A plain language reading of the Constitution doesn't touch on "how" weaponry is carried AT ALL...open OR concealed. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, the assumption must be that the subject IS protected. This "was" the clear understanding of those who wrote the Constitution (Federalist papers...who considered the Bill of Rights as un-necessary for that very reason).
"I've clearly explained why I think concealment places the carrier at a tactical disadvantage. It forfeits deterrence, and delays deployment of your defensive reaction.
Tactical advantage depends on the specific situation, which is why I provided two different scenarios illustrating one of each.
""Somehow dishonest": No. Less honest and direct than openly carrying, and preferred (historically) by thieves and card cheats.
Which situation "is" historical, and no longer exists. The ASSUMPTION of the law at the time was that open carry was so wide-spread, that anyone carrying concealed obviously had nefarious intentions.
Society has changed, and open carry is now very rare, and in many locales, actively discouraged. Unless and until that changes, concealed carry is the preferred option. Open carry basically paints a target on your chest (or back) that says to the thug carrying concealed "shoot me first".
"So... Why don't you stop wasting your valuable time trying to redefine my positions for me, and instead support your position with reason."
Wrong assumption. I was putting forth my understanding of your comments and seeking clarification. English is a very slippery language, as lawyers regularly prove.
"Supporting CC with anecdotal statements that only apply to CC situations isn't hauling the freight."
Sorry, but those are not "anecdotal statements", they are synopses of many, many real situations....mostly from the NRA "American Rifleman" mag monthly collections of successful civilian self-defense. I suspect a search of YouTube would yield many videos where the tactical advantage was favored by CCW. I've seen quite a few.
My position is simply to leave it up to the person who carries to decide where the tactical advantage lies in his or her specific life situation.
"A plain language reading of the Constitution doesn't touch on "how" weaponry is carried AT ALL...open OR concealed. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, the assumption must be that the subject IS protected. This "was" the clear understanding of those who wrote the Constitution (Federalist papers...who considered the Bill of Rights as un-necessary for that very reason).:
"Society has changed, and open carry is now very rare, and in many locales, actively discouraged."
That's exactly the principle I'm referring to. Licensure schemes, fingerprinting and paying for a Constitutionally protected right... And you appear to have bought-in. Nevermind that the lack of people exercising their right to carry openly is EXACTLY the thing that allows this.
By your own words:" The ASSUMPTION of the law at the time was that open carry was so wide-spread, that anyone carrying concealed obviously had nefarious intentions."