Kansas Concealed Weapons Bill

[Emsworth]

Yes. The right of self-defense is not restricted to one's home; it applies in public as well. Moreover, the right to conceal and carry weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.

[Emsworth]

The right to carry weapons is. The right to conceal weapons is not.

It could be argued that the right to bear arms encompasses the right to bear them openly as well as secretly, as one pleases. The decisions of a few state supreme courts (e.g., Kentucky) from the early 19th century appear to confirm this view.

[Emsworth]

Talk about reading too much into the second amendment.  We go from allowing citizens to own guns to provide for national defense, to thinking all citizens can own guns just for fun, to thinking that citizens can carry concealed weapons? 

The Second Amendment does not state that citizens can only own guns for self-defense. A person may keep and bear arms for any reason whatsoever, as the plain text quite clearly states. And the manner of keeping and bearing those arms is also up to the individual, as the text implies.

[Emsworth]

I'm not going to restart the debate again, but I never said that the second amendment states citizens can only own guns for self defense.  I said that the second amendment says citizens can own guns to provide for national defense (and yes, that is all it says).

The Second Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It refers to the absolute right to keep and bear arms, not to the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of national defense.

[Emsworth]

You are intentionally cutting out half of the text of the sentence, which explains why the right exists.

Of course I am ignoring the first half of the text, because it is irrelevant to our present discussion. It is unquestionably true that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms. That it exists matters; why it exists does not (at least in the context of this debate).

The first part of the Second Amendment is, in this respect, similar to the Preamble of the Constitution: it declares a purpose, but has no substantive effect.

Thus, we have established that the people have the right to "keep and bear Arms" (whatever the reason for that right may be). Clearly, the right to "keep and bear Arms" includes the right to determine how those arms are to be kept and borne. It is each individual's right to determine how he shall bear his arms. Thus, he may decide whether to bear them openly, or whether to conceal them: the government has no power to interpose.

I will also observe that the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared in Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) that a statute against concealed carry violated the right to bear arms. If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Courts of Tennessee and Mississippi also held this to be the case during the nineteenth century (but I do not recall the cases). I think that Indiana, on the other hand, maintained the contrary doctrine (State v. Mitchell).

[Emsworth]

The second amendment does not cover "how" arms can be kept.

The First Amendment does not explicitly cover "how" the freedom of speech can be exercised. But if someone wishes to write a book, can the government tell him that he must make a speech instead? Under your theory, the government would not be regulating the right to freedom of speech itself, but only "how" that right is exercised.

But I doubt that any court of law would agree that the government can force someone to make a speech instead of writing a book. Why? Because when the Constitution states that an individual possesses a substantive right, it implies the individual possesses the authority to determine how that right shall be exercised. The First Amendment guarantees not only the right to freedom of speech, but also the right to determine the manner in which speech shall be made; likewise, the Second Amendment guarantees not only the right to bear arms, but also the right to determine the manner in which arms shall be borne.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To quote from the decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Bliss v. Commonwealth:

"[T]o be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms ... that is secured ... and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden."