The right referenced in the 2nd Amendment, and Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution is not subject to any requirement for, or against concealment because neither constitutional provision establishes any such requirement.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its Heller, and McDonald holdings made allowance for infringements such as longstanding prohibitions against possession by felons, and the concealment of arms , but constitutionally no such distinction exists. This reservation allowed for "longstanding prohibitions against" this or that amounts to an outright act of amending the U.S. Constitution by judicial decree. This is why Texas needs to start addressing the right to bear arms independently from the federal constitutional law perspective. This can be accomplished by ENHANCING all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, rather than following the historic path of infringing upon rights.
The right under federal law (2A), and Texas law (Article 1, Sec. 23) may in fact not be "unlimited", in the sense that its assertion may be subject to some degree of compromise when confronted by other equally protected rights, but no compromise is in order when a protected civil right is confronted by simple sensitivities, preferences, or prejudices which do not constitute protected rights.
The right to BEAR arms BY DEFINITION is the right to carry an object OPENLY, DISPLAYED, and REVEALED notoriously -meaning NOT HIDDEN from observation - as well as CONCEALED at the discretion of the bearer.
The constituted "power of the (Texas) Legislature to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime" can only be logically presumed to apply to acts of the Legislature that are applicable to the wearing of arms BY CRIMINALS since by definition ONLY CRIMINALS commit crimes.
Such logic pursued further, a citizen can only become a CRIMINAL by commiting A CRIME. BEARING ARMS that "are in common use" is NOT A CRIME in and of itself under United States law. Any CRIME relating to the bearing of arms must by definition be defined as a crime separable from the act of bearing such arms.
If the category of arms so borne is otherwise "lawful", and the rights of citizenship of the bearer are fully intact, then the crime would logically have to relate to some activity being engaged in other than the bearing of arms which is a protected right, and by definition cannot be a crime.
In theory this is correct. Unfortunately our constitutions are not respected for THE LAW that they constitute, because we the people allow our representatives, and employees to violate the law every day.
