TexasCHLforum.com

The second amendment is clear and unambiguous.

If that were the case, the anti-gunners wouldn't have been dancing around the militia clause all those years, which was haphazardly tacked on to the the operative clause to appease some state interests. The right to arms has nothing to do with any perceived need for a militia. Both issues should have been addressed separately in different amendments since they were written long before the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Second Amendment was poorly written and caused much unnecessary friction over the years until the SCOTUS finalized what it meant in June, 2008. After being firmly convinced for so long that militias and guns were indelibly linked constitutionally, it appears many true believers will continue to think the work is flat until the day they die.

Carrying a gun around is a fundamental right of the individual and anything which attempts to modify that right is subject to strict scrutiny. In dicta, the Supreme Court conceded the former but not the later in Heller, but it is bound rule so when the issue of gun regulation comes to bar.

An fundamental right can only be regulated when it conflicts with other rights.

The established legal entitlement in an overwhelming majority of The States is unregulated open carry of handguns, which has long been considered an acceptable practice within the realm of rights. This is a strongly established social custom with the force of law. No regulation nor training has been found necessary with open carry in public places. It is a stretch of the imagination to hold that concealment of the same weaponry would suddenly conflict with another right and give rise to cause for regulation.

A couple of law professors submitted an amicus brief in Heller contending the Second Amendment is a property right as opposed to a personal right, and guns are therefore subject to regulation. An interesting perspective that might hold some water down the line. My personal feeling is their argument won't wash with a property right derived from and adjunct to the absolute right of man to life and the preservation of it.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... essors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with Charles Cotton’s analogy of First Amendment prayer with the Second Amendment, and offer my own in support of the notion that both open and concealed carry are rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

You don’t need a permit for a printing press to keep and bear it openly.
And you don’t need a permit for a concealed printing press.