So if everyone assumed that concealed carry was protected when the original Kentucky State Constitution was adopted 1792, why do we think that any other assumption or intention was present at the federal level when the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791 using very similar language?
Charles
so after reading this thread for a while, i'm inclined now to move off the fence, and onto the side of Charles...i've spent some time researching based on what is quoted from Charles above, and here's what i've found:
in sum....
by 1804, the union states had abolished slavery. not necessarily instant, as there were waiting periods so to speak.
the following states (and territories at the time of the civil war) made no mention of regulating concealed carry in their original constitution, and nothing has been added to it since:
indiana 1816 (union)
kansas 1859 (union)
maine 1819 (union)
Massachusetts 1780 (union)
michigan 1835 (union)
ohio 1802 (union)
oregon 1857 (union)
pennsylvania 1776 (union)
rhode island 1842 (union)
south carolina 1868 (confederate)
south dakota 1889 (union territory)
vermont 1776 (union)
virginia 1791 (union)
washington 1889 (union territory)
wyoming 1889 (union territory)
alabama 1819 (confederate)
the following states (and territories at the time of the civil war) made explicit mention in their first constitution of the ability to regulate how arms are borne, and it remains today:
colorado 1876
idaho 1889
montana 1889
new mexico 1912
oklahoma 1907
utah 1896
of note is Alabama... the alabama supreme court in State vs. Reid in 1840 (State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840)) upheld a law prohibiting concealed carry. their reasoning was based on how the right was written in the constitution...basically, the "only" way arms can efficiently used for defense is if they are carried openly. so the word they used to come up with this ruling was "defense", and it had nothing to do with interpreting "bear". his lawyer argued that since the state constitution listed no restriction on the exercise of the right, as it was written in "general terms". the lawyer even used Bliss as an argument. then the court went on to say how "evil" concealed weapons are, and they used laws and history from across the pond to make their point. so basically, because they thought the "best way" to use arms for defense was to carry them openly, they affirmed the judgment.
here is a list of state constitutions that started out recognizing a "general" right to keep and bear arms. but then something apparently went wrong! it seems as though something went down in the history books all around the same period of time which caused all the following states to up and change their constitution concerning keeping and bearing arms....
georgia 1846: Nunn v State: "The right of the whole people, young and old, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained, the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to a free state."
georgia 1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
georgia 1877(present): "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
florida 1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense."
florida 1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."
florida 1968(present): "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
kentucky 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
kentucky 1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms."
kentucky 1891(present): "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."
louisiana 1845: title 3, article 60 "The free white men of the State shall be armed and disciplined for its defense; but those who belong to religious societies whoso tenets forbid them to carry arms shall not be compelled so to do, but shall pay an equivalent for personal services."
louisiana 1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."
louisiana 1974(present): "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. "
mississippi 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."
mississippi 1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence."
mississippi 1890(present): "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."
missouri 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned."
missouri 1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."
missouri 1945(present): "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
north carolina 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
north carolina 1875: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
north carolina 1971(present): "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."
tennessee 1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense."
tennessee 1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense."
tennessee 1870(present): "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
texas 1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power."
texas 1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State."
texas 1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe."
texas 1876(present): "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
so did you see it? they all made changes to their constitutions concerning bearing arms around the same time. these changes took "general" terms and made them specific to the regulation of concealed carry.
so it's obvious the threat of an uprising from black people drove fear into the minds of the people of these states...and here's some data to back up that claim:
the following are the % of blacks in these particular states leading up to the change in their constitutions:
kentucky:
16% in 1790
19% in 1810
24% in 1830
25% in 1840
22% in 1850
20% in 1860
mississippi:
44% in 1820
52% in 1840
55% in 1860
54% in 1870 freed blacks
58% in 1880 freed blacks
58% in 1890 freed blacks
missouri:
15% in 1820
15% in 1840
10% in 1860
7% in 1870 freed blacks
7% in 1880 freed blacks
6% in 1890 freed blacks
north carolina:
26% in 1790
30% in 1810
33% in 1830
33% in 1850
33% in 1860
37% in 1870 freed blacks
tennessee:
14% in 1796
19% in 1820
22% in 1840
24% in 1850
25% in 1860
26% in 1870 freed blacks
texas:
27% in 1850
30% in 1860
31% in 1870 freed blacks
25% in 1880 freed blacks
florida:
47% in 1840
45% in 1850
44% in 1860
49% in 1870 freed blacks
47% in 1880 freed blacks
44% in 1900 freed blacks
georgia:
36% in 1790
42% in 1810
42% in 1830
42% in 1850
46% in 1870 freed blacks
47% in 1880 freed blacks
louisiana:
45% in 1820
49% in 1850
47% in 1860
52% in 1880 freed blacks
but here's something i don't understand...
as alabama % grew higher, they didn't change their constitution. why? well, because State vs Reid did that for them in 1840.
alabama:
33% in 1820
43% in 1840
45% in 1860
47% in 1870 freed blacks
a few other things to note:
georgia in 1865 was nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference was commas)
georgia in 1868 was nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference was commas AND the word "state" now said "people")
if the terms of the 1868 version didn't imply that "bear" applied to concealed or open, then why did they need to insert: "but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." ?
hawaii is written nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference is commas)
Louisiana 1879 is nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference is commas and they used "abridged" instead of "infringed")
if the terms of the 1879 version didn't apply that bear is concealed or open, then why did they need to insert: "This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." ?
north carolina in 1868 was nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference was commas and a clause about free standing armies during peace time)
if the terms of the 1868 version didn't apply to open or concealed carry, then why in 1875 did they feel the need to add: "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
south carolina 1895's first sentence is nearly identical to the 2nd amendment (only difference is commas)
and then there's virginia...written in 1776 but modified in 1791 to include "therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
in full it reads: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
i hope this helps...
oh - and just my 2 cents...but maybe the Bliss court ruled like it did because of the word that was used in the original constitution: "questioned"
edit
also of note are some early court cases from georgia and louisiana. but i did not talk about them.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm