There certainly was a lot of info in that link posted by joe817.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Buried in a footnote was a link to interesting language about concealed weaponry. It echoes my bone of contention for a long time that obtaining a concealed carry license is too expensive for some penurious individuals and thereby deprives them of the right and means to self defense, making the law unconstitutional on it face. It was interesting to see it already hashed out, and so long ago. How did it all go so wrong?
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859).
It is contended, that article 610 of the penal code, is in violation both of the state and federal constitution, which contain substantially the same provision, securing the citizen from any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. 1st. It is asserted that any law prohibiting a citizen from keeping or bearing any knife, which is intended to be worn upon the person, which is capable of inflicting death, and not commonly known as a pocket-knife, would be unconstitutional. To prohibit absolutely the keeping and having of an ordinary weapon, is certainly to infringe on the right of keeping and bearing arms. A bowie-knife or dagger, as defined in the code, is an ordinary weapon, one of the cheapest character, accessible even to the poorest citizen. A common butcher-knife, which costs not more than half a dollar, comes (p.396)within the description given of a bowie-knife or dagger, being very frequently worn on the person. To prohibit such a weapon, is substantially to take away the right of bearing arms, from him who has not money enough to buy a gun or a pistol.
It has been held, that even a law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, is unconstitutional. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90. The court there say, that whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of the right, is in violation of the constitution. Such laws have, however, been sustained in other states. See State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612; State v. Mitchell, 3 Blackf. 229; Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly, 243. The attention of the court is particularly called to the case of Nunn v. State, as bearing more directly on the proposition above asserted. The legislature of Georgia had passed a law, prohibiting the keeping, sale, or carrying of certain kind of knives or pistols. Judge Lumpkin held it to be unconstitutional, in so far as it prohibited the carrying of a pistol (or other weapon) openly. It is held, also, in that case, that the provision in the constitution of the United States, is applicable to state legislation.
2d. If the last proposition be conceded, it follows, that it is equally unconstitutional to prohibit the use of such a weapon in a proper case. The right to keep and bear, implies the right, on a proper emergency, to use. In the case of State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (above cited), it is said, that a statute requiring arms to be worn in such a manner as to render them wholly useless, for the purpose of self-defense, would be clearly unconstitutional. Were the legislature to pass a law, inflicting a penalty for the use of a bowie-knife or dagger, in self-defense, it is believed that it would be unconstitutional, because of its infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and on the inalienable right of self-defense.
3d. It is contended that article 610 of the penal code, is an attempt, indirectly, to prohibit the keeping, bearing, or use of a bowie-knife, or dagger, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. What other object could the law have in view, but to prohibit this weapon? Upon what other principle can its enactment be (p.397)justified, than that the use of a bowie-knife is in itself wrong, and that it is a weapon to be prohibited? What is it, in effect, but an effort, indirectly, to prohibit the keeping, bearing, or use of such knives? It is believed, that there is no difference in principle, between a law, making the use of a bowie-knife criminal, and a law discriminating against the use of a bowie-knife, by affixing a higher penalty to its use, than to the same act committed with any other deadly weapon. Substantially, this is to affix a penalty to the use of that weapon. This discrimination is but a form of prohibition. The right to discriminate against, implies the right to prohibit. Both rights are based on the unconstitutional ground, that the legislature can control the keeping, bearing, and use of this weapon. But the legislature cannot do indirectly, that which it has no power to do directly. See Thomas v. State, 9 Tex. 324.
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/24tx394.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
, but I guess it closed.