The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:It hasn't happened. I've never seen a concealed-carry proponent argue that CC is constitutionally protected, but OC isn't. OC supporters are just mad that TSRA and NRA haven't taken up the OC banner. Not supporting an issue is not the same as opposing it and it certainly doesn't constitute throwing them under the bus. OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't. That's throwing CC under the bus.
Chas.
Charles is good, isn't he?
Yes he is. Being an attorney and one with great gun-rights bon fides, it concerns me that I find myself on the opposite side of the argument from him.
Charles, as you know
I am not mad at TSRA and do not confuse not supporting something with opposing it. As for throwing CC under the bus, that certainly isn't my intention. I L-O-V-E what TSRA has accomplished in Texas. It was only a few short years ago that we had nothing and I haven't forgotten! I also support the goals that you have the upcoming session (campus, parking lot, and range protection). My position is that, in addition, I support open carry.
As for what is constitutionally protected, please put on your lawyer hat for a minute
and help me make sense of what the SC said in
Heller and what was said in the oral arguments for
McDonald:
Beginning on page 42 of the official
Heller decision where the Court is discussing the meaning of "carry", some early court cases are reviewed.
Nunn v. State struck down a Georgia law against carrying pistols openly. The same is true in
State v. Chandler from Louisiana. Here the Court quotes from
Chandler:
]“This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble
defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
It then goes on to discuss Aymette v State (TN) where the Court concludes that Aymett's holding is
Aymette held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons.
Further the Court quotes J. Kent from "Commentaries on American Law" (12th edition, 1873). I've shortened the quote for brevity, but I don't think I've damaged the context.
The italics are in the original.
whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons,be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question.”
On page 57, there is this:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Question -- I took these passages from the Opinion of the Court section of the document. Can any of them be considered dicta? The rules on what is and what isn't are confusing to me.
From the oral arguments for
McDonald:
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there’s a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is, and everything above that is up to the States.
MR. GURA: That --
JUSTICE SCALIA: If they want to have, you know -- I think we mentioned in Heller concealed carry laws. I mean, those are -- those are matters that we didn't decide in Heller. And you may have a great deal of divergence from State to State. And on that, I suppose, you would do statistics, wouldn't you? Or the legislature would.
(page 17 of the official oral argument transcript)
Justice Scalia mentions that the status of concealed carry specifically wasn't decided in Heller. True enough, but his implication seems to be that concealed carry may not be inside the "minimum constitutional right" particularly considering that all of the 19th century cases cited either a) overturned attempts to ban open carry or b) upheld the banning of concealed carry.
In this passage, Feldman (for Chicago) is expressing concern about the Court's interpretation of "carry" because of its implications.
MR. FELDMAN: ... But even more than that, Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -- the word "bear," "to keep and bear arms" -- to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello, much later. And to carry -- generally to carry. Many -- there’s a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry, as the Court did recognize in Heller, but of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. Again, generally, it's someplace that is -- it has a particular problem; it's a city or something like that.
(page 56)
I believe Feldman thinks that
Heller stands for the proposition that concealed carry can be regulated (and presumably banned) by States and localities but no so for open carry.
SA-TX
. I've lived here for 35 years and my age begins with a 4. There's no place I'd rather be. 
That doesn't mean that we couldn't use some improvements.
and I defend her on almost all other grounds, but I believe our gun laws are needlessly restrictive, confusing, and expensive. Shall we go down the list and discuss the desirability of each? I only scratched the surface above. It will be a long discussion. 