TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote: * Yes, I have the right to assume that whoever is carrying a gun, open or concealed, is legally qualified (see TAM'S earlier post) to exercise that right.

I suspect what you really mean is that you support some defined standard for what constitutes "legal qualification" to exercise the right to carry a gun, and then you support requiring everyone to be evaluated against this standard before they are granted the right to carry. Is this correct?

If so, then the statement that begins with "I have the right ..." and refers to such a qualification or testing/certification for something that is a basic human right, is ... well, hmmm. I don't see how the argument can be made that such a desire can be considered a right.

This is clearly the definition of "infringing" the RKBA.

Oldgringo wrote: Yes sir, Mr. TAM! That's what I thought you said and I am in agreement with you.

Some sort of screening process must take place to assure the general public and others (me) that those who carry, whether inside or outside of their britches, are qualified to legally do so. In the case of our conceal carry priviledge/right, that screening process is consumated with our CHL.

I don't want to speak for Ye Olde Annoyed One, but I do believe I am in agreement with him in not advocating any requirement for a license of any sort to carry a gun in whatever way you see fit.

I disagree categorically with your statement: "Some sort of screening process must take place to assure the general public and others (me) that those who carry, whether inside or outside of their britches, are qualified to legally do so". Why apply this screening process to the one and only right that is enumerated in the Constitution with the words "shall not be infringed"? I personally believe that the founding fathers wrote those four words in there for precisely the reason that they knew of the temptation to require some kind of screening or selection of who has the right to keep and bear arms, and they wanted to make it absolutely certain that such efforts were strictly forbidden.

As far as the original topic of this thread, I agree that the text of the 2nd Amendment is plainly what it is. Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Doesn't matter open carry, concealed, in your underpants or one gun in each hand wherever you go. It's all the very same right. So I guess that means I disagree with whatever OC proponents there are who might suggest that open carry is a right, but concealed carry is not. There's no difference. That's like saying free speech is a right, but free thought is not.