Its advocates call it “Constitutional Carry,” and three states now have it, Vermont, Alaska and Arizona; the full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms without the necessity of a license or permit of any kind.
This past weekend at the Second Amendment Foundation’s 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (more about GRPC in a moment), author and gun rights advocate Alan Korwin told the audience in San Francisco, “I’m from Arizona, and I don’t need no stinking permit.” For several years, Korwin has written a book on Arizona gun laws, same as this writer publishes a book on Washington gun laws.
Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to affect state and local governments, those peaceful citizens who choose to exercise that right may be on remarkably firm legal ground, especially when it comes to interacting with the police. Korwin didn’t say so, but he doesn’t have to. Especially in states with strong state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provisions – like Washington – citizens packing pistols is just something the hoplophobes, and police who respond to their hysterical calls to 911, are probably going to have to “get over it.”
Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
This is not an open invitation to irresponsible boneheads who like to practice in-your-face politics to go around flaunting their firearms, provocatively and sometimes even belligerently. Even open carry activists of my acquaintance know the difference, and to their credit, tend to discourage the louts. As SAF’s Alan Gottlieb explained during one of the conference’s Q&A sessions, such people do no favors for the millions of legally-armed citizens who carry firearms on a daily basis, whether concealed or openly.
But this brings us around to some interesting dilemmas for Olympia lawmakers who insist they are pro-gun. One primary reason Arizona passed legislation doing away with permits is its constitutional RKBA provision. Except for the placement of a couple of commas, Arizona’s language, adopted in 1912, is identical to Washington’s RKBA provision, adopted in 1889.
Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Both states are Open Carry states; that is, a citizen can legally openly carry a sidearm in a peaceful manner, without any permit. This drives anti-gunners berserk, as this column detailed here, here and here earlier this year. It makes gun prohibitionists even crazier when police and sheriff’s deputies in Arizona and here in Washington explain to the hysterics that “it’s legal.”
Vermont was the first “Constitutional Carry” state, and it has never required a permit for packing a gun, openly or concealed. Its state constitutional provision is rock solid. For years, civil rights activists have promoted “Vermont-style carry” as the benchmark of liberty. And it is confirmed that for the third year in a row, violent crime rates have dropped while more Americans are buying guns (discussed here), and according to researcher John Lott, speaking at GRPC over the weekend, well over 6 million citizens are now licensed to carry in 48 states.
In Washington, getting there may take a couple of baby steps. First, according to most activists, the state legislature should repeal RCW 9.41.270 (1), the hastily-adopted (and rather racially-motivated) tenet that states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
While the teeth of this paragraph have been eroded by appeals court rulings, the language remains and it is an open invitation for harassment of legally-armed citizens. It would never have been adopted back in 1969 had it not been for concerns that the Black Panthers might show up in Olympia like they did in Sacramento in 1967 to protest the Mulford Act, which banned the display of loaded weapons, according to a timeline of Black Panther activities on It’s About Time. Openly-armed citizens earlier this year in Olympia gave the local Washington CeaseFire chief a case of the jitters, but they didn’t harm a soul.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have police in Madison, Wisconsin apparently doing whatever they can to provoke Open Carry activists there. As noted here, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has advised law enforcement that open carry is legal under Wisconsin’s constitution. The state has no concealed carry statute, thanks to anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle, who leaves office in January, so the only way for a citizen to exercise his or her RKBA is to carry openly, though not all gun owners agree with the practice. Now that the McDonald ruling has applied the Second Amendment to the states, coppers in Madison and elsewhere looking to discourage citizens better re-think their positions because they just might be inviting federal civil rights lawsuits.
Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
That just might be a good agenda item for next year’s GRPC, which will be held in Chicago. This is SAF’s way of celebrating its Supreme Court victory against the city’s gun ban. SAF was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association and four private citizens in that lawsuit. Full GRPC coverage will appear in upcoming issues of Gun Week.
In the wake of last weekend’s GRPC, at which the National Rifle Association was “officially” a no-show (directors Bob Barr and Todd Rathner did attend and participate, though not in their official capacities), a fair amount of speculation has arisen over NRA’s non-participation, including this article on the Outdoor Wire by Tom Gresham, the well-known and highly-respected host of Gun Talk, the syndicated Sunday radio show.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Comments
I think that the "constitutional carry "issue should be brought up by our legislators in the near future. Vermont has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the Nation and I believe it's due to the constitutional carry right!
"Constitutional Carry " is the logical conclusion of gun rights. I look forward to the day when this become the norm.
Indeed, one day we'll look back on the day when one was discriminated against for legally carrying a firearm with the same disgust that we now look down on how it used to be acceptable to discriminate against blacks or gays or (etc.).
After all these years of thinking of litigation lawyers as something akin to serpents waiting to take everything we have, it's nice to be able to get behind lawyers like Alan Gura who are actually fighting for our freedoms.
An old friend was fond of the term "useless as tits on a bull". I think of him every time someone mentions the NRA...
That's because you are ignorant of the facts. Through the years the NRA has been vital in safeguarding many of your freedoms and privileges under our Constitution.
I’m totally in favor of Constitutional Carry; it was the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights, to protect the Citizens from the Government disarming them leaving them at the mercy of the Central Government and or thugs, which is argumentative as to which is the greater threat.
The only reason there are restrictive gun laws on the books today is the incessant cry of the Citizens demanding of the Government to protect them from harm instead of doing it them selves, we have lost the responsibility of self defense of ourselves and our neighbors, opting for someone else to do it for us instead.
Although this doesn't hit Washington. Fort Hood, Texas is at it again, knee jerk reaction to suicides this time.
This from a local newspaper:
New local measures to combat soldier suicides
A new plan aims to reduce the number of soldier suicides at Fort Hood. Officials will review every soldier for possible signs of depression.
They will search soldiers' homes on and off post, as well as inventory every soldiers' gun. That includes military issued as well as personal weapons.
This comes after an apparent murder-suicide last Saturday in which a soldier and his wife were found shot to death at their on-post residence.
As you might know Fort Hood, as well as the rest of the Army, have been fighting to remove soldiers, and their family members, from their 2nd amendment rights for quite a spell. Now they are going after what is left of their 4th amendment rights. Even if you would state; soilders joined and soldiers lose many of their rights when they joined, what about their family members? The anti's first desensitize people by attacking those who is on the margins of society or who, like our soldiers, are fully under their thumb. What the heck does knowing who owns guns and what guns they own do in preventing suicides? One portion of our society loses all lose...
IMHO, it might well be worth thoughtful consideration to rephrase the word combination ‘Constitutional Carry’ to ‘Constitutionally-Protected-Carry’.
Anyone care to elaborate as to what purpose would be served by doing so?
Just asking.
Funny how Franks opinion and snipe (just like Helmke, Hennigan and such...) remind me of what comes out of a bull's tit's, nothing of substance.
I'd very much like to see the GRPC come to Concord/Lexington, Massachusetts in 2012 and Manhattan in 2013.
Did you forget New Mexico?
Read Heller....AGAIN everyone. Scalia mentions State Supreme Courts allowing the prohibition of concealed weapons while also overturning laws that prohibit open carry....It appears the USSC agrees with that view. The mode of attack to so called Constitutional Carry is to go after "Licensed" open carry. Once people have a Federal right to open carry without a license(easy win see: Murdock v Penn 319 U.S. 105 (1943), throughout the US, I believe that states will acquiesce to concealed carry without a permit to diminish open carry...Which seems to bother a lot of people.
Dear Dave,
I hate to correct you BUT, Vermont DID indeed have a total prohibition on concealed carry on the books. However, someone challenged that the law violated the Vermont Constitution and the Vermont Supreme Court found that it did and overturned it. This, I believe, happened in the early 1900s. Kudos for that gutsy move. Everyone in the papers predicted "blood in the streets" etc., etc., which of course didn't happen. I only wish the Mass Supremes would have done the same the same when the law was challenged here. Instead they used the "militia only" cop out to take our rights away.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!