{"id":118890,"date":"2026-09-21T09:21:05","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T14:21:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=118890"},"modified":"2026-09-21T09:33:31","modified_gmt":"2026-09-21T14:33:31","slug":"118890","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=118890","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/gunsofliberty.org\/articles\/2026-09-1791-does-not-give-you-a-menu\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1791 Does Not Give You a Menu<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"text-lg text-stone-400 leading-relaxed\">The Founders did not say a State may pick a manner of carry and extinguish the other. Concealment-as-such is not a 1791 category. When the early republic later regulated manner \u2014 starting in 1813 \u2014 it regulated secrecy and left open carry standing. <em>Chandler<\/em> and <em>Nunn<\/em> are that analogue, not a State menu.<\/p>\n<p>Madison\u2019s text is \u201ckeep and bear.\u201d St. George Tucker, writing the first major American Blackstone in 1803, treats the Amendment as the \u201ctrue palladium of liberty,\u201d self-defense as \u201cthe first law of nature,\u201d and stresses that unlike England the American right has <strong>no<\/strong> \u201ccondition or degree\u201d qualifier. (Tucker, <em>Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries<\/em>, 1803, app. 300.) He is attacking disarmament-by-pretext (game laws), not drafting a concealed-vs-open codebook. He never says the legislature may elect one mode and abolish the other.<\/p>\n<p>If you want a Founding-era practice rule, it is this: peaceable public carry was not a crime in the early republic, and <strong>concealed-weapons statutes almost do not exist until 1813 onward<\/strong>. Kopel\u2019s count is eight states before 1846, mostly Southern plus Indiana. That inventory is Clayton E. Cramer, <em>Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic<\/em> (1999). That timing matters. A wave of dirk \/ Bowie \/ \u201csecret assassination\u201d statutes a generation after ratification is not the 1791 settlement.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-the-1840s50s-courts-actually-held-and-what-they-did-not\">What the 1840s\u201350s Courts Actually Held \u2014 and What They Did Not<\/h2>\n<p>This is the layer the cases actually use.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Bliss v. Commonwealth<\/em> (Ky. 1822) goes the <em>other<\/em> way: a conceal ban was void because it forbade a manner that was lawful when the state constitution was adopted. Kentucky later amended its constitution to authorize conceal bans. <em>Bliss<\/em> is the high-water mark that the right includes even the secret mode.<\/li>\n<li><em>State v. Reid<\/em> (Ala. 1840): a conceal ban can stand <strong>if<\/strong> the arm can still be borne openly; a \u201cregulation\u201d that makes the arm \u201cwholly useless for the purpose of defence\u201d would be void.<\/li>\n<li><em>Nunn v. State<\/em> (Ga. 1846): the conceal half of the statute stands; the open-carry prohibition is \u201cin conflict with the Constitution, and <em>void<\/em>.\u201d <em>Heller<\/em> later cites <em>Nunn<\/em> with approval.<\/li>\n<li><em>State v. Chandler<\/em>, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850): the 1813 act is valid <strong>because<\/strong> it \u201cinterfered with no man\u2019s right to carry arms \u2026 \u2018in full open view.\u2019\u201d That open mode \u201cis the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.\u201d Concealment was the vice (secret advantage \/ assassination). Openness was the equality condition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Read those holdings in order and the modern slogan falls apart. They are not \u201cthe State may choose open <em>or<\/em> concealed.\u201d They are \u201cthe State may burden the <em>secret<\/em> mode <strong>because the constitutional mode remains<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"where-the-choose-one-sentence-comes-from\">Where the \u201cChoose One\u201d Sentence Comes From<\/h2>\n<p>It is a 20th- and 21st-century synthesis: if <em>some<\/em> lawful carry remains, manner is a regulation, not a destruction. That is intermediate-scrutiny talk dressed in historical clothing. It treats open and concealed as fungible products on a shelf. <em>Chandler<\/em> does the opposite. It treats them as morally and constitutionally different acts. <em>Nunn<\/em> does the opposite. It voids the ban on the historical default.<\/p>\n<p>That is the inversion <em>O\u2019Neil v. Neronha<\/em> is asking the First Circuit to look at: history restricted concealment and left open carry as the ordinary public bearing of arms; the modern statute keeps a <strong>permit<\/strong> \/ need-showing concealed channel and withholds the default. That is not applying <em>Chandler<\/em>. That is standing <em>Chandler<\/em> on its head.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"the-fair-contrary\">The Fair Contrary<\/h2>\n<p>There is a serious literature (Frassetto, Cornell, some public-carry historians) that open carry in <em>populated<\/em> places was socially rare, sometimes stigmatized, and that the Southern open-carry cases are tangled with honor culture and slavery. Worth reading. It does <strong>not<\/strong> supply a Founding-era analogue for \u201cban the historical default, leave a discretionary other mode.\u201d Absence of street-level open pistols in Philadelphia is not a tradition of forbidding them.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-to-argue-it\">How to Argue It<\/h2>\n<p>Cite <em>Chandler<\/em> and <em>Nunn<\/em> for this proposition only: when the Founding-to-antebellum tradition regulated manner, it regulated <em>concealment<\/em> and left the open mode standing. Cite them as the manner analogue, not as 1791 statutes. The Founding left peaceable bearing unregulated as to hide-versus-show. Do not cite them for \u201cthe State may pick a manner.\u201d Do not cite Tucker for a conceal\/open codebook he did not write. And do not let the other side treat <em>Rahimi<\/em>\u2019s \u201cnot trapped in amber\u201d line as a license to reverse the default. <em>Rahimi<\/em> is about who may be disarmed after a finding of dangerousness. It is not a manner-swap statute.<\/p>\n<p>That is the honest originalist cut. The Founders said <em>bear<\/em>. The early courts that spoke to manner said the protected bearing was in view. The State\u2019s power, on that record, was to police the hidden blade \u2014 not to retire the constitutional mode and call the remainder a tradition.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"notes\">Notes<\/h2>\n<p>St. George Tucker, <em>Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia<\/em> (Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803), vol. 1, Appendix, Note D, p. 300.<\/p>\n<p>Clayton E. Cramer, <em>Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform<\/em> (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999). That is the eight-state inventory Kopel uses (Kentucky and Louisiana 1813, then Indiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>1791 Does Not Give You a Menu The Founders did not say a State may pick a manner of carry and extinguish the other. Concealment-as-such is not a 1791 category. When the early republic later regulated manner \u2014 starting in 1813 \u2014 it regulated secrecy and left open carry standing. Chandler and Nunn are that &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=118890\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorial-o-the-day","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=118890"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118890\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":118893,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118890\/revisions\/118893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=118890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=118890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=118890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}