Thanks for bumping this! I had not seen it before. That's a perfect explanation of why I OC. I'm not interested at all about arguing if it's tactically wise or not. More than anything, it's political speech.
Printable View
According to this, there are a few more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry
While they do have concealed carry licenses, they are for reciprocity, and not required to carry.
Great Post.
The opening post is based on a false premise. The Constitution guarantees us (supposedly) a right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't prohibit the government from regulating the mode of carry. Thus, there is no inherent constitutional right to open carry.
As the Ohio Supreme Court ruled a few years ago, if the state prohibits one mode of carry then the other must be allowed. However, any state may -- within the limitations established by the Constitution -- prohibit either open carry or concealed carry, as long as the other mode is available to the citizens.
Ideally, we should all have a right to decide for ourselves whether to carry openly or concealed. However, that's not what a strict reading of the Constitution provides.
Agreed. I think the driver's license analogy is completely valid. The rules laid down by the Supreme Court are that a police officer may stop and investigate a person when that officer has a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. Seeing someone wearing a firearm in a place where carrying a firearm is legal does not provide (IMHO) sufficient "clearly articulable facts" to support a "reasonable" suspicion of criminal activity. No more than seeing someone driving down Spruce Street in a car gives rise to a "reasonable suspicion" that the driver doesn't have a driver's license.
Great thought provoking thread and discussion fodder. I find it amazing that this thread has only 36 replies in two months while some asinine thread in the Lounge will get a couple of hundred in just a few days. Oh well. Thanks to the OP.
How kind of the Ohio Supremes to allow us one mode of carry!
This from the state that requires the first words out of a motorists mouth be to inform Officer Friendly that they are armed and have permission to be that way.
Un-impressed, I am, with The Powers That Be in Ohio.
I am happy their logic doesn't cross state lines.
I definitely disagree - The US Constitution recognizes our "inalienable right" to keep and bear arms and further states that that RIGHT should 'Not Be Infringed" and our PA Constitution says it "Shall NOT Be Questioned" - Those two statements are not wishy washy - It is the Supreme Court(s) that are destroying our RIGHTS by not protecting the citizens from the overreaching government that would make every RIGHT a PRIVILEGE to be granted only at their will.
Just because the US Supreme Court has not done it's job of protecting the citizen's RIGHTS, and keeping all Government within the bounds of the Consititutional limitations, willingly making (case) laws from the bench without even a blush of embarrassment, does not mean that my premise (that the choice of how one carries their firearm is equally protected by the Constitution) is false.
It is only because we have acquiesced to the idea that the US Supreme Court has authority to make (case) laws from the bench (by which it is itself being unconstitutional) that we find ourselves BEGGING to have our RIGHTS respected at any level of government. None of the three branches of government are operating within their Constitutional Boundaries and none of them have the integrity to limit themselves or the other branches to those boundaries.
One should never argue that simply because of what IS that that constitutes that which is right - For there are many, many wrongs perpetrated in the name of what is right - Boldly asserted lies do not a truth make!
ID
Bumping this thread in support of the Jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial!
...