TexasCHLforum.com

Whatever case can be made for the restrictive regulation of this cherished right of ours, no credible argument can be made that American founders had the slightest desire to take guns off the street. From Federalist 46, my favorite (emphasis on the obvious is mine):

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Militias, officers selected by somebody, whatever. The point was citizens with firearms were never intended to be eliminated from the American spirit. We are intended to be an armed populace.

Constitutional Carry is a grand thing, but the right to keep and bear doesn't need to be either a good thing or a bad thing. It is the thing, absent amendments to abolish it, and the right itself can't be abolished because the right isn't really an American thing. It's a natural thing. America's jurisdiction would allow us, with a Constitutional amendment, to abolish the guarantee. But not the right.

The Second Amendment acknowledges what all the Founders knew like the noses on their faces, that humans have a right to defend themselves. It does not establish a right, it burdens America with the job of protecting a basic law of nature. Try to pass a weapons law confiscating the incisors out of pit bulls' mouths and you'll probably find most gun grabbers believe dogs have natural rights exceeding humans.

Such is the precision of hoplophobic thinking and the natural lunacy of gun restriction. Most gun law can only work if we can flout nature. Otherwise, disarming civilized society gives the animals among us free rein, almost like granting criminals rights exceeding the law abiding.

Anything more restrictive than Constitutional Carry is a violation of our highest law.

That's the morally pure answer to the question, as best as my flawed perspective allows me to see. I acknowledge there are practical matters to consider.

There are far too many of us whose character flaws ought to invalidate their rights even before they commit a crime. We can't do that. Prior restraint isn't an acceptable solution. That gives free rein to politicians, and they are almost a criminal class these days.

Shall-issue licensed carry is a workable compromise as long as we understand the bargain. As long as licensed carry is a slippery slope toward Constitutional Carry, Texas style licensing pretty much works and we are all safer. The day licensing becomes a slippery slope toward restrictive gun law, we're sunk. Witness California, or New York, or Nazi Germany.

As a sidelight, it's oddly interesting that liberals feel safer on their thrones because the high school dropout who serviced the plumbing carried a government license to do the job, but when government licenses pose a barrier to criminal assault, it's different. All of a sudden, government imprimatur drives them hysterical.

Anybody can grow up to be President. All it takes is a nurturing village. Which means, I believe, lower positions of authority must surely be accessible to all. Anyone can grow up to be a policemen, for example. All it takes is determination and good decisions along the way, and there you go, little Johnny is eventually behind you in the checkout line with a badge and a nice gun, carried out of respect for the law.

All good, and we rightfully and properly trust the policeman who is your neighbor's son, or the kid your kid went to school with.

If anyone can be President and anyone can be a policeman, surely anyone must be able to grow up to assume the lesser role of armed citizen, right? Doesn't that follow? Don't I also have a right to practice respect for the law? In fact, as a member of the governed, from whom power is supposed to flow to the government, don't I truly share the policeman's interest in lawful society?

I think if I didn't believe in my stake in lawful society I'd be siding with criminals. Which, now that I think about it, is what gun restriction proponents actually do.

So, yes, Constitutional Carry is a good thing. Texas' shall-issue compromise works for me, but only if it's not allowed to degrade.

Be vigilant in all things.

We already have limited Constitutional carry - the Motorist Protection Act, and road rage hasn't become an endless OK Corral. Perhaps the opposite - for many reasons, an armed society is a polite society.

That said, there are people who should not be allowed to have access to firearms. We also can't have prior restraint. Felons can be denied their rights, because they forfeited them. John Q. law-abiding citizen, that's a different deal.

Office holders, who can be scary beyond a mouse gun or two on the street, don't have to have a license to run for office. Why should other rights be different?

I figure Constitutional Carry will be a tough sell to mushy-headed people who think laws can make us safe. Removing restrictions would be really, really nice, and it's pretty clear that wouldn't cause any trouble at all.