Why we should drop the term "constitutional carry" and embrace the more accurate term "permitless carry"

The term constitutional carry is a misnomer. It's meant to invoke the idea that, through some magical lawmaking maneuver, our RKBA that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is somehow restored. The problem with this argument is that those rights have never gone away. Those of you who are hunters exercise your 2A rights in most states without the need for firearm permits. In effect, you are exercising your right to constitutionally carry. While some argue that concealed carry licenses are an abomination of our 2A rights, it's clear that absent the 2nd Amendment, we would probably not even be discussing concealed carry legislation.But there's a more important reason why "constitutional carry" is a misnomer: It creates an artificially inflated sense of triumph over a right which has already been accorded to us. Sometimes, it even divides the pro-gun citizenry into haves and have-nots: We bicker over which states have "true" constitutional carry, and congratulate states that pass laws to dictate who can carry constitutionally and where they can exercise that state-granted right while ignoring states who have had championed explicit constitutional carry since their early days of statehood.Need some examples? Happy to oblige.There is an article in Wikipedia entitled "Constitutional Carry." There are no legal references to the definition, just some cites that point to some states' definitions of what constitutes constitutional carry. In fact, the very first sentence of that article equates "constitutional carry" with "permitless carry," yet later seems to dither on whether or not states fall into one category or another.Let's look at a couple of states. Montana implicity permits open carry in all parts of the state, by any US citizen. There is a restriction on permitless concealed carry in 0.6% of the state; in the other 99.4% of the state (mostly areas that aren't in cities, logging camps, etc.), permitless carry in all forms is legal. The wikipedia article unexplicably describes this as "permitless carry" but solidly refuses to list Montana as "constitutional carry."Now let's look at Idaho and Wyoming. Both restrict permitless concealed carry to state residents only (open carry for all US citizens is permitted). Yet both are categorized as "constitutional carry," even though roughly 99% of the US population is prohibited from exercising so-called "constitutional carry."So I ask: Which of these states most closely adheres to the spirit of "constitutional carry"?My point here is that "constitutional carry" has no legal definition, pits state against state, and does nothing but divide the pro-2A community into haves and have-nots. I boldly propose that we simply drop the use of "constitutional carry" (since it's really not, except maybe in the case of Vermont) and use the term "permitless carry."Let's not pat ourselves on the back every time a state proposes "constitutional carry" legislation, because it's really not. via /r/CCW http://ift.tt/2nJ1VfH