Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 230RN on December 28, 2022, 10:23:57 AM
-
How did concealment of a weapon get to be such a bugbear?
I'm prompted to ask this because even Colorado's Constitution of 1876 says "the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
(Article II, § 13 )
And the actual trigger for the question came when I spotted this ad for a Roy Rogers "Quick Shooter" gun concealed in a cowboy hat (date unknown).
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.liveauctiongroup.net%2Fi%2F5361%2F8437641_1.jpg&hash=0b929094bd32c31c4ea067fe72093aa63bce8f9d)
Surely Roy Rogers, that paramount of fair play and high morals as well as Ideal Toys would not be advocating concealed carry in this manner if it were such a bad thing.
So how did concealed carry itself it get to be so eeeee-villll?
Terry, 230RN
-
As I understand it, and I have no historical records to cite, concealed weapons have long been considered a sign of someone up to no good.
In Europe as far back as the middle ages the rich carried weapons openly, and the only folks that needed to conceal them were the ones that weren't supposed to have them. In the New World, generally anyone could carry a weapon, and concealing it was a sign you wanted to deceive people into thinking you were unarmed. Something highwaymen and the like might do.
-
I think they became evil when dictators, tyrants, and despots decided they might be used to depose them.
'Deposed' as with extreme prejudice.
Woody
-
I don't know how it started, but "concealed weapons" were evil when demonizing them was a useful way to justify making them illegal. I still recall, in the mid-90s, that people still argued if you were going to carry a gun for self-defense, it had to be visible, so everyone knew you had it. Pretty funny that that's now considered rude, or threatening. Now, people seem to think there's an obvious moral duty to conceal your gun the way a man has to conceal, ya know, his other equipment.
It's dumb that we have to use the words "conceal" and "concealed" so much. There's a million articles and videos and podcasts talking about "concealed carry," when the conversation could just as easily apply to weapons that aren't "concealed." And why "concealed" or "open"? I have a flashlight in my pocket right now, but no one would say I'm "concealed-carrying" a flashlight. I have a pen clipped into the front of my shirt, but no one says I'm "open-carrying" an ink pen.
-
As I understand it, and I have no historical records to cite, concealed weapons have long been considered a sign of someone up to no good.
In Europe as far back as the middle ages the rich carried weapons openly, and the only folks that needed to conceal them were the ones that weren't supposed to have them. In the New World, generally anyone could carry a weapon, and concealing it was a sign you wanted to deceive people into thinking you were unarmed. Something highwaymen and the like might do.
Correct. It dates to a time when ALL gentlemen were trained in the use of firearms, dueling was an accepted way of settling differences, pistols were generally carried openly and didn't cause any soccer moms (of the day) to have a case of the vapors, and only card sharps and robbers resorted to carrying "hide-out" guns (often up their sleeves).
-
I thought a lot of fancy gentlemen (and some gentlewomen) acceptably carried derringers and other pocket pistols back in the day. I don't think any of them were open carried.
-
I thought a lot of fancy gentlemen (and some gentlewomen) acceptably carried derringers and other pocket pistols back in the day. I don't think any of them were open carried.
I guess it depends on which back in the day we're referring to. But, yeah, pocket pistols have been a thing for a while, even before the concealed carry movement.
-
I guess it depends on which back in the day we're referring to. But, yeah, pocket pistols have been a thing for a while, even before the concealed carry movement.
I'm assuming the OP's reference to the 19th century and prior.
-
In the beginning of the USA, concealed and open carry were both unregulated (at least for citizens) in the entire country. Starting around the 1820's some states started banning concealed carry, while leaving open carry unregulated. These were primarily Southern states who were attempting to stop white trash from shooting and stabbing each other in public. Lots of the original carry bans actually targeted bowie knives.
State courts at the time typically held that open carry was a right, but concealed carry was not. Vermont courts were an exception, hence the term "Vermont Carry" which meant unregulated congealed carry for a long time.
This also gave rise to multiple state court cases which held that owning and carrying military weapons (even cannons!) was protected, but non-military weapons like bowie knives (ahem, see the picture below) were not.
If I remember correctly, open carry of handguns was legal almost everywhere until the very early 1900s.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2FS80AAOSwFLBaW8Dr%2Fs-l400.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e503de2e4a3b0f63f5afbf43eca10c19f0986ff00e9c51bb3f545192dbbaa31d&ipo=images)
-
State courts at the time typically held that open carry was a right, but concealed carry was not. Vermont courts were an exception, hence the term "Vermont Carry" which meant unregulated congealed carry for a long time.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/nloO_PQRuDzWFcMuEsDMvYll2VVDMN_lD5lEjwXw0b4/rs:fit:480:360:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp/Z2luYWxzLzMwLzEx/L2U2LzMwMTFlNjgx/YmZmZjIxN2ZlMWQ3/ZWYzMDIxODA5Njdm/LmpwZw)
-
I guess it depends on which back in the day we're referring to. But, yeah, pocket pistols have been a thing for a while, even before the concealed carry movement.
My understanding is pocket pistols were all the rage in Europe before a lot of the gun registration laws started passing in the 1920's. I think John Browning and FN made a lot of money selling those 25 ACP and 32 ACP pistols. I guess sword canes and other weapons were around before that.
-
I am with the previous comments, it is all politics. There are always people who think those "other people" shouldn't be allowed to own guns or carry weapons. They think passing a law will make them suddenly stop. Politicians are just catering to fools who think that. I think it is ramped up these days due to all the money getting dumped into activist organizations.
-
I don't know how it started, but "concealed weapons" were evil when demonizing them was a useful way to justify making them illegal. I still recall, in the mid-90s, that people still argued if you were going to carry a gun for self-defense, it had to be visible, so everyone knew you had it. Pretty funny that that's now considered rude, or threatening. Now, people seem to think there's an obvious moral duty to conceal your gun the way a man has to conceal, ya know, his other equipment.
It's dumb that we have to use the words "conceal" and "concealed" so much. There's a million articles and videos and podcasts talking about "concealed carry," when the conversation could just as easily apply to weapons that aren't "concealed." And why "concealed" or "open"? I have a flashlight in my pocket right now, but no one would say I'm "concealed-carrying" a flashlight. I have a pen clipped into the front of my shirt, but no one says I'm "open-carrying" an ink pen.
Wow, I really like that one. Thanks !
-
Concealed handguns are evil?
Well, then, I've been the devil since 1987.
-
^ Well, at root, the question is "why are they separate from 'arms' in general?"
Note in my OP quote of the Colorado Constitution, the last clause: "but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." I don't know if that was in the original "accepted for Statehood" version of 1858 or added later, but the date doesn't matter. There it is, like the nose on your face.
The above posts give a good idea of the societal reasons for this, but not the legal side of it. Arms is arms and if I prefer to carry a gun in my hat (per the Roy Rogers ad) pr in my jock, that should be part of the "shall not be infringed" concept.
Terry, 230RN
-
Arms is arms and if I prefer to carry a gun in my hat (per the Roy Rogers ad) pr in my jock, that should be part of the "shall not be infringed" concept.
Terry, 230RN
Maybe I'm way out in the left field, but I think the question is (or should be), what is included in your right to bear arms? Does it mean you can bear any kind of arm, in any way you want? Does it mean you can carry a loaded M60, safety off, finger on the trigger, and with a fifth of vodka in your system? Does it mean revolvers are OK, but you have no right to carry an "assault-style" semi-automatic pistol with an extra-murdery 15-caliber clip?
-
You are sort of getting into what/how people can carry versus their behavior while carrying. I think many states that are open about carrying arms have other laws about doing so while drunk or "brandishing" the firearm.
-
Does it mean you can carry a loaded M60, safety off, finger on the trigger, and with a fifth of vodka in your system?
At the risk of thread veer, this is always an interesting question to me. With CCW permits (which I recognize strays from "unalienable rights"), in various states, you're not even allowed to set foot in an establishment that serves alcohol (or that section of the establishment that does). In other states, like mine, they just say that you can't carry under the influence of alcohol. But what does that even mean? I've never seen a quantifiable, measurable definition (at least for Idaho). Can I have a beer with lunch? Does it mean drunk? Does it mean >0.08BAC like with my driver's license?
I don't want drunks shooting their pistolas in the air in the streets, but the 2nd is different than the privilege of a driver's license. My personal opinion, laws and rights aside, is that I should be able to have a beer and burger for lunch. I take personal responsibility and recognize that a beer for lunch is my limit for both carrying and driving. Others MMV.
-
Concealed weapons are not evil. Those who declare concealed weapons as being evil are projecting.
Woody
-
At the risk of thread veer, this is always an interesting question to me. With CCW permits (which I recognize strays from "unalienable rights"), in various states, you're not even allowed to set foot in an establishment that serves alcohol (or that section of the establishment that does). In other states, like mine, they just say that you can't carry under the influence of alcohol. But what does that even mean? I've never seen a quantifiable, measurable definition (at least for Idaho). Can I have a beer with lunch? Does it mean drunk? Does it mean >0.08BAC like with my driver's license?
I don't want drunks shooting their pistolas in the air in the streets, but the 2nd is different than the privilege of a driver's license. My personal opinion, laws and rights aside, is that I should be able to have a beer and burger for lunch. I take personal responsibility and recognize that a beer for lunch is my limit for both carrying and driving. Others MMV.
That's npt thread veer at all.
I was trying to poll "ad lib" opinions on the matter without constructing a restrictive "official APS" poll.
The following link kind of sidesteps the old hyperbolic "can I carry a nuclear warhead" issue, yet "looks like" a rational resolution to the problem.
Note that I have met resistance on this, the "Billy The Kid" theory:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12499265/
Terry, 230RN
-
At the risk of thread veer, this is always an interesting question to me. With CCW permits (which I recognize strays from "unalienable rights"), in various states, you're not even allowed to set foot in an establishment that serves alcohol (or that section of the establishment that does).
"Unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution.
-
"Unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution.
I'm curious as to why you're pointing this out.
-
I'm curious as to why you're pointing this out.
Me too. I mentioned neither the constitution nor the BoR in my post. Unalienable rights come from neither the constitution nor the BoR.
-
That's npt thread veer at all.
I was trying to poll "ad lib" opinions on the matter without constructing a restrictive "official APS" poll.
The following link kind of sidesteps the old hyperbolic "can I carry a nuclear warhead" issue, yet "looks like" a rational resolution to the problem.
Note that I have met resistance on this, the "Billy The Kid" theory:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12499265/
Terry, 230RN
I didn't read that whole THR thread, but it seems rife with the kind of gatekeeping that is pretty common across all society, but RAMPANT in the 2A community.
"I am trained and responsible, so I know the correct way to do "X". Others need to have the level of training I say they should to exercise a right" It's the same energy as "Only LEO are professional enough" just expanded to include the speaker as a special pig. It's also a trap when talking about inalienable rights.
I myself have fallen into that trap in the past, but I try hard to avoid it now, and now that I have seen myself do it, it's all the more glaring when I see others do it.
-
"I am trained and responsible, so I know the correct way to do "X". Others need to have the level of training I say they should to exercise a right" It's the same energy as "Only LEO are professional enough" just expanded to include the speaker as a special pig. It's also a trap when talking about inalienable rights.
I've mentioned here before the "slap in the face" wakeup call I had when I took my first tactical pistol class (versus how proud I was of myself putting everything in the "X" standing still on the range). It made me a big believer in training for anyone who wants to use a firearm for self-defense. I will always strongly urge people to take at least a first tier pistol class and then continue to train either in classes or on their own.
From the "rights" perspective though, it's simply not my business if someone wants to buy a pistol and a 50 round box of ammo and keep them both in their nightstand untouched for the next ten years.
-
I've mentioned here before the "slap in the face" wakeup call I had when I took my first tactical pistol class (versus how proud I was of myself putting everything in the "X" standing still on the range). It made me a big believer in training for anyone who wants to use a firearm for self-defense. I will always strongly urge people to take at least a first tier pistol class and then continue to train either in classes or on their own.
From the "rights" perspective though, it's simply not my business if someone wants to buy a pistol and a 50 round box of ammo and keep them both in their nightstand untouched for the next ten years.
Yep. It's our job as 2A advocates to mentor and help newcomers to the community. That absolutely includes communicating best practices, offering teaching days, inviting folks out to the more challenging parts of the sport, and recommending professional training. it does not include supporting gatekeeping measures or added requirements prior to allowing the exercise of a right.
I used to say "If the DNC wouldn't like it as a requirement to vote, it shouldn't be a requirement to carry a gun.", but I'm starting to think we should tighten voting up a bit.
-
Yep. It's our job as 2A advocates to mentor and help newcomers to the community. That absolutely includes communicating best practices, offering teaching days, inviting folks out to the more challenging parts of the sport, and recommending professional training. it does not include supporting gatekeeping measures or added requirements prior to allowing the exercise of a right.
I used to say "If the DNC wouldn't like it as a requirement to vote, it shouldn't be a requirement to carry a gun.", but I'm starting to think we should tighten voting up a bit.
Do I hear a Halleluyah?
How about an Amen?
Unfortunately, with the urbanization of the US, you're no longer likely to have brothers, uncles, fathers and friends who can show you the ropes on firearms.
Terry, 230RN
-
I used to say "If the DNC wouldn't like it as a requirement to vote, it shouldn't be a requirement to carry a gun.", but I'm starting to think we should tighten voting up a bit.
I agree. Only net taxpayers who are not government employees should be allowed to vote.
-
I agree. Only net taxpayers who are not government employees should be allowed to vote.
So, military should not be allowed to vote?
I'd be happy if only citizens were allowed to vote.
-
So, military should not be allowed to vote?
I'd be happy if only citizens were allowed to vote.
Good question. I'm not sure about that one.
-
Should have put a sarcasm emoji on that comment. The "who should vote" question is probably it's own thread, and I feel like we've done that dance around here a few times. I know I've read Pb's opinion on it at least once before.
-
Yes, we have.
-
I've mentioned here before the "slap in the face" wakeup call I had when I took my first tactical pistol class (versus how proud I was of myself putting everything in the "X" standing still on the range). It made me a big believer in training for anyone who wants to use a firearm for self-defense. I will always strongly urge people to take at least a first tier pistol class and then continue to train either in classes or on their own.
The first handgun I ever shot in my life, a Beretta 92FS, I couldn't hit a pie plate at 7 yards. I legit thought I was disabled. Fortunately with the purchase of my own 92FS I sought to correct that state, and kept it up until I had some 15,000 rounds through it. My only formal training was with the US Army and Air Force pistol qual, of which the latter is actually pretty dynamic and challenging. Shot expert every time.
-
Note that I have met resistance on this, the "Billy The Kid" theory:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12499265/
Terry, 230RN
I agree with your Billy the Kid theory. The right to keep and bear arms is based on the right to resistance against an abusive government. Since 1900's or so (at the very least) governments have murderered far more people than civilian criminals. It isn't even close. Government killings are a greater threat than garden variety murders. Civilian ownership of weapons helps keep governments tame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
There is the possibility that strict gun control might reduce civilian murder rates in some jurisdictions (the data is very unclear).
However, this would deprive us of our insurance police against government abuse.
At this point, I think our official militia system should be revived, and the USA should create a Swiss-style militia if possible. A smaller professional militia, and a huge armed civilian militia should be the safest.
-
The first handgun I ever shot in my life, a Beretta 92FS, I couldn't hit a pie plate at 7 yards. I legit thought I was disabled. Fortunately with the purchase of my own 92FS I sought to correct that state, and kept it up until I had some 15,000 rounds through it. My only formal training was with the US Army and Air Force pistol qual, of which the latter is actually pretty dynamic and challenging. Shot expert every time.
I think I was the same without the military service. Never shot pistols all that much growing up. Mostly 22 rifles. I could shoot with a rifle pretty decent. After I bought my first centerfire pistol, I just started shooting at a local range. Bad at first. Got better with a lot of practice. IMO, the best thing shooters can do is stick with one gun for a while and get really consistent with that one trigger.
-
I agree with your Billy the Kid theory. The right to keep and bear arms is based on the right to resistance against an abusive government. Since 1900's or so (at the very least) governments have murderered far more people than civilian criminals. It isn't even close. Government killings are a greater threat than garden variety murders. Civilian ownership of weapons helps keep governments tame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
There is the possibility that strict gun control might reduce civilian murder rates in some jurisdictions (the data is very unclear).
However, this would deprive us of our insurance police against government abuse.
At this point, I think our official militia system should be revived, and the USA should create a Swiss-style militia if possible. A smaller professional militia, and a huge armed civilian militia should be the safest.
Gun control always assumes that restricting guns in law abiding hands will reduce the number of guns in criminal hands which is a very questionable relationship at best.
The other problem is the same people who fear guns seem to always hate holding people responsible for their own actions (soft on crime) while also hating people taking responsibility for their own safety (self defense). It is difficult to find a location where gun control was enacted without those two things also being done.
-
Yes, you are usually right about that. In the USA pro-gun control usually equals soft on crime. The left has moved to positively adoring criminals, especially racial minorities.
Very different in in Singapore. It is a gun hating country with severe punishment of criminals (possible death penalty for armed robbery, a fantastic idea in my opinion).
It also has a miniscule crime rate.
Not an especially free country though.
I want both freedom and severe punishment for violent crime. Being menaced by criminals definitely does not enhance freedom.