The TIPPING POINT for Constitutional Carry – Online Self-Training

There is a LOT going on in the concealed carry world – and in particular the area of CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.

Constitutional carry is winning big.

For those who don’t know what constitutional carry means – it means (roughly, subject to NUMEROUS state and federal laws) that anybody who is legally allowed to OWN a weapon is allowed to BEAR that weapon in any legal manner, including concealment.

Practically, it means that law-abiding people in a constitutional carry state can carry a concealed weapon without a license. Since most people (particularly non-criminals) are somewhat scared to do this without training, in practice, there is little difference between a state with licensed, law-abiding, trained carriers and a state with unlicensed, law-abiding, trained carriers.

Ironically, this is a byproduct of liberal laws that kept chipping away, federally, at who could own weapons, and how that would be determined. Thus, at this point, one passes an FBI background check to simply OWN a weapon, so there is almost no issue other than TRAINING with the idea of letting the person CARRY that weapon.

And THAT is where I think we need to STRIKE HARD – assuring voters that – yes – concealed carriers in YOUR NEW constitutional carry state are going to be WELL-TRAINED, which is even better and SAFER than simply WELL-REGULATED.


The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin for signing Senate Bill 150 into law. SB 150 is NRA-backed legislation that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

“On behalf of the NRA’s five million members, we would like to thank Governor Bevin for his leadership on this critical issue,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This law is a common sense measure that allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right of self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

Kentucky already recognizes the right to carry a firearm openly without a permit. Current law, however, requires a state-issued permit to carry that same firearm under a coat or in a bag. This new law simply extends the current open carry rule to concealed carry. Those who obtain permits will still be able to take advantage of the reciprocity agreements that Kentucky has with other states.

NRA Institute for Legislative Action

My prejudice on the topic of TRAINING comes from having known somebody who was an early concealed carry (CC) trainer in an early CC state. That person – a former assistant DA, strongly influenced my thinking, even though I was not a concealed carrier.

Back then, CC licenses were generally hard to get and required considerable training. Not all states were “shall issue”, meaning that the state had to have a damn good reason to deny a permit. Denials were common and arbitrary – kinda like New York City and Washington DC.

There were many excuses NOT to grant permits. TRAINING was the most plausible one, but also the one that was most easily remedied.

“So you want training? I’ll get training.”

Most state laws had provisions for REQUIRED training, with various degrees of specificity. This was done, in part, to assure both legislators and voters that the CC legislation would not be a RISK to the public and LEOs (law enforcement officers) from untrained or poorly trained individuals.

What I learned, over the years, is that training REALLY IS IMPORTANT. Thanks to the knowledge I gained from this instructor, as well as what I learned myself in the following decades, I came to realize that training is not just a good idea – it is ESSENTIAL. If you, as a gun-owning individual, want your gun to be a guaranteed HELP and not a potential RISK TO SELF – both physically and legally – you NEED training.

I don’t care who DOES the training – even YOURSELF – you need training!

This tweet pretty much sums up the issue, minus my belief in the power of SELF-TRAINING.

NOW – before you start typing – nobody needs to tell me that forcing people to get more and more training is often a DODGE to knowingly suppress the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). Training is not cheap – and thus it is in many ways a POLL TAX and in some ways the VOTER SUPPRESSION of RKBA. The TIMING of training is also an annoyance for most, and an obstacle for many.

https://gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/ccw-training.jpg

And yet – of all the excuses that can be mustered up against constitutional carry, training is by far the most reasonable and plausible.

But here it the thing that changes the dynamic. The most important part of CC training, in my opinion, is not HOW TO SHOOT. It is actually WHEN AND WHERE NOT TO SHOOT.

The most important part of training, in my mind, is actually LEGAL. It is these points of KNOWLEDGE:

  • WHEN and WHERE a person may or may not CARRY
  • WHEN and WHERE a person may or may not DRAW
  • WHEN and WHERE a person may or may not FIRE

None of which requires anything beyond self-training, online, or from a booklet.

This is why I think that – if ANYBODY can carry, ANYBODY needs access to the BASICS of training.

If we BELIEVE that self-training is possible, and make it easy to get, then I believe there are no true logical barriers to constitutional carry in TWICE the number of states that now accept it. AND I think it becomes entirely possible for those states to have a reciprocity pact.

Trust me – the main message of all of this stuff is DON’T SHOOT. It’s not just assurance to people who are scared of guns – it’s assurance to YOU, the gun owner.

When I see ANY incident on the news where a concealed carrier is involved in a questionable shooting – either by the carrier or by an LEO, it is almost always apparent that the carrier was either not trained, or not paying attention to their training. And the parts they were not paying attention to were not the parts you learn on the range. They are the parts you get in a classroom, or from a book.

While I am going to support constitutional carry under almost any circumstance, I would PERSONALLY be much happier to see constitutional carry legislation accompanied by a minimalist ONLINE SELF-TRAINING – possibly with self-testing – that makes certain permitless carriers are free to become familiar with the rules of the road before they carry.

And there’s no reason this training can’t provide incentives for REAL training, too.

I don’t think this is a lot of money – probably far less than permit systems. But I do think that it’s going to help make constitutional concealed carry the SUCCESS that it really deserves to be.

Remember – TRAINING and TRAINING REQUIREMENTS are not the same.

WOLF snarls at training requirements, but he makes happy panting noises at TRAINING.

MOAR TRAINING is a good thing. It means fewer and fewer accidents, incidents, and problems. I believe it’s in everybody’s interest, too.

Train your dog. Train your WOLF!

W

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris

Agree, everyone needs training on the use of any firearm.
Regular trips to the range help too.
We gun owners need to do as the NRA /GOA does and actively participate in the legislative ‘process’ to break down the psychological barriers the anti 2A throw at us.
If certified training course will help meet that goal . I’m In. One of millions.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” -George Washington

ZooNTexas

They want to waste all there time telling us lies but I think that is the price of admission to be on the left. I wanted to thank you for posting the video that guy is spot on and it helps me to show people who are reluctant to read.

Pat Frederick

you actually answered a question I had on a story I posted on the open thread. an armed father shot an unpanted intruder in his 12 yr old daughter’s bedroom. shot him 6 times and did not kill him. would he have been justified in a lethal outcome? is a lethal outcome ever acceptable?
he yelled for the man to stop–(and since the police found a bag of heroin with his pants outside i doubt he would stop) but he didn’t listen so the father shot him.
I practice with handling and shooting my gun, but i believe training will help me answer these questions.

Kalbo

Great article, video and post!
Knowing the legalities are so very, very critical…before carrying a gun, pointing a gun, shooting the gun…
Training is so fundamentally necessary. As you rightfully highlight, legalities paramount.
Range time or familiarization handling, shooting also, right up there. Here in the desert, opportunities to shoot are abundant, free access, and largely unencumbered.
*** Firing a weapon in self defense is most always a life altering event. ***
– The degree of upheaval in the shooters life, is dependent on events that transpired.
– Thankfully, I have never drawn or used my weapon(s) in self defense.
Not intending to rant in these posts. But, knowing the State gun laws where one resides, training, mindset, etc. are vitally important that gun owners take seriously!

Kalbo

Yes. Those questions you mention are essential to know the answers to…before carrying a gun or using a gun for self defense.
Answers vary by every State. I encourage everyone that owns a gun, research the answers in your State.
As I travel between States, I actually research the laws in each State.
– Can I open carry?
– Conceal carry?
– Is one of my three concealed carry permits valid in each State I plan to travel through.
– Do I have to declare the weapon in my car, on my person if a law enforcement type pulls me over.
– Take a look at self defense with a gun in each State I travel through…
Last year, sadly I actually left my carry weapon with a gun dealer in Virginia, when I needed to travel into and reside in MD for a few days. Couldn’t legally do it. Paid the VA gun shop to clean my carry weapon, as an alibi to leave it with them. The owner knew why I was doing this. My Second Amendment Rights don’t exist in MD.
A starting point for information is. https://www.usacarry.com/
From there a Duck Duck Go search or the like for your State gun laws. Many private web sites have great information.

rayzorbak

The Conservative definition of Gun Control……..
Hitting where you aim!

Sylvia Avery

Thanks Wolf. I get a bit panicky over what seems like the constant unceasing onslaught of attacks on the 2A, especially in my deep blue state. It is so refreshing to hear of the battle being won in other areas.
I’m ALL for training. Certainly basis familiarization with your weapon and how to use it safely and accurately is important, but as you said above even more critical is knowing when and where to use it.
When I was young and learning about firearms the very first question I was told I needed to be clear on was could I do it? Could I actually use a weapon to potentially kill another human being to try to save myself or someone else? I had to give that some serious thought and realized finally yes, I could do it, and I don’t even think I would be unable to sleep or have gnawing guilt.
After deciding that issue, I learned that you never, ever draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it and that if you use it you need to shoot to kill and not incapacitate. It is deadly serious stuff. When I read about citizens firing warning shots in the air or some other nonsense I nearly take my shovel to the TV.
I do think the basics could be covered online.
Thanks for keeping 2A issues front and center in our awareness. The attacks continue (look at the fool Eric Swalwell who wants to confiscate our weapons) so we need to be strong, and being responsible gun owners and carriers only strengthens us.

Sylvia Avery

“the idea is don’t draw the weapon unless there is a clear cause to USE deadly force. It’s one or the other.”
Yes, agree completely.

Kalbo

“Warning Will Robinson. Warning!”
Caution, please. “…shoot to kill and not to incapacitate.”
Training that I have had reflects, when I am authorized to use deadly force, (shoot my gun) to stop a threat.
– i can only shoot to stop the threat.
– Not intentionally kill some one.
– Stop the threat.
– Then stop shooting.
– Immediately call 911. report a shooting in self defense, you were in fear for your life… Then, render first aid, if needed.
*** Get a lawyer prior to making any statement to the police, beyond being fearful for your life. You want to cooperate, but want a lawyer. ***
Now I may be firing rapidly, as a Deputy Sheriff did recently in Northern California.
– A bad guy fired at her at point blank range, (missed her IIRC).
– Her TRAINING, ADRENALIN and REFLECTS automatically had her draw and fire rapidly at the suspect.
– Probably emptied her magazine.
– She stopped the threat.
– Not trying to be warped here, but a bonus is the bad guy died.
Have had CCW training for NV, FL, UT and CA. Virtually positive deadly force can only be used in those States, to stop the threat.
Training in the legal application of deadly force, critically important.

Kalbo

Video for the Deputy Sheriff addressed above.
*https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-napa-sheriff-shooting-20190221-story.html*

Sylvia Avery

LOL under no circumstances should I be regarded as an expert!!!!
Just my two cents: when I was trained back in the day by an LEO it was to never go for lethal force unless you believe your life is in danger, and if it is aim for center mass. If you mess around thinking you’ll shoot the guy in the foot or the shoulder (like they are always doing on TV) chances are excellent you’ll miss and then you will have a real problem.
But times have changed and laws change. By now, training probably would indicate you disarm and hand your weapon over to the intruder and lay on the floor with your hands interlocked behind your head. 🙂

Kalbo

Makes two of us. Me not an expert on much of anything, with one exception. Full of opinions:-)
“…aim for center mass” is what I was taught.
I suppose in the heat of the moment, more likely to hit the target, and stop the threat.

Sylvia Avery

I thought you made a lot of sense. Enjoyed your opinions!!

pgroup

Sylvia, there’s not a lot to like about the politics in our beloved WA state. But there is a lot to like about a whole bunch of sheriffs and police chiefs across our 39 counties.
A slew of county sheriffs say they will not enforce the new initiative gun laws. I wish I knew the number off-hand but I think it’s over one-third.
Suppose they gave a gun law and nobody obeyed it. We’re gonna find out.

Sylvia Avery

I agree about our sheriffs. I had no idea the number was so high, and that is great news indeed!!! God bless them.

rayzorbak

I’d rather be Judged by 12…..
Than CARRIED by 6

rayzorbak

Outlaw Guns……
and ONLY outlaws will have guns

rayzorbak

When seconds count……
The cops are minutes away

Harry Lime

“the constant unceasing onslaught of attacks on the 2A”
Yes! It’s always a good idea to know who your enemies are, too. Proponents of disarming legal, law abiding citizens are not in short supply and they never give up. Who on earth would want to make a free population less safe by leaving them defenseless against criminals and thugs (of ALL varieties!)? You don’t have to answer that question…as it’s obvious to what their aims are.comment image

Harry Lime

Where and how does Vegas fit in? Still a mystery…
I really hope that Vegas is one of the things that gets explained before the Trump Administration ends…

SteveInCO

Be aware that there are some states that pass constitutional carry, but only for their own residents, then proudly claim to be constitutional carry. In essence they leave their CC permitting in place, but except their own people from it–they don’t exempt out-of-staters.
There was, a few years ago, a bill in the Colorado legislature that did pretty much this–all of the convoluted language about needing a permit to carry concealed was left in place, they just added a statement that Colorado residents were exempt from it. It didn’t go anywhere, of course, even though we held one house of the legislature then.
(Colorado, by the way, is like many Western states [and some eastern ones!] in that it has NO prohibition on open carry. Except in Denver, and only by the grace of some weird procedural crap that happened in our court system. Also, many government facilities ban “the display of firearms” which means you are free to conceal there, with a permit–but not carry openly. For instance, the city airport–as long as you don’t try to go through the TSA gropefest/striptease, and the county clerk (which is where you get your driver’s license, but beware, you have to take your jacket off for the photo.))

SteveInCO

The Truth About Guns used to feature articles by a guy who kept counting Wyoming as “Constitutional Carry” even though that was what they had passed.
It ain’t constitutional carry for the overwhelming majority of Americans!

thinkthinkthink

If people can get points off a traffic ticket by doing online training, why not get the “by the book” gun owners training using the same model. Online training could be created by 3rd party businesses and use fees deducted from your state taxes or incentivized in some other way if no state taxes. I like it!

thinkthinkthink

Living in Atlanta for a multi-year gig, the story of Newt Gingrich convincing his town (just north of ATL) to pass a law that all citizens MUST own a gun would go around every now and then. The word was that their crime rates dropped like a lead balloon.

SteveInCO

Of course if one owns a gun but keeps it locked up, it’s not going to do a heck of a lot of good when it’s needed. So one must beware of mandatory storage laws and the like.
If home invasions are a thing where someone lives he/she should carry even when at home.
And if I may go out on a limb, women gain two full points on the Bo Derek 1-10 scale when armed (or 2/3rds the distance to 10, whichever is less, meaning it won’t add much to anyone here, close as you all are to 10s to begin with).

Alison

LOL Nice try, Steve. 😊

ozzytrumpster

Flattery won’t work but you can keep talking.
Ot(again) draw and strike delicious this am

scott467

“…so there is almost no issue other than TRAINING with the idea of letting the person CARRY that weapon.”
__________________
Small but important point, and I realize it’s just out of habit or common way of speaking, but it kind of goes to the whole point, i.e., nobody ‘lets’ us be armed — that RIGHT was given by God, and further recognized in writing in the Constitution, which serves as a kind of guarantee that our preexisting RIGHT will not be infringed by any government miscreant.
A guarantee which for far too long We the People have not ENFORCED and held the aforementioned civil miscreants accountable to.
And it is interesting to note that the Right is to ‘bear arms’, the word ‘gun’ is never mentioned. It is true that the ‘gun’ was the most powerful personal armament available at the time the Constitution was written, but if it had specifically said ‘gun’, then the civil miscreants and miscreant judges would interpret that EXTREMELY strictly, as soon as something better came along, thereby restricting We the People to the ‘gun’, while They the Miscreants used whatever new and better technological weapon(s) exist.
We have a RIGHT to be armed, and we can’t be ‘armed’ without having ‘arms’ on our person.
As to concealed or open, the government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell us how to dress, or where I should put my ‘arms’, just as the government has NO RIGHT to tell me where to carry my wallet, or my car keys.

SteveInCO

I have to agree.
It’s a fantastic idea to be trained.
But government has no business requiring it before you can exercise your right.
However (unusually, for me) I could see a constitutional warrant for government providing training as it would aid in defense against invasion.

scott467

“However (unusually, for me) I could see a constitutional warrant for government providing training as it would aid in defense against invasion.”
_______________
So long as that training is optional… but then how is the training paid for? Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize it, and if it is provided at cost to the trainee, then the government is essentially in competition with private enterprise.
No worry though, OUR government would NEVER train our citizens to be proficient with firearms, for the very specific reason that it would aid US in defense against TYRANNICAL government (i.e., them… think Peter Strzok, or John Brennan, or Comey, or Klinton, or Hussein, or Holder, or Rice, or Waters or Piglosi or Cummings or Blumenthal or Warner or Swalwell or any number of RINOs, all the many poster children for tyrannical government).

SteveInCO

Yes, OPTIONAL! (Can’t be made clear enough.)
I was thinking that, because it would be beneficial to national defense to have a trained rifle behind every blade of grass, it should be paid for by the government in this case. Of course, not the same skills as would likely be called on by a CCW holder dealing with a bad guy, so maybe this isn’t relevant to the topic of training associated with carrying a pistol for self-defense against thugs.
But yes, you’re right; Fat Frigging Chance in our current political environment.

ozzytrumpster

Awful story that ended well. The teenage son and his cousin were shooting at a target on an old shed with a rifle at our place. Unbeknownst to them my mum, their grandmother, had got up early and gone for a walk to see the wildlife and flowers . They only spotted her when she came out from behind the shed line of vision. WTF moment .Fortunatley mum in her eighties and getting a bit deaf, had no idea she had been under fire. Boys learned to account for EVERY inhabitant before shooting and not assume anyone still in bed. Also it was not such a nice idea to start shooting so damned early in the first place.

SteveInCO

“Hey, no mini guns before 10AM!!!”

ozzytrumpster

Wasn’t a mini gun. Was a nasty I will kill you rifle. When mum got back they were ready to grovel and beg forgiveness but she opened the conversation with what a lovely walk she’d had. We had the sense to all STFU

SteveInCO

Yeah, I know, but your comment about it being too early in the day reminded me of an in-joke with a friend of mine.

Kalbo

^^^ Exactly! ^^^

Volgarian8301

Moar training?…..hmmmm, that means MOAR time at the range to practice that training….
Win Win!!

Kalbo

Also, MOAR time to review the law.
Although I enjoy the range time far more than reviewing the laws….

Plain Jane

One thing I hate, is the thought that some women purse carry. Excuse me Mr. Bad Guy while I retrieve my P238 from my purse. No, no, and no.
Or “someone stole my purse with my G26 inside.” No, no, no.

Plain Jane

I know fanny packs are not cool, but I’ve worn them many times and am comfy with them. Just need to find one for carry.

pgroup
Plain Jane

Pgroup, a bad guy just might run away while I draw if he thinks this 70+ yo is flashing him.
Seriously, I’ve been debating a flash bang. Thanks for the link.

kalbren2r1

Hubby wore a fanny pack for concealed carry. It was made by Bianchi, called the Ranger. Pockets for carrying personal items and an ambidextrous access concealed compartment. It was purchased in the late 70’s so he does not know if the model is still made. It held up well. Just this last year the Velcro on the concealed compartment gave out. It is going to a shoe repair shop for repairs. Can Can Carry has neat on body carry options for the ladies. One is a waist belt that would be similar to a fanny pack carry.

Plain Jane

They are very practical, especially when I have to use my cane. Crip people make good targets for hold-up or purse snatching. Fanny packs make things more difficult for bad guys. I want one with cut proof waist strap.

kalbren2r1

Hubby uses a cane too. Yes, handicaps make people a target. Good luck on your hunt for the best way to CC.

scott467

“I know fanny packs are not cool, but I’ve worn them many times and am comfy with them.”
________________
Well, we don’t really need to be cool.
It’s nice, BUT, it is better to be armed 😁
Seems (to me) that fanny packs are always fine for the ladies, and depending on what you are doing, they are a good option for men too. Might be a good option if you’re jogging (if there’s a way to tie it down so it’s not flopping around), or mountain climbing, etc.
Fanny-pack could also be a good option at the beach or other areas where shorts and a T-shirt are the norm, making it difficult to conceal on-body.
It always helps to know in advance where you will be, so you can plan your concealed carry accordingly.

Plain Jane

Just caught yoursecond sentence Wolfie. Yes :-).

scott467

“But yes – there is a lot of cringe there. Especially when I see toddlers digging through mom’s purse. People who off-body carry need to maintain strong control of their arm at all times.”
_______________
I would recommend a revolver if someone uses purse-carry and has toddlers.
A pistol needs a round chambered (IMO) to be useful on short notice. Even a manual safety can be disengaged by little fingers, and trigger pull is relatively light on pistols.
A revolver (normally) has the benefit of a heavy trigger pull, and a toddler doesn’t have hands big enough to get around the handle for leverage to reach and squeeze the trigger, and a toddler is not strong enough to pull the trigger without that leverage, which requires larger hands than the toddler has.
It would be easy enough to test (using an unloaded weapon, of course) to see what a toddler can and cannot do.

ozzytrumpster

Never underestimate how much trouble your toddler can get into. Plus they growing and learning every day

scott467

“One thing I hate, is the thought that some women purse carry. Excuse me Mr. Bad Guy while I retrieve my P238 from my purse. No, no, and no.”
_________________
There are always exceptions, but generally, the best argument for off-body carry is that it’s better than not having a gun at all.
If a woman (or… man?) does ‘purse carry’, you would want to make sure the gun is properly oriented at all times for easy and predictable location, grasp and removal, which means a holster secured to the inside of the purse. Preferably a purse designed with that purpose in mind.
I have seen video of someone wearing a fanny-pack in front, and with practice, being able to draw the weapon and get shots on target nearly as fast as drawing from concealed appendix carry.
Due to reasons of toxic masculinity, I am precluded from ‘purse carry’.
And the fanny-pack, of course, violates the Eastwood principle. 😁

Plain Jane

Agree, but I, for myself, am considering fanny pack for sometimes. Women’s pants are not at all hospitable to carry. Pockets in jeans need to be altered to make deeper, elastic waist pants with deep enough pockets are nearly pulled down by the weight of the firearm, and when one draws, the holster comes with it, even the “ sticky” holsters etc. Belly band is option, unless one is wearing a dress or a fitted top.

kalbren2r1

CanCan carry has a garter carry for under dresses.

kalbren2r1

Can Can Concealment as listed in the hyper link by pgroup.

Plain Jane

Just looked again at the link. I didn’t see the hip hugger classic before… looks interesting and possible.

Plain Jane

Looked their products overat our local gun store. Most not practical for me, but thank you.

scott467

“Agree, but I, for myself, am considering fanny pack for sometimes.”
______________
Definitely better to carry in a fanny-pack than to not carry at all 👍
.
“Women’s pants are not at all hospitable to carry. Pockets in jeans need to be altered to make deeper,”
_______________
I like the idea of pocket carry, but even with baggy men’s pants, once you add a pocket-holster (important as a trigger-guard and for keeping the pistol oriented so you can grasp the handle without fishing around for it), it’s not easy to conceal anything larger than one of the micro .380s.
I would be more comfortable with a .380 as a back-up gun than as a primary. Even more comfortable with a 9mm as a back-up gun and a .45 as a primary 😁
But due to size constraints, 9mm/.380 (primary/back-up) or 9mm/9mm (primary/back-up) is often a reasonable compromise… unless it’s winter and you can pack your .44 Magnum under your coat 😁
A small .380 back-up gun would work in a bra-holster, ankle-holster or pants pocket (in baggy pants).
.
“…elastic waist pants with deep enough pockets are nearly pulled down by the weight of the firearm, and when one draws, the holster comes with it, even the “ sticky” holsters etc. Belly band is option, unless one is wearing a dress or a fitted top.”
_______________
You might try the belly band, and wear it low on your hips, so the handle is at about the same height as it would be with appendix carry. That way you can wear elastic waist pants without any problem since the weight of the gun not being carried by the pants.
I would look for a belly band that either incorporates some kind of trigger guard, or (more likely) is made of a thick enough material that the trigger cannot be pulled if you catch it on something you brush up against.
Seems like I don’t see many people talk about SHOULDER holsters, either for back-up or primary. While some are pretty heavy-duty harnesses, there are lightweight versions available now that are somewhat minimalist and very comfortable for all-day wear, or even just wearing around the house (concealed or not), like this one: https://www.galcogunleather.com/classic-lite-shoulder-system_8_2_1057.html
For reasons that make no sense to me, Galco does not yet have the holster above for your P238 OR the Sig P365. But there are other companies making knock-offs, like this one for the P238, which looks identical to the Galco: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Premium-Nubuck-Leather-Shoulder-Holster-with-Single-Carrier-for-Sig-Sauer/132709895127?hash=item1ee6204bd7:m:mWmGGaYxAMOYj5jgMJgaRqQ
With a firearm the size of a P238 or a P365, in a small and lightweight shoulder holster, you would forget you were wearing it and it would disappear under your arm — even if you have ‘little guns’ (i.e., biceps) 😁
With the Sig P365 and the OEM 12-round extended magazine (handle/grip length don’t really matter in a horizontal shoulder-holster), you have one of the smallest 9mm firearms available, 13 rounds (including one in the chamber), and that 9mm round can do a lot of damage if you carry the right ammo.
P365: https://www.sigsauer.com/products/firearms/pistols/p365/
Clay Martin (former Navy SEAL and current Guns America columnist/tester) likes this ‘new’ ammo, and I’m interested to try them out myself. Makes amazing BIG big holes, without hollow-points, so it also defeats barriers:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/g9-bullets-review/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20190311_BlogDigest_320&utm_campaign=/digest/g9-bullets-review/

scott467

Forgot to mention, about the primary / back-up thing. Yes, always carry at least one extra magazine of your favorite ammo, but unless your back-up gun is on your ankle, it will usually be faster to draw your back-up gun than it will be to reload your primary.
And if you HAVE to reload your primary, that means something has really gone wrong, in which case time is definitely of the essence.
Even with lots of practice and muscle memory, it’s still a complex task to eject an empty magazine, retrieve a loaded magazine from wherever you keep it, orient the magazine properly, insert the magazine and rack the slide, all while keeping your eyes on the target, with an adrenaline dump surging through your system.
Basic motor function ability would seem to favor grabbing for your back-up gun in that scenario. It’s usually faster, and fewer things can go wrong.
Also, if for some reason your primary should fail, or if you lose control of your weapon in a scuffle (either dropped, knocked away or taken away), your back-up gun means you’re still in the fight.
Or if you’re in a mass-shooter situation, at church for example, your back-up gun can be given to someone who knows how to handle a firearm, and now it’s the two of you against one loon.
A back-up gun is a very handy thing to have, even if it’s just a little .380, because a .380 beats nothing, every single time 👍

pgroup
daughnworks247

A Federal Concealed Carry law makes so much sense, and Federal Control, because it’s a constitutional amendment is a no-brainer.
This is one place, I never understood it, the Federal Government SHOULD wade in.
Gunner is all over this issue, as we are close to a major metro. Legally, he cannot carry across a state line, which is WHEN he would need it most.
And yes, when NOT to carry or use a gun is most important.

scott467

“A Federal Concealed Carry law makes so much sense, and Federal Control, because it’s a constitutional amendment is a no-brainer.”
________________
Counterpoint: if that was the case right now, if control was in the hands of Central Gov’t, we would most likely already have lost our right to carry, and it would be lost everywhere.
It’s the individual states who are fighting back against restrictive federal gun laws. I just read an article today showing that it is because of the draconian overreach of the federal government that more and more states are passing ‘Constitutional Carry’ laws.
What would really put an end to all the idiocy and different laws everywhere you go, is for the (not)Supreme Court to find their testicles and FINALLY spell out the 2nd Amendment in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
Then all the madness and lawfare stops, because it is only the ambiguity and the ability to judge-shop that enables the gun-grabbers to wage this war against us.

Kalbo

What would really put an end to all the idiocy and different laws everywhere you go, is for the (not)Supreme Court to find their testicles and FINALLY spell out the 2nd Amendment in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
^^^^^^^^^

Kalbo

Got it.
Will try to figure my Gab password.
On this site strictly Kalbokalbs. Made that change months ago. Did not at that time, give you a heads up. Should have.
Set up on Gab months ago when you recommended we do so. Seems a flurry of us did at the same time. I followed numerous of our regulars. Thankfully for me they followed back. Rather sure I followed you at the time. Believe you recipricated.
Couple days ago, on Gab, I posted, ” checking in”.
When I get on Gab, I post geographical location and use name.
Appreciate the query, heads up and reaffirm, if things get squirrelly, I intend to stay in contact with the sanest Americans that I know!
Presently in Philippines, connectivity small but manageable challenge.

Kalbo

Just noticed the date on your post above.
Not sure why it just showed on this device.

Gail Combs

scott
The UnSupreme Court has been the ENEMY of the People of the USA since FDR threatened to pack the court and the eleven senile old men said a farmer growing his OWN wheat to use on his OWN farm was ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION!
That ruling has caused the Federal Government to become the overbearing monster we now have. The other major ruling by the UnSupreme Court was that a trial by jury was not necessary DESPITE the Constitution and Amendments so a Bureau of the Federal government could determine weather or not someone had broken a REGULATION using an INHOUSE TRIBUNAL instead of a jury!!!

“Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”
The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….
….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….
http://prorev.com/juries.htm

Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …
The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.
In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

Also Obama signed a very nasty Executive on December 17, 2009 INTERPOL now has full immunity from U.S. laws. In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.
With luck President Trump has recended that EO.

scott467

“With luck President Trump has recended that EO.”
__________________
With OBLIGATION he better have rescinded that EO, for it was yet another High Treason by the Usurper Fraud, Hussein the Kenyan.

scott467

It is unreal, what the lawless lawyers have done to our Republic.
The best thing that could happen is to outlaw that miserable profession, destroy the ‘universities’ that churn out such haters of our Republic and of Freedom, go back to Common Law and have citizen jurists.

scott467

And citizen-delivered justice.
The government has wholly failed in its duties and obligations in this regard, as it has failed spectacularly in nearly every other.
Our government is at once the biggest leach on the planet, and the greatest oppressor. It is a parasite which could not exist without sucking us dry like a vampire.

scott467

And the federal government is what gave us the NFA, which is used to regulate whatever ‘they’ want, based on whichever direction the political winds are blowing at any given point in time.
If there is one thing of which we must be absolutely certain, it is that we can NEVER EVER TRUST the federal government to do anything besides accumulate power to itself by taking power away from US.

wheatietoo

I’m just gonna leave this here, in keeping with the general topic of this thread.
Heeehee.

A Fortiori

Wolfie — I have done a bunch of the training you describe, on my own, and this is how I think it should be done.
I view firearms as part of a continuum of tools. As a small child you learn to work with simple hand tools, moving from the less dangerous hand tools to the more dangerous ones. You carry a knife and learn to ensure it is properly maintained. You then graduate to powered tools, perhaps starting with wood burners or soldering irons or a hand drill, and then to more dangerous tools like reciprocating saws and grinders and lawn mowers, etc. Firearms fall within this progression too. When you are young, you usually have someone guide you as you learn the particular characteristics of each tool, which require eye protection and/or hearing protection, etc. As you mature you do this yourself. My point here is that part of acquiring and using any tool is taking personal responsibility for using it safely.
This is my primary concern with having any form of legal training prerequisite to concealed carry. This diminishes the idea that we should all, personally, take responsibility for ourselves. When I take one of my cars in for mandatory safety inspections, they never find anything I don’t already know about, and indeed they don’t find things that are already on my list of things to fix. I know that driving is the single most dangerous thing I do on a regular basis and I maintain my cars accordingly. I know lots and lots of people who think “the inspection will tell me what I need to know, so I don’t need to worry about whether my car is safe to drive.” This mentality is a direct result of having government mandated inspections.
My second concern is that any form of licensing prerequisite creates a point of control. This creates opportunities for the busy bodies who are forever looking to find ways to control people’s lives to do exactly that.

thinkthinkthink

Took a look at county by county requirements in California just now and the map really tells you something about the make-up of the electorate. http://baggss.us/comment image

ragnarsbhut

It seems to me that the right to keep and bear arms, which is a Constitutional guarantee, should negate the requirement for a permit to open or conceal carry. Just my thoughts.

ragnarsbhut

Wolfmoon1776, outside of criminal and mental health background checks, the only prohibition I would have on gun sales are to people under the age 18 without parental consent. Where do you stand?