Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Al Norris
This is exactly what all the current "carry" cases are about. Some manner of carry must be available, even if through a regulatory process. States that prohibit openly carrying must provide for concealed carry. If concealed carry is not the right, then open carry must be. Either way, the government may regulate how carry is to be achieved, but it cannot deny the fundamental right to carry for self-defense (shall issue as opposed to may issue).
Permitless carry is lawful if the State (or local) or Federal regulations are either silent (no prohibition) or permitted by statute. Permitless carry can include concealed carry, but it doesn't have to.
|
To expand slightly on what Al wrote:
Regulation is (by definition) infringement. While I agree that the Constitution requires that some mode of carry be allowed but that the states may decide WHAT mode is allowed ... where I stop is if the only mode allowed (or all modes, where applicable) is available only with a license or permit. Since Gary's opening post includes Connecticut, that's a perfect example of how it ought NOT to be done. Like the 2A, the Connecticut state constitution espouses a right to keep and bear arms. Yet, under Connecticut law, NO mode of carry is allowed without a permit. Once you have the permit, both concealed and open carry become legal.
IMHO, that's not really what the law (the Constitution, and the [state] constitution) says.
Reference: Connecticut Constitution:
Quote:
|
SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
|
Not even a pesky militia clause in there to argue about, yet the state's laws are contrary to the state's constitution and nobody can get it fixed.