Two More On The Right Side

How Far Can “Constitutional Carry” Go?
; .

Constitutional Carry is now the law in 29 states, which means
citizens can carry a defensive sidearm without a permit in those jurisdictions.

Last month saw two more states — Louisiana and South Carolina — join the ranks of those jurisdictions where “Constitutional Carry” is the law, and even though purists quickly note Florida only has “permitless” concealed carry, and not open carry, sources in the Sunshine State assure me the final step will eventually come.

So, for all practical purposes, 29 states now have Constitutional Carry. For those late to the party, this term is a reference to how things were at the time of the founding. Nobody needed a permit or license to carry a firearm. Indeed, it was a rather common sight for someone to be armed, and it was especially so on the frontier of the nation in those days.

There are some significant details many people outside of those states may not understand. In South Carolina, the moment Gov. Henry McMaster inked the bill, the law took effect, according to The Post and Courier.

Meanwhile, when Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed Senate Bill 1 the countdown started. This bill becomes law appropriately on July 4.

As if to underscore my long-standing observation that “elections matter,” Landry told reporters, “I promised the folks of Louisiana that I would champion Constitutional Carry into law, and within two months, I have honored that commitment.”

With the double whammy of two more southern states joining the Constitutional Carry ranks, the nation is noticeably tilting away from the gun control philosophy. There are 21 holdouts at this writing, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Rhode Island and Virginia.

Here’s a prediction: Watch the gun control crowd point fingers of blame at these laws as big city body counts continue, even though those cities — typically governed by liberal mayors and councils with soft-on-crime policies — have been responsible for the high number of homicides long before Constitutional Carry came along. And they know it.


While you can carry a sidearm without a permit, Constitutional
Carry doesn’t “expand” anyone’s rights. Such laws merely
restore the Second Amendment to what it was prior to
decades of restrictions.

It is important for people to understand the lies opponents of Constitutional Carry use to describe these laws.

Constitutional Carry statutes don’t “expand” gun rights. They restore full rights as they existed at the time the Constitution was ratified. They do not make it legal for criminals to carry guns. Bad guys have been illegally carrying guns for generations, and a restoration of citizen rights makes no difference at all.

Such laws will not result in a free pass for thugs. Police typically know the bad guys in their jurisdictions, so if they cross paths with any of these people, they can still be arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Anti-gunners know this, as well. Contentions to the contrary are simply attempts to sway public opinion against CC. It is dishonest, but someone please remind me when that has ever stopped these people in the past.

Constitutional Carry also will not allow boorish behavior by an armed citizen. Responsible behavior is critical to making this work, and showing the skeptics it can work.

To understand how the media often plays a part in confusing people about their rights, a recent story from PBS regarding the Feb. 14 shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade for the Chiefs football team included this: “Missouri has some of the loosest gun laws in the United States. The state does not require permits to purchase or carry, and it does not require firearms to be registered or for gun owners to be licensed.”

In this case, PBS obviously confuses a constitutionally-enumerated right with a government-regulated privilege. Second Amendment activists say the exercise of a right should not require a “permit to purchase” or a license or permit to carry, nor should it require gun owners to register their guns, go through a training course or take a test (a ’la the infamous “literacy test” for voting, which was declared unconstitutional decades ago). One of my longtime pals, a conservative radio host, has often told his listeners, “There are only two reasons to register guns. It’s either to tax them, or to take them.”


A federal judge in California ruled last month that the state’s
one-gun-per-month law doesn’t pass the smell test, so he
granted a summary judgment in a legal challenge, which
will likely be appealed.

By now, the State of California should have notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California whether it will appeal a judge’s decision granting summary judgment in a federal challenge of the state’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law.

Judge William Q. Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, stayed the March 11 decision for 30 days to allow the state to “facilitate an appeal.” That deadline would be this week.

In his opinion, the judge wrote, “Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”

The case was filed back in 2020 by the Second Amendment Foundation, North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case, Nguyen v. Bonta, is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C.

I spoke to SAF CEO Alan Gottlieb about the case briefly, and he made a point of noting how long this case had been in the court, some 3 ½ years. And it could be around much longer with a state appeal. SAF and its allies are in this for the long haul. Alas, so are the gun prohibitionists.

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court

As this was written, several gun rights organizations have submitted petitions for certiorari (a request for hearing) to the U.S. Supreme Court on their challenges of the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois. The most recent was the petition filed by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, according to Fox News.

This came a few weeks after the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a similar challenge also petitioned for certiorari. SAF seems to be filling up the court with cases. The group, along with its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is also challenging a semi-auto ban in Maryland.

There are lots of players in the Illinois battle. They include Hood’s Guns & More, Pro Gun & Indoor Range, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, Law Weapons, Inc., the National Association for Gun Rights, Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store, LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc., and several private citizens.

Subscribe To GUNS Magazine