What’s so scary about permitless carry?

Any strategist would have said Massie’s National Constitutional Carry Act should have been the first bill filed with the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act held in reserve as a fall-back measure. Let California, Connecticut, Illinois, and the rest froth at the mouth; spouting their vitriol; frantic at the idea their byzantine and costly permitting schemes could be threatened. Then John Cornyn and Richard Hudson could file their permit reciprocity bills as sort of a compromise. It’s not what we want, but it’s not what they fear, either.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it has worked out and there isn’t really anywhere to give without making the proposed legislation meaningless.

Constitutional carry has been the law of the land since December 15, 1791. Permits to carry are almost entirely a phenomenon of the 20th Century. Despite Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in footnote 9 of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen,* an examination of the text, history and tradition in both the Founding and Reconstruction Eras would clearly indicate they are unconstitutional.
While concealed carry might have been prohibited, open carry was not. There was always some avenue to permitless carry.

There are ten states and a federal district needing to be told, in no uncertain terms, their infringements on the Second Amendment need to end.

*”To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].”