Home
VA, posted this list earlier of States that have some part of their constitution dealing with the RTKBA. I've bold-ed the states that mention specifically regulation of carry or concealed carry.

I feel sure that some, or maybe even all of these have been amended at some time since their original writing, to include the language regarding "concealed carry" or that relating to the method of carry. I'd be curious to know if any of these is in it's original form if any of y'all care to look at your state's Constitution and check it out. Part of the reason I'm curious is that the SCOTUS, in part, based it's opinion in Heller on historical text regarding the 2A and keeping and bearing of arms for personal use. If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man. BUT, I don't know. This, concealed carry, will be our ultimate battleground, and it may be the toughest one legally as it applies to the 2A. I can see a good public policy argument that carry should be open and notorious, as well I can see a good argument that even though "back in the day" concealed carry was considered sinister, but that times have changed and concealed carry is the common practice of the modern law abiding man, as well as a good public policy argument that concealed carry is in the public's best interests. The "times have changed" argument is a dangerous one too...it's one of the biggies the anti's seek to use to have the 2A repealed. Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your thoughts here, and know if any or all of those below have been amended from original. FWIW, Alabama (and a few others like it) seems to have hit the nail on the head by including "defense of self" in their language.

Quote
The constitutions of thirty-nine (39) states guarantee a right to arms. By comparison to the second amendment of the United States Constitution the textual content of most state constitutions effects broader rights. Presently only five states track the language of the second amendment.

..................................

Thirty-nine (39) states have constitutional provisions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Alabama: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Ala. Const. art. I, � 26.

Alaska: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Alaska Const. art. I, � 19.

Arizona: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Ariz. Const. art. II, � 26.

Arkansas: "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense." Ark. Const. art. II, � 5.

Colorado: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Colo. Const. art. II, � 13.

Connecticut: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Conn. Const. art. I, � 15.

Florida: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Fla. Const. art. I, � 8.

Georgia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." Ga. Const. art. I, � 1, para. 5.

Hawaii: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Hawaii Const. art. I, � 15.

Idaho: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." Idaho Const. art. I, � 11.

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Ill. Const. art. I, � 22.

Indiana: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Ind. Const. art. I, � 32.

Kansas: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Kan. Const., Bill of Rights, � 4.

Kentucky: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." Ky. Const. � I, para. 7.

Louisiana: "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." La. Const. art. I, � 11.

Maine: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense; and this right shall never be questioned." Me. Const. art. I, � 16.

Massachusetts: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.

Michigan: "Every person has a right to keep or bear arms for the defense of himself and the State." Mich. Const. art. I, � 6.

Mississippi: "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power where thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons." Miss. Const. art. III, � 12.

Missouri: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." Mo. Const. art. I, � 23.

Montana: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Mont. Const. art. II, � 12.

Nevada: "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." Nev. Const. art. I, � 11(1).

New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the State." N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 2a.

New Mexico: "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." N.M. Const. art. II, � 6.

North Carolina: "A well regulated militia being necessary to be the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice." N.C. Const. art. I, � 30.

Ohio: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Ohio Const. art. I, � 4.

Oklahoma: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." Okla. Const. art. II, � 26.

Oregon: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." Or. Const. art. I, � 27.

Pennsylvania: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Pa. Const. art. I, � 21.

Rhode Island: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." R.I. Const. art. I, � 22.

South Carolina: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law." S.C. Const. art. I, � 20.

South Dakota: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied." S.D. Const. art. VI, � 24.

Tennessee: "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Tenn. Const. art. I, � 26.

Texas: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence 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." Tex. Const. art. I, � 23.

Utah: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law." Utah Const. art. I, � 6.

Utah voters in the 1984 elections will decide whether to amend Art. I � 6 to read as follows: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational use and all other lawful purposes, shall not be infringed; but this provision shall not prevent passage of laws to govern the carrying of concealed weapons; nor prevent legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by convicted felons, minors, mental incompetents or illegal aliens; nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those used in the commission of a felony.

Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16.

Virginia: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Va. Const. art. I, � 13.

Washington: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Wash. Const. art. I, � 24.

Wyoming: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied." Wyo. Const. art. I, � 24.

STATES WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Eleven (11) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Source: STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, by Robert Dowlut and Janet A. Knoop
[Copyright � 1982 Oklahoma City University Law Review. Originally published as 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241 (1982). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from www.okcu.edu/law/lrissue.htm]
Website: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html
Exactly.

Well stated. Concealed carry, is but a method you may use "to keep and bear arms", but methods of expressing a right may be regulated (as may methods of self-expression under the 1st Amendment). That historically regulation of that method has existed, and continues to exist, should surprise no one, nor should the simple position that regulation of that method WILL continue, though it will likely become recognized as possible and permitted nation-wide, TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY for a permit to do so.

However, a national reciprocity for concealed carry PERMITS is something that is very winnable, and will likely be the coup de grace on these cases.

Once the inalienable individual right has been established, or rather affirmed, as it was in Heller, the next logical steps are incorporation of the 2nd into the 14th and thus application to the states, and application of strict scrutiny.

From there, the only two major battles left to be fought are national reciprocity for CCW permits (as has been clearly established via reciprocity for driving permits as an extension of the right to travel; not everyone has one, or can get one, and they can be revoked, but for those that have and retain them, they are good nation-wide), and prohibitions on bans of ammunition or the draconian taxation of ammunition as it is a necessary component within the RTKBA.

We've won the first, and the most important, battle of the 5 battles to be joined. There are 4 to go; 2 have already been joined and are marching toward their logical end at the SCOTUS. 2 remain yet unjoined, and likely shall until the resolution of the incorporation and scrutiny issues.
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.

I don't think there is an actual risk of repealing the Second Amendment, though. Too many folks that do not suffer from the full blown form of the mental disease of extreme leftism for that to happen. Some people might be "philosophically opposed" to allowing "the other guy" to keep and bear arms, but even most of them would secretly like to preserve the liberty to do so for themselves, should they perceive at any point in the future that it has become necessary for them to do so.

Just like if you actually put to a referendum whether the government should prohibit anyone to have a net worth above ten million dollars. Most people hope one day to "strike it rich" somehow, and while they would be happy to prevent "the other guy" from amassing a net worth like that, they'd secretly like to leave the door open for themselves, just in case.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.

I don't think there is an actual risk of repealing the Second Amendment, though. Too many folks that do not suffer from the full blown form of the mental disease of extreme leftism for that to happen. Some people might be "philosophically opposed" to allowing "the other guy" to keep and bear arms, but even most of them would secretly like to preserve the liberty to do so for themselves, should they perceive at any point in the future that it has become necessary for them to do so.

Just like if you actually put to a referendum whether the government should prohibit anyone to have a net worth above ten million dollars. Most people hope one day to "strike it rich" somehow, and while they would be happy to prevent "the other guy" from amassing a net worth like that, they'd secretly like to leave the door open for themselves, just in case.


This "I should be allowed to own/carry a firearm, but the great unwashed masses are not competent to do so, and therefor should be denied that right" is a classic example of rank and file liberal ideology.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.



It would appear that from the dates of the writing of some of those provisions, that was exactly the line of thinking.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.
I think that as much as leftists hate the idea of regular folks having the right to carry firearms on their daily routine (they have no problem with allowing Madonna or George Cluny do it, though), if given a forced choice between allowing unrestricted open carry or unrestricted concealed carry, they'd prefer that everyone be required to conceal when they carry. They just hate that "wild west" look of open carry.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.
I think that as much as leftists hate the idea of regular folks having the right to carry firearms on their daily routine (they have no problem with allowing Madonna or George Cluny do it, though), if given a forced choice between allowing unrestricted open carry or unrestricted concealed carry, they'd prefer that everyone be required to conceal when they carry. They just hate that "wild west" look of open carry.


Sure, anybody in their "elite ruling class" should be allowed. They, afterall, are hear to protect us from all things evil as well as from ourselves.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
This "I should be allowed to own/carry a firearm, but the great unwashed masses are not competent to do so, and therefor should be denied that right" is a classic example of rank and file liberal ideology.
Exactly.
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.


Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?
South Dakota: No amendments.
Quote
� 24. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Concealed carry is "shall issue" by statute. Only a small minority of South Dakotans have a problem with this.

I'm not convinced concealed carry was considered sinister when the state constitution was adopted in 1889. The earliest reference to state regulation of concealed carry I can find with limited resources at hand is SDC 1939, �� 21.0105 through 21.0107.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.


Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?
They charge a fee for a license. I don't think it's unreasonable, but some folks might find it hard to afford. Over all cost is about $150.00, when you add in the cost of fingerprinting and background checking.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
VA, posted this list earlier of States that have some part of their constitution dealing with the RTKBA. I've bold-ed the states that mention specifically regulation of carry or concealed carry.

I feel sure that some, or maybe even all of these have been amended at some time since their original writing, to include the language regarding "concealed carry" or that relating to the method of carry. I'd be curious to know if any of these is in it's original form if any of y'all care to look at your state's Constitution and check it out. Part of the reason I'm curious is that the SCOTUS, in part, based it's opinion in Heller on historical text regarding the 2A and keeping and bearing of arms for personal use. If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man. BUT, I don't know. This, concealed carry, will be our ultimate battleground, and it may be the toughest one legally as it applies to the 2A. I can see a good public policy argument that carry should be open and notorious, as well I can see a good argument that even though "back in the day" concealed carry was considered sinister, but that times have changed and concealed carry is the common practice of the modern law abiding man, as well as a good public policy argument that concealed carry is in the public's best interests. The "times have changed" argument is a dangerous one too...it's one of the biggies the anti's seek to use to have the 2A repealed. Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your thoughts here, and know if any or all of those below have been amended from original. FWIW, Alabama (and a few others like it) seems to have hit the nail on the head by including "defense of self" in their language.



I agree with you.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a culture where carrying concealed was considered nefarious.........


Casey
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.
One problem I had with the Florida-wide CCW law was that it simultaneously nullified the right of Floridians to carry a firearm openly. Prior to this law, you didn't need a license to carry one openly, and that should never have been messed with, since our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to carry for lawful self defense. Only the method of carry is subject to regulation, according to the Florida Constitution. This gives them the authority to require a license for concealed carry, but not for both concealed carry and open carry, and they are not allowed to make the only avenue of carry one which requires a license. Government cannot legitimately require a licence for someone to exercise a right, especially when that right is explicitly guaranteed in the State Constitution.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.
One problem I had with the Florida-wide CCW law was that it simultaneously nullified the right of Floridians to carry a firearm openly. Prior to this law, you didn't need a license to carry one openly, and that should never have been messed with, since our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to carry for lawful self defense. Only the method of carry is subject to regulation, according to the Florida Constitution. This gives them the authority to require a license for concealed carry, but not for both concealed carry and open carry, and they are not allowed to make the only avenue of carry one which requires a license. Government cannot legitimately require a licence for someone to exercise a right, especially when that right is explicitly guaranteed in the State Constitution.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TN. did the same thing, when the concealed permits came in, the open carry went out. With some exceptions, hunting, open carry on your own property, open carry in your own business and a few others. crazy
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.
The British Bulldog was very popular in the late 1800's.
Originally Posted by WheelchairBandit
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.
That's a good point.
Originally Posted by Ethan Edwards
The British Bulldog was very popular in the late 1800's.
That too. It was very common to carry concealed in England, and no license was required. In fact there was a popular handgun designed just for bicycle touring, whose intended purpose was defense against loose dogs while bicycling in the country.
near as i can tell reading the Montana law.....concealed carry only truly applies to with in city limit and maybe within your car....if your out doing outdoor activities outside of city limits such as hunting, hiking, farming, ranching or similar where the use of a gun is considered normal...concealed carry laws do not apply
Quote
Eleven (11) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

FALSE



Delaware
�20. Right to keep and bear arms.
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

Nebraska
Statement of rights.
CI-1 All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

North Dakota
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Wisconsin
Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]

West Virginia
3-22. Right to keep and bear arms.
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

appreciate you legal types handling all of these data.
NYS permits have 3 classes. 1)Premises. Permit number pre-fixed by "P". 2 Carry concealed, preifx "C" 3)Occupational Slightly different in form and content. Is is discretionary issue. Judges have also made up some of their own rules that are NOT in Sec 400 of the Penal Law. NYS is ripe for a major blast. All needed is "shall issue" and the rest is burned into their foreheads.
Originally Posted by WheelchairBandit
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.


Based on when some of these concealed carry clauses were drafted, I'd have to disagree. At least in some quarters, concealed carry in the 1800s was considered sinister.

Like I noted in the original post though, there's room for a "the times have changed" argument...but that leaves us open to the same argument regarding the 2A.
280, it appears to me that how guns were carried back then and today are more based on "dressing for the occassion" than anything else. Townies and outsiders probly took turns looking down their noses at each other...just like today.
Good observations.

IMO, the better public policy argument can be made today for concealed carry. You know...not scaring the little kiddies of soccer moms, not puttin' the fear of God in to non carryiers every time you set foot in public, not making guns readily observable and available for the bad element to take them.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by WheelchairBandit
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.


Based on when some of these concealed carry clauses were drafted, I'd have to disagree. At least in some quarters, concealed carry in the 1800s was considered sinister.

Like I noted in the original post though, there's room for a "the times have changed" argument...but that leaves us open to the same argument regarding the 2A.


I don't have the legal education of an attorney, but I can't see how the "times have changed" argument can be used against us, re: the 2A proper.

To explain, it's my understanding that we are not "granted" any rights by the CotUS ... but instead, the Constitution simply acknowledges those rights, and acts to protect them. That said, if we have right to KABA, then we have that right in an inalienable sense ... it can't be taken away by the constitution, as it was never "given" to us by the constitution...

of course, how we exercise that right, might be affected by the "times have changed" argument - which has already been discussed, re: open carry vs. concealed carry ...

Now ... go ahead and explain to me how I'm errant in my thinking? ... (grin)
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Good observations.

IMO, the better public policy argument can be made today for concealed carry. You know...not scaring the little kiddies of soccer moms, not puttin' the fear of God in to non carryiers every time you set foot in public, not making guns readily observable and available for the bad element to take them.

I don't know, I kinda like the concept of "Keep and bear bare arms" grin
Originally Posted by WGM
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by WheelchairBandit
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.


Based on when some of these concealed carry clauses were drafted, I'd have to disagree. At least in some quarters, concealed carry in the 1800s was considered sinister.

Like I noted in the original post though, there's room for a "the times have changed" argument...but that leaves us open to the same argument regarding the 2A.


I don't have the legal education of an attorney, but I can't see how the "times have changed" argument can be used against us, re: the 2A proper.

To explain, it's my understanding that we are not "granted" any rights by the CotUS ... but instead, the Constitution simply acknowledges those rights, and acts to protect them. That said, if we have right to KABA, then we have that right in an inalienable sense ... it can't be taken away by the constitution, as it was never "given" to us by the constitution...

of course, how we exercise that right, might be affected by the "times have changed" argument - which has already been discussed, re: open carry vs. concealed carry ...

Now ... go ahead and explain to me how I'm errant in my thinking? ... (grin)


I didn't say that the "times have changed" argument was a good argument vs. the 2A, I merely said it was a popular argument. Liberals rarely make good arguments to support their agenda, yet they quite often make arguments that appeal to the people who don't pay much attention...the "undecided voter", the people that say they believe in the Constitution, but really don't know what it means or says and are apt to say that in one breath but follow it up by indicating they also believe that guns shouldn't be available to the general public. The ones that think they're conservatives, you know? The dangerous ones! I mean we know Obama, Clinton and their ilk...its the closet liberal posing as a conservative, and the "undecidedes" that call themselves conservatives that are the ones hard to root out.
Originally Posted by WGM
To explain, it's my understanding that we are not "granted" any rights by the CotUS ... but instead, the Constitution simply acknowledges those rights, and acts to protect them. That said, if we have right to KABA, then we have that right in an inalienable sense ... it can't be taken away by the constitution, as it was never "given" to us by the constitution...
That's correct. We agree.
© 24hourcampfire