You Won't Believe This Sneaky TRAP That Gun Owners Face With Constitutional Carry!

YouTube ^ | 2 March 2023 | Tom Grieve, USCCA Lawyer

[COBOL2Java]

Don’t fall for this constitutional carry trap

---

The true purpose behind everybody trying to load up their state laws with sensitive places is not really about prohibiting you from carrying firearms in those places. It's about designating so many areas as sensitive places that it creates only tiny little isolated pockets where you're actually legally allowed to carry, and you can't plausibly do it without technically violating the law dozens of times every single day. Because the instant they stop you for any mundane reason and you happen to be in or near one of those locations you're going to catch a charge for unlawful possession and the courts will allow them to prohibit you from possessing firearms anymore.

[exnavy]

I am not saying that at all, do not speak for me.

[KrisKrinkle]

“...do not speak for me.”

I didn’t make a statement. I asked a question.

[Big Red Badger]

FJB...
JUST Pulled Cancer out of him...
Why bother?

[exnavy]

Really, read the first line of your statement to me, and say that again.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Really, read the first line of your statement to me, and say that again.”

You have to read the whole thing. Here it is again:

So, you’re saying when a property owner restricts you from carrying in your hand a cocked and loaded 1911 pattern pistol on that owner’s property, it s a violation of your “constitutional God given rights”?

It’s one sentence and the hook thing over a dot at the end (this: ?) is a question mark. If I was making a statement I would have ended the sentence with a period, as I will end this sentence and did end the one before it.

[exnavy]

No, dumbass, i am not saying that, stop putting words out and saying they are mine.

[KrisKrinkle]

:...saying they are mine.”

I am not saying that at all, do not speak for me.

[gitmo]

The Constitution only applies to certain unspecified, disconnected, small areas inside the borders of the US.

[eyedigress]

Stupid question.

This is about the USG telling you your right to carry is not allowed.

If a property owner says no carry, then it is no carry or you are now guilty of trespass.

[KrisKrinkle]

Stupid question.

I could have said that about the post it responded to which was: “All firearms laws, restrictions are a violation of my constitutional God given rights.”

This is about the USG telling you your right to carry is not allowed.

Notice that he didn’t limit it to USG firearms laws and didn’t limit restrictions to a government.

If he’d written “All firearms laws and government restrictions are a violation of my constitutional God given rights.” we wouldn’t be having this exchange.

If a property owner says no carry, then it is no carry or you are now guilty of trespass.

Which is a restriction levied by the property owner. Other rights may be restricted by a property owner too.

And back to: Stupid question.

Instead of saying something like that I asked a question to try and generate some thought.

As part of this exchange, I’ve been called a dumbass and told my question was stupid. You guys must be liberals.