In response to my post about the new open carry law in Texas, I am asked: “as you say that you will most likely continue carrying in a concealed manner, what, in your view, is the advantage of openly carrying?”

My fundamental reason for supporting, even celebrating the new law is that it expands personal liberty; convenience or “advantage” matter far less.  Indeed, this for me is sufficient in itself to justify the law.  If citizens of good standing may carry handguns for self-defense – and I believe strongly that they may, for reasons both constitutional and of natural right – then I believe no government may dictate how a citizen chooses to do so.

If I choose to carry concealed more often than not, my decision is made for reasons of discretion, convenience and propriety, not disagreement with the law.  (I don’t believe that open carry is appropriate in some situations, and I wouldn’t usually carry openly simply to make a statement.) Whether I carry openly infrequently or not at all, I stand for the right to do so.  There are many activities and freedoms which I choose not to engage in, but which I oppose the state denying me.

Before anyone accuses me of being a “gun nut,” let us recall that state governments have altered and eliminated gun rights for the purpose of political and civil discrimination.  The prohibition against carrying handguns – openly or concealed – is the last enabled relic (that I am aware of) of old Jim Crow laws and “Black Codes” in Texas state law.  The prohibition is racist in origin and purpose, and thus a standing example of government oppression.

The ban was originally established by Republicans during Reconstruction, to prevent Confederate veterans from continuing the rebellion.  When Democrats gained control of Texas government in 1871 (a dominance they kept until the 1990s), they expanded the ban in place to provide for easy – and selective – prosecution of blacks who might have the audacity to carry a gun.  Clayton E. Cramer, who has a written a book on the subject, summarizes:

“’Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics ‘in their place,’ and to quiet the racial fears of whites,” Cramer wrote for the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy in 1995. “The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.’”

For a rather supporting viewpoint from the left on this subject, please read this article in The Daily Beast.  I found it interesting that the NRA (of which I am a member) once supported gun laws which unjustly oppressed the rights of black citizens; fortunately, they long ago shed themselves of such positions.

Seen in this light, the Texas legislature has not newly allowed anything; it has repealed a ban on a right that – if justice and equality are our measures – never should have been enacted in the first place.  A liberty which stood from the Founding (and from Texas statehood in 1845) until Reconstruction has been restored in Texas.

The open carry law also removes the possibility of prosecution for accidental or inadvertent display of a legally concealed handgun.  I think this was rarely prosecuted, but it imposed a burden on licensed citizens that I believe was unjustified.

Lastly, convenience.  Clothing and situation can make concealment difficult or unwieldy, especially with dress suitable for Texas summer temperatures.

Two questions of my own: on grounds that meet the tests of logical reasoning, how can these be seeming contradictions be reconciled:

1. Private, commercial and religious groups may not, by law, refuse to participate in activities to which they object, such as gay marriages,* even on grounds of religious objections, but may refuse to participate in laws providing for the legal right to carry handguns, based on any or no reason at all.  (Even in Texas, businesses may refuse, with no justification required, to allow either or both concealed and open carry.)
2. Why are some state-issued licenses, such as driver’s licenses and marriage licenses, observed by all states (the Full Faith and Credit clause, along with the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision establish this, though some important issues remain unresolved), while some states refuse to recognize handgun carry licenses by other states? (The most egregious example: days ago, the Attorney General of Virginia unilaterally – without consultation with or approval of the state legislature, and without consulting the other states themselves – nullified that state’s recognition of handgun carry licenses issued by 24 other states.)

*For the record, I support the right of gay people to marry, based on the same principles that guide my positions on gun rights: faith in individual liberty, fairness and equality.