TexasCHLforum.com

As we get closer to the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, the open-carry issue is getting more "air time" in Texas. An interesting and frankly disturbing theme often repeated by open-carry supporters from other states is that open-carry is a constitutionally protected right, but concealed carry is not. I would like to hear from our open-carry supporters here on TexasCHLforum.com to see if they agree with this premise.

Let me start by saying that, in my opinion, the possession and carrying of firearms (handguns included) for self-defense is a constitutionally protected individual right applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that preservation of life is, in fact, the highest use of a firearm. I preface my remarks with "in my opinion" because the Supreme Court in Heller did not say this. It most assuredly hinted that with the proper case before it, one that presents a "bearing" question rather than a "keeping" question, this will be the ultimate holding. But as of today, there is no Supreme Court case that stands for the premise that carrying a handgun openly or concealed is a constitutionally protected right. We must be careful not to point to mere dicta in Heller and argue that it is part of the Court's holding. It is foolish to do so, sometimes dangerously so. Remember, there is dicta in the dissenting opinion too and we certainly don't elevate it to anything more than sour grapes from the losing side.

So let's hear some opinions folks. Do you feel that open-carry is a constitutionally protected right, while concealed carry is not? If you do feel this way, then please explain the basis for your opinion. I'm curious why some out-of-state folks feel that I have a right to carry my 1911 openly, but if I chose to cover it with a shirt, coat or vest, then the state has a right to impose a licensing system. I have repeatedly heard and read OpenCarry.org founders saying that "I don't have to have a license to pray, so why do I have to have a license to openly carry a handgun?" I fully accept this argument on a personal level, remembering that the Supreme Court hasn't gone that far -- yet. But on a personal level, I'm having a very difficult time trying to determine why these same people then say, "but you would still need a license to carry concealed." Would not the same First Amendment prayer analogy also apply to open-carry v. concealed carry? Could it not be argued that I don't need a license to pray to my God either openly on a public street, or privately in my own bedroom, so why do I need a license to carry a handgun concealed?

I hope this thread and the comments sure to follow will cause some open-carry supporters to rethink their strategy and their tactics. Support open-carry if you think that's the appropriate thing to do and I will cheer your dedication. But don't get so rapped up in a "win at all costs" frenzy that you sew the seeds of our destruction in later months and years as we work to expand the holding in Heller. Concessions made today to support open-carry could be the cornerstone of our opposition in future years. Alan Gura's concessions in Heller will come back to haunt us every time we try to expand Heller; let's not make the same rookie mistake with open-carry.

Chas.