Open-Carry is a right, but concealed carry is not?

[HGWC]

So let's hear some opinions folks. Do you feel that open-carry is a constitutionally protected right, while concealed carry is not?

I think it might be interesting to look at this from a Texas constitution point of view as compared to the US constitution.

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876)."

Previously, it said:
Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1868)

They changed it in 1876 to correct the abuses that occurred under E.J. Davis and reconstruction. In 1870 we got restrictions on possession at public gatherings and in 1871, the ban on public possession on handgun and other arms. Along with this minor little change in the constitution, naturally, we got a despot for governor, a police state, arrest for political opposition to the radical republicans, official murder, and legalized oppression. We ended that when the Democrats won the US congressional seats in 1871, the state legislature in 1872, the governorship in 1873, and finally an armed removal of E.J. Davis from the capital in 1873. Then in 1875 we had a constitutional convention to reform the constitution to prevent similar abuses in the future.

Specifically, they substantially limited the legislature's ability to regulate keep and bear. The right was no longer restricted at the whim of the legislature. They could only regulate the wearing of arms and only then with a view to prevent crime. The intent was to repeal the 1871 law and to allow the legislature to regulate only concealed weapons. Unfortunately, that never happened, and the courts continued to rely on State vs Duke that was decided before the constitution was amended in 1876.

The interesting part is that during the constitutional convention of 1875, there was an amendment to the proposed Article 1 section 23 that would have allowed the legislature to prohibit our right to keep and bear in public. It would then have read: " the Legislature shall have power, by law, to prohibit and regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. " That amendment was tabled and rejected. The intent was to allow for regulation, not prohibition, and a repeal of the 1871 law.

Both open and concealed carry are constitutionally protected in Texas. We need to put an end to the prohibition on wearing an openly carried handgun. When we have that, all we need to do is have someone explain how all the nonsensical laws on concealed carry actually prevent crime. A total ban only increases crime. Therefore any regulations lesser than a total ban can't possibly be implemented with a view to prevent crime. That's my opinion anyway. Granted I don't expect the courts or the legislature to back me up any time soon!

[Oldgringo]

* I further understand that the 1st Amendment gives me the right to take an apparent differing view of any given subject.

Of course it does, and nobody here would argue differently. But I think the collective counterpoint being made here, for which you are taking a little bit of heat, is that if you argue in favor of licensing (and it seems like that is what you're doing), then you are fundamentally arguing for a restriction on everyone else's rights (not just your own) - a restriction that you are OK with because you don't mind having to procure a license in order to exercise your right, but which nobody else seems to be OK with.

Am I making sense here? Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing your take on it.

Here's the thing. . . It appears that you want to have some assurance that the other person is lawfully allowed to be carrying - an understandable concern, but not one that licensing really deals with. Here's why: criminals don't care about no stinkin' license, so they will carry anyway, open or concealed. So if you require licensing for the RKBA, the only people who are going to pay attention to it anyway are the very ones you don't really need to worry about. And the criminals are still going to carry unlawfully, whether or not you or I have a license to carry lawfully. So the truth is, whether the other guy walking toward you with a gun on his hip is an honest and upright citizen, or a predacious criminal, you don't really have any way of knowing it anyway.

You might argue that by presenting LEOs with our CHL and TDL, they know that we are the good guys. OTH, I could argue just as easily that by running our TDL alone, they could tell whether or not we were A) good guys; and B) allowed to carry. If they run our ID, and no criminal arrests, gang associations, etc., show up in the record, they they already know we are not criminals, and then whether or not we are in possession of a weapon, concealed or not, is irrelevant.

* Firstly, I agree with what you have said in an earlier post vis-a-vis interim Open Carry. You, et al, have introduced the word "license".
* Secondly, I question your use of the phrase "nobody else" in the above. While you and I may favor open carry in Texas, there are others, and they will be legion, who do not.
* Thirdly, I know that the BG's will not/do not care about any laws. That is why they are BG's and that is why I carry 24/7 - or do I? I guess you're right about at least one thing: If I see a guy wearing a handgun walking toward me, I have to assume he is LEO or he is up to no good. If he is up to skullduggery, he will find out about my CCW in due course. After Open Carry, neither you nor I will know who he is or what he's up to until decision time.

I want to think we're all in the same book and perhaps in the same chapter on the subject of Open Carry. It appears that we may be on different pages? In any event, Open Carry will not come easily nor quickly - if it comes at all.

Good luck and God Bless.

[The Annoyed Man]

oldgringo, thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page now. I must have been confused about what you were saying.

Chris

[Oldgringo]

You are welcome, tam. I am on the same page I've always been on. Granted, it has been said that I lack, among other things, eloquence.

[LedJedi]

IANAL and this is IMO but I believe according to my research (which has been significant) that carry of firearms for the purpose of self defense and preservation of the common peace whether openly or concealed carry is protected under the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The method/state in which you carry your weapon is not restricted per the constitution. It is therefore logical IMO to conclude that so long as your method of carry does not conflict with any of the other rights set forth in the constitution then any method of carry is permitted.

For instance.... carrying loaded with one in the chamber in your hand pointed at your neighbor directly conflicts with his right to life and the pursuit of happiness (as most reasonable persons could figure out) so that method of carry is right out....

However, carrying in a holster whether in a viewable or concealed manner does not in any way form or fashion interfere with another's constitutional rights as far as I (or i believe any other reasonable person) can see and should therefore be protected.

Again, IANAL and this is simply IMO. hope i made someone smile :)


*edit: For clarification, the stated purpose above being "for the purpose of self defense and preservation of the common peace" is really irrelevant IMO and the constitution does not state a purpose for guaranteeing the right. It simply states that the right exists. I draw the conclusion that that is indeed the purpose of the right as it is stated from my own research on the political climate of the time and on those that wrote the words. That being said, I believe the stated purpose is true. I also didn't mention that I believe another purpose of the right is to allow the people the ability to overthrow the government should it get too big for it's britches. I'm in no way advocating that and in fact that's not the way I feel, but it's certainly the way Ben Franklin felt as he has made very clear in his writings. :)

*edit II: I also believe that licensing is a BAD idea. I'm not sure if it's unconstitutional but it's bad. Forcing someone to have a license for something that's already guaranteed is only asking for the erosion of rights IMO.

[Furyataurus]

IMO, open/conceal carry should not require a license, but a license should be available to those who would like to have one for receprocity for other states or those who like the fact that it doubles as an NICS check when purchasing a firearm. It seems like everytime I purchase something new there is ALWAYS a crowd buying firearms as well !!! Having the license makes it a breeze, the other people that notice that I'm not waiting like they are ask and I tell them I have a CHL and smile .

[mbw]

The Annoyed Man -

I like the way you think!

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

IMO, open/conceal carry should not require a license, but a license should be available to those who would like to have one for receprocity for other states or those who like the fact that it doubles as an NICS check when purchasing a firearm. .

However,
Since it is supposed to be our RIGHT (lets face facts right now its a privilege) there should be NO reciprocity as every state should not have a license therefore reciprocity would be granted through you not having a criminal record.

[anygunanywhere]

Just because a right infringed is perceived as a privilege does not make it a privilege. It is still a right and to casually throw it out there as a privilege just shows submission to the antis.

Always speak of your rights in the affirmative, in the sense of freedom and liberty that we were intended to live in. Although the constitution is nearly extinct, our rights stll are our rights and our rights exist outside of the constitution and BOR. We just have to fight to end all forms of infringement.

The second amendment is clear and unambiguous.

Anygunanywhere

[LedJedi]

IMO, open/conceal carry should not require a license, but a license should be available to those who would like to have one for receprocity for other states or those who like the fact that it doubles as an NICS check when purchasing a firearm. .

However,
Since it is supposed to be our RIGHT (lets face facts right now its a privilege) there should be NO reciprocity as every state should not have a license therefore reciprocity would be granted through you not having a criminal record.

The constitution does not state a requirement for a license and I think they're overall a bad idea. I think it should be mandatory that anyone who wants to carry a gun (which should be just about everyone) should attend training. I dont think that training should be tied to a license or the right to actually carry though. That creates problems on it's own.

Because the constitutional right to bear arms (but not arm bears) applies to every state in the union there would be no reciprocity issues with other states to contend with, therefore the license should not be required for that purpose either.

If you really think about it though.... saying licenses should be issued for reciprocity with other states is kind of like saying licenses should be issued to everyone because everyone has a license.... so why bother issuing them then? we all have them.

just my 3,575 cents accounting for inflation.

*just realized chas said to look at it from a texas consitution point of view. That nullifies a lot of what i said, well, not really because the language is very similar in both :)

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Just because a right infringed is perceived as a privilege does not make it a privilege. It is still a right and to casually throw it out there as a privilege just shows submission to the antis.

Always speak of your rights in the affirmative, in the sense of freedom and liberty that we were intended to live in. Although the constitution is nearly extinct, our rights stll are our rights and our rights exist outside of the constitution and BOR. We just have to fight to end all forms of infringement.

The second amendment is clear and unambiguous.

Anygunanywhere

I am not trying to strike an argument but I have to disagree. If it is truly our right to carry then we should not need a permission slip (license) and should be able to carry how we choose. However since we need a permission slip it is our privilege granted to us by the state not our right granted to us through the constitution. We do not need a license for our rights of life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness or free speech because they are our rights just like the RKBA.

Again not intended to offend just how I view it.

[anygunanywhere]

Just because a right infringed is perceived as a privilege does not make it a privilege. It is still a right and to casually throw it out there as a privilege just shows submission to the antis.

Always speak of your rights in the affirmative, in the sense of freedom and liberty that we were intended to live in. Although the constitution is nearly extinct, our rights stll are our rights and our rights exist outside of the constitution and BOR. We just have to fight to end all forms of infringement.

The second amendment is clear and unambiguous.

Anygunanywhere

I am not trying to strike an argument but I have to disagree. If it is truly our right to carry then we should not need a permission slip (license) and should be able to carry how we choose. However since we need a permission slip it is our privilege granted to us by the state not our right granted to us through the constitution. We do not need a license for our rights of life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness or free speech because they are our rights just like the RKBA.

Again not intended to offend just how I view it.

I understand your view and take no offense.

If unconstitutional legislation is passed (yes it can and has happened believe it or not.) and signed into law that says any LEO can enter your home anytime without a search warrant you still have the right against unlawful searches and seizures but the law can still be passed. It does not change the fact that your right is an enumerated right, you have just had that right infringed - legislated away.

Under your stated thought process all a government has to do to change a right to a privilege by legislation and you have no more rights.

That makes no sense but if that is the way you want to understand your rights then that is your right too.

I prefer to hold my rights a little more closely than that. I too believe you do not need a permission slip to exercise that right but that is the fact of life we are FORCED to live by at the present moment.

Anygunanywhere

[casingpoint]

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.

[bubba1876]

I would rather have the right for college students to concealed carry on campus. These are more important for me than Open Carry. I fear that this discussion of Open Carry is going to cannibalise more practical, and usefull gun rights laws

Remember VT !!

[bubba1876]

Since we have the right to keep and bear arms per the 2A , it should be the individuals choice on how they want to carry without interference from government entities.

Assuming they are not criminals, right? Only law abiding citizens?