TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

G26ster wrote:I think the term "Constitutional Carry" is a poor substitute for "Open Carry." The Constitution ensures RKBA rights, but it doesn't prevent gov't from restricting those rights to criminals, mentaly unstable persons, etc. By supporting any legislation called Constitutional Carry, you may be giving the impression to the anti's that you believe ALL persons may carry a gun because of 2A Constitutional rights. That's a whole different impression than Open Carry. MHO.

Funny, I see it just the other way around. "Open Carry" implies anyone can do it, while in my view "Constitutional Carry" indeed doesn't prevent the right from being restricted from criminals, etc.

Ok, then I'll try this. How does Constitutional Carry only imply Open Carry, and not imply Concealed Carry? I don't think the Constitution has any bearing on the "method" used in the right to bear arms.

Since the Constitution says that nobody can be denied their rights without due process, neither of the two terms - "Open Carry" or "Constitutional Carry" - prevent government from denying the right to keep and bear arms to people who shouldn't... convicted felons, etc., etc.

However, there is a significant difference between constitutional and open carry. In Arizona, before Constitutional Carry was passed, you could open carry without a permit, OR you could carry concealed with a permit. After passing Constitutional Carry, you can carry either way without need of any kind of permit. That is the fundamental difference between the two. Open Carry only addresses carrying in the open, but a state could still conceivably require a permit to do so if they wanted to. Constitutional Carry means any kind of carry, any time, without any permitting requirements.

jimlongley wrote:

G26ster wrote:I think the term "Constitutional Carry" is a poor substitute for "Open Carry." The Constitution ensures RKBA rights, but it doesn't prevent gov't from restricting those rights to criminals, mentaly unstable persons, etc. By supporting any legislation called Constitutional Carry, you may be giving the impression to the anti's that you believe ALL persons may carry a gun because of 2A Constitutional rights. That's a whole different impression than Open Carry. MHO.

Funny, I see it just the other way around. "Open Carry" implies anyone can do it, while in my view "Constitutional Carry" indeed doesn't prevent the right from being restricted from criminals, etc.

Constitutional carry is emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To me the uninfringed bearing of arms means:

• That We don't need a license.
  That We can carry it open hidden in our cars and in the streets.
  That we can travel and cross interstate, municipal borders while armed.

Arizona Alaska and Vermont have constitutional carry.
Constitutional carry is simply what the Constitution really clearly states.
It isn't open carry. although open carry is a small part of it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Since the Constitution says that nobody can be denied their rights without due process, neither of the two terms - "Open Carry" or "Constitutional Carry" - prevent government from denying the right to keep and bear arms to people who shouldn't... convicted felons, etc., etc.

However, there is a significant difference between constitutional and open carry. In Arizona, before Constitutional Carry was passed, you could open carry without a permit, OR you could carry concealed with a permit. After passing Constitutional Carry, you can carry either way without need of any kind of permit. That is the fundamental difference between the two. Open Carry only addresses carrying in the open, but a state could still conceivably require a permit to do so if they wanted to. Constitutional Carry means any kind of carry, any time, without any permitting requirements.

I agree that is what most of us would understand what the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry is, but the phrase "shall not be infringed." seems pretty clear cut to me, and to me implies that there are to be no exceptions.

I could easily live with the exceptions over what we have now, and my understanding as a simpleman might be overly simplistic, but thats how I read my constitution.

Liberty wrote:I agree that is what most of us would understand what the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry is, but the phrase "shall not be infringed." seems pretty clear cut to me, and to me implies that there are to be no exceptions.

If someone has been convicted and is still serving their sentence (including probation or parole) then their rights can be infringed. After that, I have mixed feelings.