In far too many states it is a privilege doled out by a reluctant master.
The article states that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to carry arms. It says no such thing. It does acknowledge a pre-existing right!
It's like they haven't even read the text of the 2nd.
After all, a "privilege" never granted is hardly a privilege, now, is it?
Self defense is a right. Bearing arms is a right.
Banning open carry, while allowing concealed, or banning concealed carry, while allowing open, are perhaps reasonable regulations of the right, because they still allow the right to be exercised.
Banning both is not.
Similarly, requiring permits or licensing may be a reasonable regulation, if the permits or licenses are reasonably available, and are issued under objective standards. Permits that can be denied without cause are not.
“Right to bear arms” is crystal-damn-clear.
“Shall not be infringed” is crystal-damn-clear.
Somebody in power does not belong there.
Who voted them in?
As far as I’m concerned, any argument about interpretation, extension, clarification or transmutation of any aspect of the Second Amendment had damned well better be accompanied by an equally cogent remark for doing the same thing with respect to the First Amendment.
The original meaning of “infringe” is
Not different than today.
Words MEAN things.
Nothing is said about any restriction. It was presumed that if you were dangerous and a bully who carried the problem would work it's self out naturally because everyone else would be carrying as well.
The bearing of arms, whether openly or concealed, is a fundamental human right.
It doesn’t say, “Shall not be infringed, as long as you have a permit.” - it really is very clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. End of discussion. I refuse to ask permission to carry a concealed weapon. Won’t do it. Free men don’t ask permission.
"Really? Could've fooled me."
Lawyers and politicians, too often the same, can’t stand simplicity. The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant us the right to keep and bear arms. God did that. The 2nd amendment simply states that the government can’t infringe upon that right. Requiring CCW permits and other restrictive measures are, plain and simple, infringements.
Understand the history:
Let’s clarify that by “concealed” we’re referring to making a concerted effort to ensure it’s not seen, not merely covered by one’s coat or other brief/casual veiling.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, most viable guns were too large to carry concealed. Smaller guns certainly existed, but if your goal was mundane honest self-defense then you wanted something big enough that you’d not be interested in trying to keep concealed outright. Armed self-defense was normal and accepted (no cell phones, no 911, no rapid-response police), so having a visible weapon was not considered objectionable. As such, making a concerted effort to conceal a weapon was considered presumptive evidence of ill intent.
Since the concealing of a weapon was considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent, “licensing” amounted to alerting the authorities ahead of time that there was some unusual and reasonable purpose for doing so, warding off arrest and incarceration based on concealed carry alone.
And thus the Founding Fathers wrote RKBA in the social norm of open carry being acceptable, and [earnest] concealed carry reasonably (to them then) suspect behavior.
Alas, as unrestricted unlicensed open carry was increasingly criminalized on grounds of eliminating guns altogether, the model of having a license to show prior demonstration of lawful intention was normalized - as was the practice of requiring concealed carry, both as licensing thereof had been institutionalized and to prevent “scaring the natives”. Thus open carry was socially ostracized, and licensed concealed carry became the norm for weapons possession ... and the whole standard of “open carry good, concealed carry bad” was reversed.
Now we have the groundswell to restore the unrestricted unlicensed right to open carry, which will take quite some time to become socially normal again. As this social right re-emerges, we will have a long history of concealed carry being the socially acceptable norm, AND the technology to put serious firepower in a mere pocket with ease and modest cost.
In the lead article’s context, open carry is a social anathema: regardless of how legal public carry may be, anyone carrying openly will instantly be considered a social pariah. Since self-defense and possessing equipment vital thereto is a basic right, and open carry is de facto prohibited (socially, if not legally) then exercise of that right via concealed carry _must_ be legally protected.
TL;DR - “back then” concealed carry was a privilege, while open carry was the norm. Thanks to social consequences of gun control, and to modern technology, concealed carry has become a norm annexed into the 2nd Amendment (if, for sake of argument, it wasn’t there to begin with). Exercising RKBA now requires legal protection of concealed carry as a right, since open carry has suffered “chilling effects” for nigh unto a century.
All persons, granted a privilege, to Keep and Bear Arms without being infringed, Shall be Prohibited from using said Privilege in defense of others for Profit or Gain.
Any Person violating this law, shall be guilty of a Felony punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of not less than 10 years in Prison and a $10 Million Dollar Fine.
Pass this law and watch how fast it turns back into a Right!
Can’t believe I’m the first to post this...but the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS!!!
Duh...
My tagline sums it up for me.