Recently, I was doing an interview with an NBC affiliate in Texas regarding the initiative to decriminalize open carry in that supposedly gun-friendly state. I was discussing the fact that, despite Texas’ nationwide reputation as a bastion of rugged individualism, they are in fact, out of line with the vast majority of states where individual gun rights are concerned.
During the interview, the anchor asked me the question “What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?” I have been asked this question before and had always answered it by talking about the political and public policy benefits of open carry. However, it suddenly occurred to me that the question, as asked, made absolutely no sense. My answer, paraphrased for brevity, was “If you are a 2nd Amendment supporter then you are, by definition, a supporter of open carry because open carry is the right that the 2nd Amendment is enumerating!”
I then went on to discuss the history of carry in the United States and the fact that while today, concealed carry is seen by much of the populace as synonymous with the right-to-carry, it is not, in fact, a right in most states (residents of Vermont may pat themselves on the back at this point). Rather, in the vast majority of states, concealed carry is held to be a state regulated privilege and this was affirmed by the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Additionally, the constitutions of several states bear out this historical view of the dichotomy between the right of open carry and the privilege of concealed carry.
New Mexico
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.Montana & Colorado
The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.Idaho
The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person …Louisiana
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.Mississippi
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.Missouri
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.Kentucky
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.North Carolina
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
Now at this point, I should rush to point out that I am an avid supporter of concealed carry laws and am not in any way downplaying their public policy benefits. The concealed carry movement that has swept the nation over the last two decades has done more to prevent crime and empower law-abiding citizens than any other public policy movement in my lifetime. But this does not change the fact that the founding fathers bore their arms openly and proudly and wrote the 2nd Amendment in that context.
Therefore, when 2nd Amendment supporters attack open carry as detrimental to the concealed carry movement, they are advocating sacrificing a right for a privilege.
Is that a deal we are really ready to make?
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Austin: Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 2)
- Charlotte: Guns and the Constitution: Rep. Itse responds to readers on secession bill
- Cleveland: Gun confiscation: can it happen again?
- DC: DC City Council enables residents’ easy access to mail order handgun carry permits!
- Denver: I carry a gun....and I buy groceries
- Los Angeles: Gun Control: Guns in churches
- Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns
- National: Still think cops are the 'only ones' who can be trusted with guns?
- St. Louis: Hunting rifles--the next 'sniper weapons'
Comments
Who, might I ask, was the anchorperson and on what NBC affiliate in Texas? Just curious. Is there any audio or video?
Despite these state constitutions claiming to be able to regulate concealed firearms, I still think they are in violation of the federal constitution which says "Shall not be infringed." Regulating concealed carry is an infringement in my opinion. I think it is as protected as open carry, even if some people, even back as long ago as the writing the NC constitution didn't want it to be.
That said, I openly carry my arms.
Outstanding Interview.
You point out the obvious that has escaped us. Plainly carrying a weapon was normal for much of our history. When did that slip away?
I agree with Me. Many of the founders carried concealed as well as openly, they thought it safe to assume that any man they came into contact with was legitimately armed, whether or not one could see his arm.
"Shall not be infringed" means just that. The founders were very careful in their expressions. They knew what they meant. Their writings post adoption remove all doubts.
Modern man has applied terrific torsion to the constitution trying to make it say what it does not. The proof that they knew exactly what they intended is found in the difficulty and time that has been expended in trying to subvert it.
While I agree with the contention that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to open carry, I disagree with the contention that it doesn't protect concealed carry.
The second amendment says that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. It does NOT say the right to bear arms openly shall not be infringed. It makes no specification of open vs concealed carry.
Additionally, if you look at the common form of dress at the time the bill of rights was written, in that men often wore long overcoats, you'll notice that their openly carried handguns would have normally been covered up by their overcoat. As a result, most of the time they were technically carrying concealed.
They did not specify concealed or open because they viewed both forms of bearing arms as natural born rights that needed to be protected.
I want to comment on something you said during the interview regarding the Second Amendment. As you stated, the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. There is no distinction as to open or concealed carry. I want to take it a step further and add that it is a right of the people. Meaning anyone has the right to bear arms, not just those we deem able to. All of the laws that have been enacted by the federal and state level government that regulate the possession or carrying of arms is in fact unconstitutional. You cited the DC vs Heller case. When Justice Scalia added in the last part about the Second Amendment being subject to reasonable restrictions, he was wrong. The Second Amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed". Thanks John for all of your hard work in getting the truth out to the people.
Dustin. I see what he means. In many states concealed carry isn't a right because it is regulated with FOID cards, ccw permits, and LTCFs. It ISNT a right if you sign up for it or have to get permission! I don't know of any state that doesn't demand hunting licenses. That means it's a privelage. In my state, carrying concealed requires a license. Therefore I don't see it as making use of your 2A rights at all. There's no rights involved. Open carry doesn't require any paperwork. Therefore it's the ONLY way to invoke your 2A right here. I OC everywhere.
Fw: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
Fri, March 5, 2010 4:58:30 PMFrom: Glen Walters <gewweg4000@yahoo.com>View Contact
To: askdoj@usdoj.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Glen Walters <gewweg4000@yahoo.com>
To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 3:24:14 PM
Subject: Fw: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
[ATTENTION ]ALL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. I BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE IS A MUST READ BEFORE ANY DECISION IS MADE OF THE 2 ND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Glen Walters <gewweg4000@yahoo.com>
To: larrykinglive@cnn.com
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 6:04:07 PM
Subject: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment
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!