Idaho becomes the 8th State for "Constitutional Carry"

[johnwilliamson062]

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined. Conceal carry is considered a "privilege". Like driving. There is no federal guarantee any state will acknowledge a drivers license. That is established by a number of agreements between the various states.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined. Conceal carry is considered a "privilege". Like driving. There is no federal guarantee any state will acknowledge a drivers license. That is established by a number of agreements between the various states.

Driving is not a good comparison, because there is no guaratnteed constitutional right to drive.

The 2A (and the constitutions of many of the states) guarantees (supposedly) a right to "bear" (which means or should mean "carry") arms. It doesn't say whether that's concealed or open, it just says carry. The supreme courts of several states (including, IIRC, Ohio and Idaho) have ruled that the legislatures may regulate the mode of carry but may not prohibit carry. So, if a state's legislature doesn't like concealed carry, they can ban concealed carry but then they have to allow open carry. This was how Ohio finally got a concealed carry law -- the Ohio court had ruled that open carry could not be banned because the legislature had prohibited concealed carry. People didn't like seeing a lot of open carriers, so the legislature enacted concealed carry laws.

But ... conversely, it could go to other way. In the early days of the U.S., open carry was considered normal and concealed carry was considered "sneaky" and ungentlemanly. It's entirely possible that a state could go to a scheme under which concealed carry is legal everywhere but open carry is entirely prohibited. As long as we can carry one way or the other, it seems the courts will be happy.

Personally, I still don't think regulating or prohibiting one mode of carry while allowing another is really faithful to "shall not be infringed," but I'm not a judge and they typically don't consult me, so my opinion doesn't count.

 

[Don P]

Well, I'm by no means a scholar, but doesn't the Second Amendment say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Doesn't bear arms mean to carry

I don't think so and it does not state carry anywhere.
I look at the Amendments to the Constitution as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Just my take

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined.

I concur.
Now how about the good old west, towns that did not allow the carrying of firearms??
I only disagree with the term Constitutional carry because no where in the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution does it mention the carrying of a open or concealed firearm. Dangerous ground in my opinion
A link to the article about West Virginia and constitutional carry,http://patriotpost.us/posts/41194

 

[johnwilliamson062]

no where in the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution does it mention the carrying of a open or concealed firearm.

"bear" does more or less mean carry. As Aguila pointed out it just doesn't mean 'however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.'
The Ohio decision was pre-incorporation of 2A and based on the Ohio constitution, as I understand it.

Driving is not a good comparison, because there is no guaratnteed constitutional right to drive.

I don't think there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to concealed carry, so I think it does make a good comparison. Sort of like you have a constitutional right to assembly, and that right to assembly protects your right to travel to that assembly, but it does not protect your right to do so in a car if you don't have a drivers license.. I don't see SCOTUS shooting down a ban on CC if open carry is an option. I could see a stronger than normal anti-gun legal argument for arguing the right to carry a loaded firearm is limited to maneuvers of the militia if called upon or something only slightly less restrictive.Not flawless, but much stronger than the normal "only muzzle loaders" "only in organized state militia" type arguments that have been struck down.

I might be wrong, but I don't see the "may issue" areas being struck down in the courts.