[facedown]

That is exactly correct. In fact the earliest attempts to subvert the 2A were restrictions on concealed carry.

[muawiyah]

As any Jew living in a Medieval European city or town could tell you, the "right to keep and bear arms" also means the right to self-protection, to give testimony in court and to serve in the local militia.

That Jew would know that because he was not allowed to keep or bear arms, nor protect himself or his family, or to give testimony in court, or serve in the local militia.

He could be dragged from his home and tossed into the wilderness to be ravaged by wild animals or the peasantry at will.

It's not so much that we have rights because we can arm ourselves ~ rather, it's that we cannot enjoy any of those other rights without that one, single, solitary right.

Might note that this is also a "communal" or "group" right ~ not just an individual right.

We, as a group, e.g. a town, a city or just a settlement in a "compound", can arm ourselves, and presumably can require all our members to arm themselves or go elsewhere.

[BobbyT]

“Open” vs “concealed” is just an arbitrary division, the same as the idea that a firearm can be “sporting” or too “assaulty” or not have enough “points”.

The right is to KEEP and BEAR arms. That means to not infringe the Second Amendment, people should be able to carry on their belt, in their waistband, or however deeply concealed they choose with no worried about whether some sliver of the grip peaks out while they reach for a high shelf.

I don’t ever see myself “open carrying”, but I’m not about to become one of those pragmatic fools who let our supporters be split by treating them as separate issues.

Concealed carry, open carry, no fees, no reason required, no being subjected to the whims of the local bureaucracy.

[blueyon]

Does not matter what the 2nd amendment says, Obie one will do as Obie pleases. Rules, policy and laws are for others.....

[SuperLuminal]

"What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?”

Stuff it!

[An Old Man]

John, Thanks for posting the article. I found the following text near the end to be most interesting, especially the question posed at the end.

Now at this point, I should rush to point out that I am an avid supporter of concealed carry laws and am not in any way downplaying their public policy benefits. The concealed carry movement that has swept the nation over the last two decades has done more to prevent crime and empower law-abiding citizens than any other public policy movement in my lifetime. But this does not change the fact that the founding fathers bore their arms openly and proudly and wrote the 2nd Amendment in that context.

Therefore, when 2nd Amendment supporters attack open carry as detrimental to the concealed carry movement, they are advocating sacrificing a right for a privilege.

Is that a deal we are really ready to make?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?

Never heard of such a person. Can you point them out please?

[paulycy]

[supercat]

Outside of some rare and specific circumstances where a concealed firearm could be hazardous for technical reasons (e.g. in the vicinity of an MRI machine) what reason should an honest person have to care whether or not another person is armed? If someone has a weapon concealed and someone who doesn’t realize he’s armed chooses to rob him, should the person who concealed his weapon be considered dishonorable for having lulled the robber into a false sense of security?

[neverdem]

I then went on to discuss the history of carry in the United States and the fact that while today, concealed carry is seen by much of the populace as synonymous with the right-to-carry, it is not, in fact, a right in most states (residents of Vermont may pat themselves on the back at this point).

Alaska should be praised for switching from concealed carry privilege to right not too long ago within its borders. The concealed carry privilege was retained for Alaskans who wanted to enjoy reciprocity concealed carry privilege in other states that recognize it.

[TXnMA]

Open versus concealed is a purely tactical decision -- and I am the only one who has the right to make that decision for me. IMHO, concealed carry is tactically superior in most social situations because:

1. It doesn't advertise that I am armed -- providing the positive element of surprise...

2. It doesn't draw unwanted (and unwarranted) attention from the sheeple...

In other than social situations, (i.e. on my own place and when elsewhere in the woods) I carry openly.

I repeat: No person or government has the right to make those choices for (or deny them to) me!

[SunkenCiv]

During the interview, the anchor asked me the question "What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?" I have been asked this question before... However, it suddenly occurred to me that the question, as asked, made absolutely no sense ...

Thanks neverdem.

[ExSoldier]

Bookmark