I see your titular question as asking, "Does the exercise of a licensed privilege mean that you are against the free exercise of a right?"
Note to the forum:
What eye95 implies (open carry is right, concealed carry is privilege) seems to be the standard the SCOTUS is likely to adopt
in states where concealed carry requires a license, especially when OC does not. To this extent, the implication is accurate.
I myself have made the observation that the SCOTUS is likely to decide along these lines, and for litigative purposes it may as well be assumed, as a practical matter.
I submit, however, that he has an insidious way of repeatedly stating this as though it were unquestionable Fact, that there is some
inherent truth to this completely arbitrary differentiation between open carry as "right" and concealed carry as mere "privilege".
But it's also become apparent to me that eye95
believes this to be a fundamental truth, seemingly universal (despite the existence of several states where open carry is prohibited outright – a number of which only allow carry at all concealed, and with a permit).
Since this thread isn't related to any litigative endeavor, but is more "philosophical" in nature, I'm inclined to take issue with eye95's assertion (CC is privilege) in this context. And, this isn't the first time; I've now been bothered on numerous occasions by his insistence on asserting or implying that concealed carry
is privilege – no further qualifications whatsoever. "Insidious" is precisely the word: clearly he
wishes his assertion to be the law of the land, and he's intent on directing the RKBA community's internal rhetoric towards tacit (if not enthusiastic) acceptance of CC as mere privilege.
You see: if
we don't argue for CC as right, nobody will, and it will never be legally recognized as a right. It's becoming increasingly clear that this is precisely the outcome eye95 desires.
It is my belief that the right to bear arms is an extension of the general right to do anything which does not aggressively interfere with another's sphere of equal right. Whether a person hides or "displays" his weapon affects my freedom and rights not at all, and therefore is within nobody's rightful authority to dictate.
That is to say: from any sort of coherent and consistent philosophical approach, the right to carry concealed is every bit as much a
right as is open carry. Therefore, as a general rule, we should be arguing
explicitly that concealed carry
is, and ought to be recognized as, a fundamental right.
So, when eye95 asserts "OC is right, CC is privilege" as though it's divine truth: always remember that he's wrong. His view is
only valid in the extremely narrow context of litigation and legal precedent, i.e. when prostrating oneself and begging for scraps of right from our benevolent superiors, in this case the SCOTUS.
I further submit that concealed carry licensure is, and always has been, a
de facto Jim Crow law, and that anybody who
supports its continuation is, in effect, supporting the legacy of Jim Crow – although of course they can conveniently deny this fact, as the last round of Jim Crow laws (those still on the books) were carefully
written so as to appear neutral and objective, but intended to be
applied in an inherently discriminatory manner, as they still are today in states all across the country.
As to whether the above post "speaks for eye95", he has asserted on numerous occasions and with no qualifications, that concealed carry is privilege. Are you really going to insist that I waste my time going through his post history to find quotations to defend this claim?
Everything else should be quite clearly
my interpretation of his motivations, and
my opinion of the ramifications of accepting concealed carry as privilege.
