For a lot of us, the idea of "keep and bear arms" is inextricably associated with the carry of handguns. For us, there's probably no greater expression of this right than to keep a handgun and carry it on our person practically at all times and in all places.
Although I lived longer in the 20th century than I have in this one, I don't have a perfect recollection of everything about that century and since a good portion of it consisted of my childhood, I wasn't particularly concerned with this issue throughout my time in it. My sensibilities which are liberal in the true sense of liberality with respect to liberty and individual freedoms cause me to want to believe that a great portion of my fellow Americans indulged routinely in this freedom of ours. On the other hand, there's disturbing evidence that carry was irregular, relegated to certain isolated places and elsewhere stigmatic. One of the evidences of this in the manufacture and marketing of handguns throughout the 20th century. Colt and Smith & Wesson made "cop" guns, but what gun was marketing to private citizens and residents that wasn't a "hunting" gun or a competition pistol? Of course we cannot deny the generous portion of the market for "Saturday night specials," but wasn't that just the sort of unseemliness that carried with it a social stigma? There seems to be scant evidence the manufacturers were making an effort to address a demand to arm a big portion of the citizenry with firearms for concealed carry. Or were they doing this with all the Colt Troopers and Model 19's they were making for cops and citizens alike? Why does it seem virtually all the design influence was cop-influence or from the Army?
I'm not asserting that carry was only an obscure practice that should be disregarded with respect to any justification of present proposals for things like "constitutional carry," but it might seem as if more recent efforts to "permit" and "license" carry has served more to legitimize and promote concealed carry than it has encumbered a previously free practice.
Regardless of whether more people carried when licensing was unusual or fewer, the people that did carry were "invisible." With "constitutional carry" there's no record of people's application for permission to carry, so absent a clearly visible demand for guns to be used in this practice, it might go unnoticed to the point where the necessity of it is doubted. In contrast, where "permitting" is required, far more people apply for permits than those who actually carry. This would seem to have the effect of magnifying the practice, further legitimizing it, and maintaining clear visibility to the demand for it.
There is even evidence of an increase in demand for concealed carry guns as a result of permitting. The wikipedia page for the Ruger SR series claims, "Starting in the early 2000s, the rapid growth of legislation and regulations allowing concealed carry by law-abiding citizens in various jurisdictions created a large market for handguns manufactured specifically for such use," and suggests the SR series product was marketed to meet such demand. I don't think the Ruger is the only gun brought to market to meet this demand, but the sales leadership of the LCP is probably ample evidence that there's a substantial market for guns other than those models like the Glock, Sig, and M&P that could be sustained by military and law enforcement sales alone.
I certainly hope that my own state and all states soon recognize "constitutional carry," but I also hope that firearms manufacturers respond to what is almost certainly an increasing demand for carry guns for more and more people finding this is a responsibility they need to take for themselves, and that those people don't continue to be left only with product options originally designed and traditionally intended for law enforcement. On the other hand, I only have limited hope for as long as we're stuck with serialized production of a limited number of finite products in a regulated market.
Do you think unrestricted carry was popular and widespread throughout the 20th century compared to today?
Do you think that explicit permitting of carry has increased its practice?
What can be done to preserve the awareness of the need for carry if it goes "invisible," without the need for license and permit?
What influences do you see on growing demand for citizen-carried handguns on firearm's design?
Although I lived longer in the 20th century than I have in this one, I don't have a perfect recollection of everything about that century and since a good portion of it consisted of my childhood, I wasn't particularly concerned with this issue throughout my time in it. My sensibilities which are liberal in the true sense of liberality with respect to liberty and individual freedoms cause me to want to believe that a great portion of my fellow Americans indulged routinely in this freedom of ours. On the other hand, there's disturbing evidence that carry was irregular, relegated to certain isolated places and elsewhere stigmatic. One of the evidences of this in the manufacture and marketing of handguns throughout the 20th century. Colt and Smith & Wesson made "cop" guns, but what gun was marketing to private citizens and residents that wasn't a "hunting" gun or a competition pistol? Of course we cannot deny the generous portion of the market for "Saturday night specials," but wasn't that just the sort of unseemliness that carried with it a social stigma? There seems to be scant evidence the manufacturers were making an effort to address a demand to arm a big portion of the citizenry with firearms for concealed carry. Or were they doing this with all the Colt Troopers and Model 19's they were making for cops and citizens alike? Why does it seem virtually all the design influence was cop-influence or from the Army?
I'm not asserting that carry was only an obscure practice that should be disregarded with respect to any justification of present proposals for things like "constitutional carry," but it might seem as if more recent efforts to "permit" and "license" carry has served more to legitimize and promote concealed carry than it has encumbered a previously free practice.
Regardless of whether more people carried when licensing was unusual or fewer, the people that did carry were "invisible." With "constitutional carry" there's no record of people's application for permission to carry, so absent a clearly visible demand for guns to be used in this practice, it might go unnoticed to the point where the necessity of it is doubted. In contrast, where "permitting" is required, far more people apply for permits than those who actually carry. This would seem to have the effect of magnifying the practice, further legitimizing it, and maintaining clear visibility to the demand for it.
There is even evidence of an increase in demand for concealed carry guns as a result of permitting. The wikipedia page for the Ruger SR series claims, "Starting in the early 2000s, the rapid growth of legislation and regulations allowing concealed carry by law-abiding citizens in various jurisdictions created a large market for handguns manufactured specifically for such use," and suggests the SR series product was marketed to meet such demand. I don't think the Ruger is the only gun brought to market to meet this demand, but the sales leadership of the LCP is probably ample evidence that there's a substantial market for guns other than those models like the Glock, Sig, and M&P that could be sustained by military and law enforcement sales alone.
I certainly hope that my own state and all states soon recognize "constitutional carry," but I also hope that firearms manufacturers respond to what is almost certainly an increasing demand for carry guns for more and more people finding this is a responsibility they need to take for themselves, and that those people don't continue to be left only with product options originally designed and traditionally intended for law enforcement. On the other hand, I only have limited hope for as long as we're stuck with serialized production of a limited number of finite products in a regulated market.
Do you think unrestricted carry was popular and widespread throughout the 20th century compared to today?
Do you think that explicit permitting of carry has increased its practice?
What can be done to preserve the awareness of the need for carry if it goes "invisible," without the need for license and permit?
What influences do you see on growing demand for citizen-carried handguns on firearm's design?
