Open carry a right, concealed carry a privilege?

[jrfoxx]

This subject was briefly mentioned by 2 people the below thread on open carry, and I read the court case referanced by Lonnie Wilson, and found it quite interesting (having been a sailor myself, and being interested in history and all things maritime), and it got me to wondering what others thoughts were.Please note, the case in question was NOT about guns, the 2A, or RKBA at all, in any way.It was a case about the legality/constitutionality of issuing a warrant to capture sailors who had signed a contract to be part of the crew of a ship, who then desrted before the voyage/contract was ended, and allowing them to be forceably returned to the vessel in question, and be forced to complete the contract/voyage against there will.The statement by the judge we are interestd in here was just part of a list of examples of diffrent rights, and what types of infingements were allowed in the law.

Here's the thread referenced:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=351388&page=3

And a link to the court case mentioned:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/robertson_v_baldwin.txt

Heres the applicable section of the judges decision, for those who dont want to wade thru the whole, long case, and since 99.9% is unrelated to the topic at hand directly, although the concept of allowable infringement of rights in general IS pertananant, and is the general topic of the case, but I'm mainly interesed in the whole concept of the 2A only proecting OPEN carry of arms as a right, whereas concealed carry is not, and is a privlidge granted by the govt.

In
incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was
no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be
recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the
freedom of speech and of the press (art. 1) does not permit the
publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other
publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the
right of the people

282 OCTOBER TERM, 1896.

Opinion of the Court.

to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting
the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person
shall be twice put in jeopardy (art. 5) does not prevent a second
trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the
verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v.
Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 672; nor does the provision of the same
article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his
obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by
the lapse of time, a pardon or by statutory enactment.

My feelings are that the judge is wrong in saying concealed carry is a priveledge, and the right to bear arms only applies to open carry. I just dont see how that is supported in the 2A at all. It says "...the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed.", not "...the right to keep and openly bear arms shall not be infringed.". Also, I dont see any compelling govt. or social need to infringe on the right to bear arms by only protecting open carry regardless. Is the poulation or the govt less safe with concealed carry as opposed to open carry? I dont see realy how, reasonably (yes, I can think of some arguments for it, but they seem REALLY flimsy, and not based on actual rality and likelyhod to me).Am I more dangerous if my gun is not visible than when it is? I think not, as if I had evil intent, either way, yu wouldnt know i, and could do nothing about it, until I am atually drawing the gun, and doing so from concealed vs. open has only a TINY different in how long it takes, or how esily/likey someone woyuld be to see what I was dong.Either way until the gun is esentially visible in my hand, you have no idea what I'm up to, an could not realy legally or morally use force to stop me until then, as you would be acting before there was any reasoable indication I had evil intent.
What say the rest of you on this concept of open/concealed carry as a right? Also, does anone know of any court case(s) that address this question directly,or where the judge may have gotten this idea from?

 

[Outlaw Man]

I would tend to agree. I don't see where there's a distinction as far as rights are concerned.

 

[fjolnirsson]

I agree. A right is a right, first of all. The Constitution doesn't "grant" anything, it merely acknowledges existing rights, and defines the limitations of government.
Concealed or Open, we have the right to bear arms.

 

[misterwhipple]

Time, Place, and Manner

Virginia's constitution, for example, makes an explicit exception for forbidding concealed carry. My impression is that the framers believed an honest citizen would be willing to show his weapon openly, while someone with criminal intent would be more likely to conceal his.

 

[lacoochee]

Virginia's constitution, for example, makes an explicit exception for forbidding concealed carry. My impression is that the framers believed an honest citizen would be willing to show his weapon openly, while someone with criminal intent would be more likely to conceal his.

Florida is the same way, I think when these amendments were passed into our state constitutions, concealed carry was seen as very cowardly because a true man would bear his weapons in the open. It would of course never occurred to them either that a citizen would be barred from carrying his arms openly in any context by the government or that said citizen would put up with such an infringement of their basic rights. Additionally, the idea of a tolerated sub-culture of violent and armed thugs, who at anytime could randomly attack someone in public with relative impunity would have simply been unbelievable to them.

 

[gym]

Judges who try to interpret the constitution, get overterned eventually. It's not thier job. I had an aquaintence get out of jail 25 yrs ago, because after seeing that the prosecuters case was weak, the judge, made the mistake of charging and convicting the defenant on a lesser charege, the case was overturned for that reason, he had no right to add a charge, after the trial started, or before . They went from conspiracy to facilitation to nothing. There are many of these abuses of the law, usually they take advantage of the poor and uneducated, due to the financial burden it puts on a family to pay an attorney. And as far as legal aid lawyers go, if the Feds or the district attorney are giving you an attorney to use, that's a rediculous situation , whe the Federal Govt, has one of thier people defend someone who they are looking to put away. And the guys he's arguing against are his employers. Not a good place to be. So it's probablly going to depend on who argues the case, which is an attorney who deals with Constitutional law

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Florida is the same way, I think when these amendments were passed into our state constitutions, concealed carry was seen as very cowardly because a true man would bear his weapons in the open.

Yes, Idaho is the same way with the carrying of firearms being explicitly realized, though laws concerning concealed weapons could be (and have been) passed.

I would make one minor correction to your statement however; I wouldn't say "a true man" but "an honest man" or "a law-abiding man."

 

[lacoochee]

"True man" withdrawn and suggestion above accepted in spirit presented, really didn't give it that much thought.