No. If I have freedom of speech I have freedom of speech whether I’m shouting or whispering. Forcing open carry is the equivalent of only shouting.
Is carrying concealed bearing arms?
Wrong. That’s a myth.
If you can restrict how you can carry an arm, you can restrict what arm you can carry. Infringements are prohibited by the Constitution. Restricting you to a particular arm or how you carry it, are both infringements.
Nobody loses their right to bear arms without Due Process. Felons and the mentally ill are afforded Due Process before their right to keep and bear arms is suspended. That is the Fifth Amendment.
2 Likes
I see you want to get into semantics.
I’ll stick with this:
https://thelawdictionary.org/bear-arms/
This precedent applies to concealed carry.
Do it, cause injury and see what happens to you.
Semantics are where our liberal politicians make their bread and butter.
Let’s do away with semantics and return to the core that has not been whittled away.
I don’t see anything there about keeping your arms out where other people can see them.
That precedent only applies to the State of Tennessee.
Restricting concealed carry does not prevent carry. Full length shotguns and rifles can be concealed. I seen a guitar case that holds an impressive cache of long guns and handguns.
The first link includes reference to the second. The second relates to the constitutionality of concealed carry restrictions.
Did you both to read the court opinions?
No matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, its still an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. And by criminalizing the concealing of arms, you are implementing prior restraint … in this case, suggesting that if you conceal your arm that you are intending criminal behavior with that arm and thus should be arrested. Prior restraint is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.
1 Like
I think the judges were considering the allowing of unrestricted concealed carry to be enabling to criminals, not suggesting that concealment implies criminality.
No. The judges were avoiding the Constitutional issue by avoiding the definition of “infringed.” And in doing so, they violated the 5th Amendment, by making criminals out of anyone who carries an arm such that somebody else can’t see it rather than giving those people Due Process.
The great irony about illegal concealed carry, is that liberals go crazy if they see someone openly carrying a gun. 
1 Like
The decision merely upheld the legality of a requirement to have a permit for concealed carry.
Do you consider all of these 42 states to have unconstitutional “infringement” of the right to bear arms on their books?
That actually supports my case, not yours.
“To carry…” is to bear. Now what does the 2nd say about bearing arms?
“Cause injury”?
Do you know where The Myth comes from?
The core has most certainly been “whittled away” - with a chain saw.
Does it infringe on carry?
And there’s your problem.
That’s because they were fucking idiots. Criminals by definition do not care about laws.
Oh I think they clearly understood that fact. Writing laws to make criminality more difficult is a good thing.
Tell me what you think of 42 out of 50 states having permit requirements for concealed carry.