HOW DID CONCEALED WEAPONS BECOME SO EVIL?

[230RN]

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).



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

[dogmush]

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. 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think they became evil when dictators, tyrants, and despots decided they might be used to depose them.

'Deposed' as with extreme prejudice.

Woody

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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).

[Ben]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Ben]

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.

[Pb]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[MechAg94]

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. 

[230RN]

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 !

[K Frame]

Concealed handguns are evil?

Well, then, I've been the devil since 1987.

[230RN]

^ 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

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Ben]

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.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Concealed weapons are not evil. Those who declare concealed weapons as being evil are projecting.

Woody

[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). 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

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

"Unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution.

I'm curious as to why you're pointing this out.

[Ben]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[Ben]

"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.