I came across a recent blog post recently where the author suggested concealed carry was unconstitutional. This conclusion was based on the author’s notion of having a right to be informed when being in the presence of guns in order to have the choice to leave that environment and therefore unconstitutional.
Unfortunately for the author, being informed of being in those situations is not a constitutionally protected right. It was clearly apparent the author has little to no knowledge of firearms when writing:
You may have a right to own guns, but I have a right to life. My right to life far outweighs anyone’s right to gun ownership. Change my mind.
Joshua Alexander Hill, February 25, 2019
This statement leads me to believe the author has a fear of firearms and probably believes a law abiding gun owning armed citizen is a life threatening danger. This could not be further from the truth.
UPDATE: The author of the blog post responded with a comment indicating that I failed to mention (or read) his opening line where he states, “I don’t care of you own guns.” Truth is I read it, I just didn’t find it relevant as he continues to explain why he cares if they are carried in public. Hence, one may infer a fear of firearms. In his response, he also claims “most of the weapons used in the mass shootings of late have been legally-purchased weapons by “law abiding citizens.” – which to the best of my knowledge is true. However, we are talking about 75 or so tragic instances where legally obtained guns were used in a mass shooting (the rest were either obtained illegally or the source is unknown. That’s less than 1% of 1% of legally purchased firearms in a single month. And then there is the fact that guns save lives much more often (we are talking about several degrees of magnitude) than take lives. But none of this deals with the constitutionality of the topic.
Yes, firearms maybe dangerous when found in the hands of a person who is bent on causing harm. And that individual will not likely let anyone know they are armed until they are ready to commit an atrocity. Which is the very reason, many law abiding gun owners chose to be armed with a concealed handgun. The armed citizens are the individuals who refuse to be victims and may aid law enforcement or step in to defend the lives those who are helpless.
As far as constitutionality of concealed carry goes, one may refer to the Supreme Court decisions and opinions on the D.C. vs. Heller case or the McDonald vs. Chicago cases. The cases effectively indicate firearm ownership for the purpose of self defense is constitutional – via the 2nd amendment. As far as I know there have not been any cases taken up by the Supreme Court with specific regards to concealed carry. However, one can extrapolate that concealed carry is a self defense practice and therefore would likely be constitutionally protected. Not to mention that fifteen (15) States now have “constitutional” (or permit-less) carry laws and three (3) States have limited provisions of similar laws.
UPDATE: The author of the post I referenced brought to my attention that through my own admission of not being aware of a Supreme Court case where the constitutionality of concealed carry has been challenged my response to his post was “wholly uninformed.” To that I say, there is more evidence to support the constitutionality of concealed carry in the court cases I mentioned than there is to support the unconstitutionality of it. I performed research looking for evidence to prove the unconstitutionality of concealed carry and failed to find any evidence of it short of some dissenting opinions and some circuit court decisions (most of which have been overruled). Please feel free to point me at a reputable source that has supporting evidence. Frankly, the author of the post (and his response) do not provide any evidence opposing the constitutionality of concealed carry.
I do agree with the author, everyone has a right to their life. I only hope the author would take the time to learn more about firearms and have a little more faith in the law abiding armed citizens who also believe every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Armed citizens have had to typically undergo extensive background checks and are held to a higher standard of law when armed in public. They are more or less the good guys we don’t have to worry about or be in fear of.
UPDATE: This post is not intended to be an attack of the author of the blog post I’ve referenced. In fact, I find him to be a well spoken person who has done a find job stating his position. I find we have plenty in common – the right to life, the opposition to mass-shootings and loss of innocent life, and the desire to make our country better than it is. But we do disagree on how we, as a country, should go about it from a gun regulation perspective. I believe in the constitution and I believe the other author does as well. However, it appears to me we have very different view points on the validity and need for the 2nd amendment. I really would welcome and enjoy an actual conversation with the author to better understand why our views on the 2nd amendment are so different and perhaps agree on some actions individuals, communities, and government agencies at all levels should take to save lives and eliminate all forms of violence.