Permits for Concealed and Open Carry

[Dust_Devil]

Someone explain to me why some states allow anyone to carry firearms openly without any permit or training, yet require those who wish to conceal their weapons to all of a sudden to be background checked, tested in their skills and tested in their knowledge of deadly force laws and pay a fee on top of that?
Not that I want to see everyone to pay for a permit if they don't conceal carry, but I just don't understand the logic. Permits are there to show that the person carrying has been checked and tested, so shouldn't that include all people who carry no matter in what fashion they are carrying? Do they think since a person openly shows his weapon to the public that he all of a sudden does not have a criminal record, is a trained shooter and knows the laws of the use of deadly force?
I don't want a debate whether or not there should be permits or not, I'm just asking why concealed weapon carriers must have permits, but open carriers don't?

 

[Rob P.]

My 2 cents:

Concealed carry is more "dangerous" than open carry. Thus it requires that the person be more "reliable" than one who carries openly.

It doesn't make much sense until you consider the fact that concealed carry is (well) "concealed". It's hidden from sight and thus could be illicit carry for nefarious purposes. Open carry is visible and can be openly and easily observed for compliance with the law and societal norms.

So, one who wishes to carry concealed needs to be examined for steadiness of character, soundness of mind, and be better trained so that they won't attempt unlawful behavior (like stalking or spousal abuse while armed).

It's psycological. Only those who have shown themselves to be trustable can be trusted to maintain themselves while hiding the means to deal death.

 

[Dust_Devil]

So you are saying that because when a person open carries, the state sees that as a person who must be an obvious law-abiding citizen, skilled in firearms and gun laws and sees a person who wants to conceal his weapon to be a possible criminal and/or not skilled in firearms and gun laws so they must be tested first?

 

[Rob P.]

I'm not saying it makes any sense. It's because of how we react to things invisible.

Take a stick for example. I can carry a plain old stick just about anywhere and no one will even consider it a possibly bad thing. I can even make the ends all pointy with the same result. I can even stand in the shadows and loiter and no one will care (well, maybe if I loiter too long in front of the donut stand the the stick has sugar all over it... )

If, however, I were to put that stick under my cloak and skulk about, I'd look real suspicious and someone would eventually stop & ask me questions.

The question is why the difference? Same stick, same guy, same same.

The difference is that one doesn't LOOK benign when one is "hiding" something. So, if the State is going to allow you to "hide" something they want to be positive sure that you won't go berserk, know the rules against going berserk, and can't be intimidated or pressured into going berserk.

That way when the guy who's going to stop and ask you questions on why you're skulking around won't need to worry so much about the stick or you going berserk with it.

 

[KSFreeman]

Dust, the rationale arises from history of the antebellum South. The South has always been known for its violence. In order to combat the amount of violence, state legislatures sought to prohibited "brawling weapons" that poor Southern Whites used against each other (this is separate from the Slave and Black Codes of the South).

Part of the concern at the time was the eeevilness of "concealed" weaponry. Persons who had concealed weapons were looking for trouble as noble and educated men would bear arms openly.

After the Civil War, Southern states were concerned about free Blacks bearing arms and thus passed laws against smaller handguns (the Army Pistol Act) and Son of Ham laws that forbade blacks from possessing concealed weapons (the straight razor toting Black was a racial stereotype at the time). Concealed weaponry became associated with low and mean behavior and regulation of concealed weapons was written into Southern state constitutions and Western states with heavy Southern immigration (such as Arizona).

Thus, a duality developed between how concealed and open arms were treated under the law. This duality makes no sense to shooters of today, but all one has to do is read history. It's really fun too. Yeah, history!

I can recommend Stephan Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed for an insightful overview as well as several law review articles on African-Americans and arms for background.