Rob Pincus recently announced that he was running for theÂ 76th Seat on the National Rifle Associationâ€™s Board of Directors. Since then, Rob has been asked to clarify his positions on several topics that matter to those of us who believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Here’s a brief analysis of where Rob stands on open carry, Constitutional carry, and mandatory gun training as it relates to a carry permit process.Â
There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Rob supports open carry, and honestly, I cringe every time this topic comes up. Almost without exception, when open carry is discussed, if a person disagrees with guns being used as a political prop, a certain percentage of gun ownersÂ will jump to the unsupported and erroneous conclusion that the person must be against the legality ofÂ open carry (ask me how I know).
The fact is that I have offended more than a couple of people over the past few years by clearing stating that I do not think confrontational open carry activism is the way to keep the Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement moving forward. Unfortunately, when I say â€ Iâ€™m against confrontational open carry activismâ€, some people hear â€œIâ€™m against open carry of a firearm being legal.â€
If you disagree with Rob, that’s completely fine in my book, we’re all allowed to have differing opinions and healthy debate is a good thing. However,Â saying that because someone is against guns being open carried purely for confrontational/political reasons, that they are somehow against open carry altogether, is not ok. There’s a huge difference. The former is whether or not the practice is a good idea, the latter is whether or not the practice should be legal.
Another way I like to explain this concept is to use the example of illegal drugs. I think if you are an adult and you want to shoot Heroine there shouldn’t be laws preventing you as long as you aren’t harming others in the process. Just because I think it should be legal doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or think it’s a good idea. You see the difference? That’s how I read Rob’s position on open carry, and he elaborates more here.
On the topic ofÂ Constitutional carry, that is, the ability to carry a firearm either openly or concealed without being restricted by law, I again agree with Rob.
I am 100% for the right of anyone who can legally own a firearm to be allowed to legally carry it for defensive purposes. That is how [I] interpret a state not requiring anyone to obtain a special permit to carry a firearm. Vermont, Alaska and, most recently, Arizona allow this to happen and most of us in the RKBA Community refer to this as â€œConstitutional Carryâ€â€¦ the opportunity to carry a firearm without â€œinfringementâ€.
I believe that Carry Permit Laws exists to tax and inconvenience people who are seeking to exercise their right, and meet their responsibility, to be capable of defending themselves.
I agree with Rob.
Mandatory Gun Training
On the topic of mandatory gun training, I again find myself agreeing with Rob. Mandatory training is a very bad idea in my book, and gives politicians way too much power to restrict liberty.
As someone [whose] primary source of income for most of his adult life has been teaching people defensive firearms skills, it surprises some people thatÂ I am Against Mandatory Firearms Training in order to own, purchase or carry a firearm of any kind.
If this surprises you, here’s why Rob is against it, emphasis added:
I honestly have no faith in an administrative bureaucracy to develop an adequate mandated course that would be practical on the scale necessary. If I were given the choice tomorrow between establishing a national standard and designing it myself or abolishing training requirements, I would choose the latter.
What did surprise me a bit is Rob’s position on mandatory gun training in schools:
Letâ€™s step away from CCW Permits and Defensive Carry for a moment, what about general firearms safety education?Â I am For Mandatory Firearms Safety Education for Children in our Public School System. For well over a decade, I have lamented the public education industryâ€™s position on the danger of firearms being completely inconsistent with their position on any other â€œdangerousâ€ topic. Drugs? Danger=Education. Smoking? Danger=Education. Sexually Transmitted Disease? Danger=Education. Guns? Danger=Demonization.
This is an interesting perspective, and once I gave it some thought, I can say that I would support this but with a huge asterisk. That asterisk being that I would rather see the Department of Education abolished altogether, but that’s a lengthy discussion in and of itself.
You can read Rob’s full positions and learn how to support him for NRA BOD here. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this, and whether you will be supporting Rob or not. Based on what I know of Rob, and his positions on open carry, Constitutional carry, mandatory firearms training and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in general, I see no reason why he wouldn’t be an excellent choice for NRA Board of Directors.
He would be excellent in that position. He is articulate, well spoken and an excellent advocate for our 2nd Amendment rights. I have to agree with his positions on many of these fronts. I have no time for confrontational open carry, it just shows the mentality of the people that choice to embark on this type of behavior. It serves to push our objectives backward, rather than forward, where we all will agree it needs to go.
I agree with Mr. Pincus and will be voting for him at NRA AM. Will Monderno be in attendance?
Yep, Dan and I will both be there.
I agree with Rob’s positions as stated – it is, I believe, important that those that own firearms behave in responsible ways voluntarily ; it is vital that we do not allow a means for any government to increasingly infringe upon our right to bear arms – any RESPONSIBLE owner and bearer knows that appropriate training is necessary – allowing government to mandate training for those who own firearms or as a prerequisite to a specific purchase of a firearm is only a means to knowing who to go after for confiscation – the key to all of this is not providing any government with the means to easily identify those who own firearms.
If I could vote, he would gave mine! On the subject of your example if shooting up with heroin, libertarians use the drug example a lot and say “as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” reasoning to think it should be legal. Well, the people it hurts may not be the user, it’s the people that depend on them, like children or spouses or friends or co-workers. People who use heroin for reasons other than terminal cancer are useless. They are a drain on a civil society. Heroin should remain illegal IMHO!
Thanks Brenda, but the addict you described is going to take drugs whether they are legal or not. The “potential misuse” argument is the same one that liberals use to push gun control. Their reasoning: sure, most people don’t misuse firearms, but if we just make them all illegal for everyone, then bad guys won’t have them, therefore they won’t be able to do bad things. I disagree.
If you woke up tomorrow and Heroine was legal, would you run out and get some? Of course you wouldn’t. The people that are going to misuse drugs, and the people who misuse firearms, are going to do so regardless of how many laws you make.
He’s got my vote!
I wrote him in on my ballot