 5:00pm and 9:00pm....then fuck it, ide go for constitutional carry.


From a constitutional point of view, im pretty sure ide have to go with Constitutional carry....as a freely armed populace is able to resist tyranny...if one were to overthrow a tyrannical govt....."stand your ground laws" dont mean a damn thing....if you win, you arent going to prosecute yourselves, if you lose, they have a whole list of other laws they can throw at you that youve broken........but its kind of hard to have a revolution if you arent permitted to own firearms.

 

[hankpac]

Constitutional carry is a God Given right (right for self-protection and protection of others, Right to be part of a local or general call-to-arms, by local or state or federal governing bodies). Two separate clauses in the Right . If you are Atheist, it is a law at the Federal level. Simple, unless otherwise prohibted, all citizens are empowered to exercise their 2d Amendment rights.
Stand your ground is State level. It defines duty to retreat, how far, and also defines, threat levels, and levels of force authorized. Far more detailed and far more complicated, and far easier to get wrong or misinterpret.

 

[davsco]

fyi at least in some states, stand your ground and/or castle doctrine aren't actual laws, but derived from case law.

but back to the OP, let's not choose between the two, we should have both the ability to keep and bear arms, and to use them in defense of life and liberty.

if you can't have guns but have syg/castle, then that is worthless. and if you can have guns but can't defend yourself (legally) then that is useless also.

 

[Choid]

Constitutional carry is a God Given right (right for self-protection and protection of others, Right to be part of a local or general call-to-arms, by local or state or federal governing bodies). Two separate clauses in the Right . If you are Atheist, it is a law at the Federal level. Simple, unless otherwise prohibted, all citizens are empowered to exercise their 2d Amendment rights.
Stand your ground is State level. It defines duty to retreat, how far, and also defines, threat levels, and levels of force authorized. Far more detailed and far more complicated, and far easier to get wrong or misinterpret.

That's actually not really true. At the time of the founding, the bill of rights wasn't considered to be incorporated to the states. That wasn't until 1865. So you could say that since 1865 it has been a God given right protected by the second amendment, it sure wasn't before that.

Stand your ground laws are great in theory, but they provide much less protection than they should in the face of a motivated DA. As to the question, stand your ground laws are probably more useful, because without them, your concealed firearm is almost as much a liability as a protection.

 

[demolitionman]

.....as to the question, stand your ground laws are probably more useful, because without them, your concealed firearm is almost as much a liability as a protection.

This was the argument I was given saying that in our state SYG is far better than CC. Obtaining a CCW is fairly inexpensive and easy here and can be finalized in just two days..... obviously this topic is more convoluted as each states laws differ. My gut tells me m Const. Carry would be the preferred one of the two options but it was argued to me SYG is and the reasoning was as you mention.

 

[Choid]

This was the argument I was given saying that in our state SYG is far better than CC. Obtaining a CCW is fairly inexpensive and easy here and can be finalized in just two days..... obviously this topic is more convoluted as each states laws differ. My gut tells me m Const. Carry would be the preferred one of the two options but it was argued to me SYG is and the reasoning was as you mention.

My state, Montana, has a pretty strong SYG law and castle doctrine. You have no duty to retreat, and you are only limited by reasonable fear, though you are explicitly not allowed to shoot somebody just to stop a property crime. Basically you have to reasonably believe that it is your way to stop any sort of forcible felony. Of course, enforcement depends on jurisdiction. In Missoula, you are much more likely to be charged at the edges than you are in the rural areas. Also, of course, you are much more likely to actually have an intruder in Missoula...

 

[Mwalex]

That's actually not really true. At the time of the founding, the bill of rights wasn't considered to be incorporated to the states. That wasn't until 1865. So you could say that since 1865 it has been a God given right protected by the second amendment, it sure wasn't before that.

Stand your ground laws are great in theory, but they provide much less protection than they should in the face of a motivated DA. As to the question, stand your ground laws are probably more useful, because without them, your concealed firearm is almost as much a liability as a protection.

That third sentence is absolute bullshit. Even WITHOUT a document spelling it out, as a free person you have the right to own a weapon. The government DOES NOT give people rights.

 

[Choid]

That third sentence is absolute bullshit. Even WITHOUT a document spelling it out, as a free person you have the right to own a weapon. The government DOES NOT give people rights.

I didn't disagree with what you said. I said that until 1865, it wasn't a God given right protected by the constitution from state interference, but I made clear that post 1865 it was. Now, if you put your thinking cap on, you could realize that its status as a God given right didn't change in 1865, but its protection did because of the incorporation doctrine. And you were talking about the fourth sentence, not the third.

 

[Mwalex]

I didn't disagree with what you said. I said that until 1865, it wasn't a God given right protected by the constitution from state interference, but I made clear that post 1865 it was. Now, if you put your thinking cap on, you could realize that its status as a God given right didn't change in 1865, but its protection did because of the incorporation doctrine.

View attachment 7573191

Ewww,... you can be witty. I got the gist of your post. If you wrote it there was no problem understanding it, trust me. The bullshit part is the perception that a right is not protected until the government protects it. The only time a right needs to be protected is from infringement by the government, local, state or federal. A right should never need to be protected because it should never be in question.

My earlier comment was not directed at you so much as the pervading belief that rights exist because the government says so. Shame your comprehension is shit.

 

[Choid]

Ewww,... you can be witty. I got the gist of your post. If you wrote it there was no problem understanding it, trust me. The bullshit part is the perception that a right is not protected until the government protects it. The only time a right needs to be protected is from infringement by the government, local, state or federal. A right should never need to be protected because it should never be in question.

My earlier comment was not directed at you so much as the pervading belief that rights exist because the government says so. Shame your comprehension is shit.

Rights don't exist because of the government. But rights can be restricted, destroyed or protected by the government. If they couldn't, people wouldn't scream about infringing, because it would be impossible.

 

[Not a Sniper]

The 2A is all we need to keep and bear arms. That shit is pretty plain.

Does a sumbitch need shootin'? Your call. But know your call will be picked like a nit from your State, judges, lawyers, and agendas.

Kinda a no win here, unless you consider judged by 12 instead of carried by 6 a clear win.

Shoot wisely is my opinion.

 

[Mwalex]

Rights don't exist because of the government. But rights can be restricted, destroyed or protected by the government. If they couldn't, people wouldn't scream about infringing, because it would be impossible.

I agree completely and that was my point initially but I just approached it from a slightly
Different angle.

 

[HeavyAssault]

Constitutional Carry is just the best way to protect a state citizen from the over reach of Federal GOV.
Stand Your Ground is better day-in-day-out for those that want to protect themselves, their family, or other innocent citizens that are in threat of their life, or personal well being.

While they sound in conversation to be the same thing, they are quite different entirely.

 

[LawnMM]

 

[rlsmith1]

What LawnMM said. Both but we have to start somewhere. Legislation doesn't often give rights back to the people but as this picks up steam, hopefully more laws like this will come about. So since they are doing constitutional carry, that's great. Dead men don't testify btw.

 

[Not a Sniper]

Constitutional Carry is just the best way to protect a state citizen from the over reach of Federal GOV.
Stand Your Ground is better day-in-day-out for those that want to protect themselves, their family, or other innocent citizens that are in threat of their life, or personal well being.

While they sound in conversation to be the same thing, they are quite different entirely.

"Duty to retreat" is the opposite of what you said. That is truly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Just, ever.

Charlie Manson shows up to poke you and write with your blood on the walls... (insert a local junkie here), and YOU need to retreat before perforating that worthless POS?!



Somehow-that doesn't work for me. In any way. DRT? That sends a message and is why they prosecute in certain places. Think young Kyle may have an opinion on this. Just guessing.

Worthless and contradicatory to the 2A as my dumb ass understands it. But I am not your local jury. Nor one of the Supremes. Must be rather hard to be that smart.

 

[HeavyAssault]

Ummmm....not sure what happened there. I never mention DTR.

 

[Not a Sniper]

Ummmm....not sure what happened there. I never mention DTR.

Sorry-I did. Making a point. If that is stupid, I'll remove it.

You were talking about stand your ground and such and I thought I was speaking to it. Defending yourself against violent harm, or even against felonies (in general) even in Commie Illinois, for instance, is allowed. And I assure you-Illinois is one of THE worst to live in for gun laws/rights.

I'll retract it if that seemed offensive to most.

 

[HeavyAssault]

Oh I'm good. No worries.

 

[Not a Sniper]

Wasn't trying to instigate, just commenting on reality.

All good I think.

Edit: Until banned. He said.

 

[HeavyAssault]

That's not what happened. I was reading your post as in you were quoting me. I was just like...I didn't say anything to DTR. LOL

I was just trying to suggest constitutional carry laws are state measures to prevent Fed GOV problems. SYG can be used in home, at work, in public. No reason to require any license for SYG in my home.
Sure SYG would need to be supported by concealed carry law to help the person in a workplace or public area situation.
In the end we can't have a Constitutional right removed by Fed GOV. It already says it's there for us, not for the GOV.
Cause damn it all if they think I'm going to retreat based on some law taking guns away. I sure as hell will SYG.

 

[Not a Sniper]

That's not what happened. I was reading your post as in you were quoting me. I was just like...I didn't say anything to DTR. LOL

I was just trying to suggest constitutional carry laws are state measures to prevent Fed GOV problems. SYG can be used in home, at work, in public. No reason to require any license for SYG in my home.
Sure SYG would need to be supported by concealed carry law to help the person in a workplace or public area situation.
In the end we can't have a Constitutional right removed by Fed GOV. It already says it's there for us, not for the GOV.
Cause damn it all if they think I'm going to retreat based on some law taking guns away. I sure as hell will SYG.

All good. Typing words can easily cause misunderstanding. I've been here for a while now.

Not in this here thread.

Reckon it is all good. I think we said what needs said. Folks can decide.

 

[The D]

They sort of have to be a package deal

If CC is legal but you will be prosecuted for defending you or your loved ones’ lives, then that law is fucking worthless. Although it should still be worth it to anyone to break this law to protect yourself or your loved ones. Or is there a minimum required distance you have to prove that you retreated, then you can take care of shit?

And what good is a SYG law if you can’t carry. Or is this implying that you need to jump through some additional hoops/cost/time to get a concealed carry license instead of just being able to carry?

 

[The D]

I guess I should choose one instead of pussyfooting around the question

I choose constitutional carry. It’s less infringement and less cost imposed on citizens. At some point, not being able to “stand your ground” turns into being trapped and in a more desperate situation but you should still be able to show you were justified in using your firearm

 

[HeavyAssault]

And what good is a SYG law if you can’t carry.

You don't need a concealed carry license in your own home. Sure a state may require some sort of weapons license while in home, but that's only a few states.

 

[The D]

You don't need a concealed carry license in your own home. Sure a state may require some sort of weapons license while in home, but that's only a few states.

True, I was assuming the scenario was being confronted out in public

Don’t SYG laws apply to being confronted in public too?

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Constitutional carry.
An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Choid]

True, I was assuming the scenario was being confronted out in public

Don’t SYG laws apply to being confronted in public too?

Depends on the state generally SYG at home = castle doctrine.

 

[The D]

Irregardless, I still choose constitutional carry of the two original choices.

 

[Choid]

So, there was an interesting castle doctrine case in Missoula a few years ago. Some dude had been robbed, and decided to "do something about it" so he left his garage door ajar, a purse in view, and set up a motion detector. Some dude came in to grab the purse, and the guy put four shotgun blasts into him. He was charged with premeditated murder and convicted. It was a crazy case. I don't know if he would have been prosecuted outside of town here, but he sure was in Missoula.

 

[The D]

So, there was an interesting castle doctrine case in Missoula a few years ago. Some dude had been robbed, and decided to "do something about it" so he left his garage door ajar, a purse in view, and set up a motion detector. Some dude came in to grab the purse, and the guy put four shotgun blasts into him. He was charged with premeditated murder and convicted. It was a crazy case. I don't know if he would have been prosecuted outside of town here, but he sure was in Missoula.

I remember that case and I agree with charging him with murder. Baiting someone like that is fucking awful

 

[Choid]

I remember that case and I agree with charging him with murder. Baiting someone like that is fucking awful

True, though taking the bait is hardly the mark of strong moral character. Probably doesn't qualify for assassination, though.

 

[LawnMM]

Duty to retreat implies it's always possible, and it isn't.

 

[DocRDS]

Duty to retreat implies it's always possible, and it isn't.

Not to mention some 2 bit prosecutor second guessing you when you had split seconds to make decisions.

 

[The D]

True, though taking the bait is hardly the mark of strong moral character. Probably doesn't qualify for assassination, though.

We’re talking about shades of retard.

 

[Choid]

Obviously, it is really f’ing important in how a jury perceives the defendant but the key element in a castle doctrine case would still be whether, at the time of the self-defense, there was an imminent threat of serious bodily harm.

Depending on the circumstances, like if the defendant was hiding and the burglar never knew the defendant was there then there could be scenarios where there is a question of whether an imminent threat of serious bodily harm existed or not.

It doesn’t seem like the guy in the above case was in danger of winning any intelligence awards since he is most likely the only one who would have relayed what the fact scenario was to Leo as far as whether there was a serious imminent threat at the time of the self defense.

IIRC, he had told some neighbors that he was going to bait in a burglar before he did it. He didn't explain his plan that way in court.

Different states have different levels of threat necessary for lethal force. Colorado and Montana, for example, require a "reasonable belief" that harm might come to the person or somebody else inside. That is not a high bar like imminent threat of serious bodily harm. I imagine it is a higher bar in most of Colorado than in most of Montana these days in front of a jury, though.

Stand your ground generally has a higher bar than castle doctrine, but each state writes its own laws. In MT, for example, castle doctrine requires reasonable belief that somebody is in danger, and SYG requires reasonable belief of imminent threat of a forcible felony to defend yourself or another.

 

[demolitionman]

True, I was assuming the scenario was being confronted out in public

Don’t SYG laws apply to being confronted in public too?

In our state SYG covers you anywhere in public and your own property.

 

[Choid]

Most states have statutes or case law specifically for homes or a dwelling like you said. In some states, lethal force can be used to defend a home without anything else. Where I was going with that is he probably screwed himself with his statements that he was defending personal property and not the home or his own safety.

Sure, and a lot of it depends on where you are. Our recently retired sheriff was known to tell women that if their husband was out of town, and they saw somebody creepy on their property, to just shoot them and call and he would personally help them drag the body inside. No evidence this ever happened, but he definitely put it out there. In Missoula county, which is one over, the juries and prosecutors don't look so fondly on the old west attitude as the ones here do.

It should be noted that our town has a population density of about one person per five square miles, so there isn't a whole lot of random crime. The rest of the county is barely more populated.

 

[JbBooks]

Depends on your state/jurisdiction.

Does Texas really need a "Stand your ground law?" meaning--if you shoot someone in self defense, in Texas, most people (jurors) will be like "He needed killin'" So TX could use a Loosened Carry law. SYG is basically the operating principle of the whole state regardless of what is on the books. Similar to the knife law they passed a while back. We all had knives, no one gave a crap about the law. You live in TX? You carry a knife. There might be cake. Or BBQ. Or someone who needs a stabbin.

Then there is CA. Liberal Prosecutors will try and nail you for anything including that stupid failure to retreat. Due to circumstances, CA would need it SYG 10X more than TX.

Everywhere could use some common sense and LEAVE YOUR CITIZENS ALONE.

(yes i realize TX has a SYG law. Point being even if we didn't, people would have the same attitude).
(yes all gun laws are illegal and laws don't grant rights. stfu and play along).

Texas needs a new runaway law, as in, if you moved to Texas from a liberal shithole you should run away back to that liberal shithole. That’s what I love about Oklahoma, the liberal fucks that are here were at least bred here and not transplants, so we at least have a chance to breed it out of them, without a new trailer load coming in every week.

 

[LawnMM]

Not to mention some 2 bit prosecutor second guessing you when you had split seconds to make decisions.

I work in LE, I'm used to it

 

[Choid]

Looking at this a little more, Montana’s self defense laws are actually not nearly as strong as some other states. Since, if you are using a gun, even in your own home in Montana, the following would apply:

• The entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
• The person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Definitely much weaker than the states like Oklahoma with “make my day” laws which only require an unlawful forcible entry and not a reasonable belief of forcible felony inside the occupied structure.

It's actually not much different. Oklahoma's law just assumes that forcible entry provides reasonable belief, but reasonable belief is an extremely low standard, and home invasion robberies are forcible felonies. Whether or not you can bait somebody and then shoot them in Oklahoma is unknown.

 

[Choid]

I would say it’s a damn important difference.

I would say you’re 100% correct if the jury is made up of bear pit members

But, what about a scenario of a clear forcible entry but it’s unclear whether the intruder even notices the homeowner. In that scenario, it’s hard to say whether there’s a reasonable belief of a forcible felony the way Montana defines that term.

What it does is it takes away the arguments of he was just stealing the tv to pay for college argument and he’s not violent and would never hurt anyone. It’s a bright line rule that justifies self defense for any unlawful forcible entry

OK, dude. Reasonable belief doesn't require any insight into the state of mind of the perpetrator, or any understanding of what he has or will actually do. All that it requires is that a reasonable person would fear that a forcible felony was likely. You do realize that hot prowls are forcible felonies, correct? The only difference is that it may be OK in OK to shoot somebody as he is leaving with your TV, and not in MT.

 

[Maggot]

fyi at least in some states, stand your ground and/or castle doctrine aren't actual laws, but derived from case law.

but back to the OP, let's not choose between the two, we should have both the ability to keep and bear arms, and to use them in defense of life and liberty.

if you can't have guns but have syg/castle, then that is worthless. and if you can have guns but can't defend yourself (legally) then that is useless also.

Seems to me they are somewhat apples and oranges.

-Constitutional carry pertains to firearms.

-SYG pertains to protecting yourself. If someone begins to assault you and you pick up a tire arm and bash his brains out when you could have run away you could still be liable. Or not.

Id go with CC. The hell with needing to us a tire iron.

 

[Choid]

Here’s how Montana defines a “forcible felony”:


"Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

So, the logical take away in Montana is that the defending home owner must still believe that the intruder is going to commit or threaten actual violence against the homeowner defending himself.

Big difference between that and any unlawful forcible entry imo.

Again, no. You fail to understand the reasonable belief test, and are trying to understand forcible felony in a narrower way than precedent and tradition do. But you do you. It doesn't really matter other than your two cent textualism keeps being wrong over and over.

 

[Choid]

I would say you’re mis interpreting reasonable belief. It’s not the same as reasonable suspicion for a Leo, which it seems to me you may be getting this confused with using the terms higher bar and lower bar like people do sometimes to say reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause.

States can differ but in general reasonable belief would be used to add in some type of objective component. Like, under the circumstances would a person of ordinary intelligence believe violence is likely to occur.

Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief are two completely different things. I’m not confused. Your description of reasonable belief is completely incorrect fwiw. The reasonable belief standard is more akin to not unreasonable to believe.