Previous Post
Next Post

Rachel Malone (above) writes:

Constitutional Carry is on a roll. In 2013, only a few states allowed open and concealed carry without a government permission slip. Now, close to 25 percent of these United States recognize the [relatively] unfettered right to keep and bear arms, with more working toward that goal.

Everytown for Gun Sense in America, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and their billionaire benefactor Michael Bloomberg hate this trend. It’s the exact opposite of their goal: civilian disarmament. But if the antis were sincere about wanting to promote safety, they’d be fighting for it.

Constitutional Carry keeps us (and our children) safer. But first, recognize that Constitutional Carry is not a danger to society.

Constitutional Carry does not allow felons to carry. It does not allow prohibited people to carry guns. It does not make murder or violent crime legal. It does not in increase the availability of firearms to someone who’s intent on breaking the law and causing you harm from doing so.

Criminals break the law. They don’t worry about government permits for carrying firearms. Which is why Constitutional Carry does not “encourage” or “enable” criminality. In fact, believing that government vetting prevents violent crime or suicide is a dangerously deluded idea.

Constitutional or “permit-less” carry simply allows more law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, fight back and take responsibility for protecting themselves and their loved ones — without having to register with the government in order to carry a tool.

As John Lott’s points out in his definitive book More Guns, Less Crime, the more law-abiding Americans carry a firearm, the safer we are — not just in terms of defensive gun use, but also in terms of deterrence.

My home state of Texas is currently working on passing Constitutional Carry. HB 375 would allow anyone who is not prohibited from possessing a handgun to carry it open or concealed without a permit. The committee hearing on the bill is scheduled for has March 28 (public testimony welcome).

To put this “radical” change in perspective, to understand the injustice of the current regulatory regime, let’s look at the current state of affairs in Texas.

Let’s say a Texas resident doesn’t have a Lone Star State License to Carry. She can load up her GLOCK, holster it, get in her car, and drive all over town. Legally. No permit necessary.

She drives to the gas station. To get out of her car and pump gas without committing a crime, she has to disarm. How is this the safer option, for her or for society? Being unarmed is dangerous. So is being forced to handle a firearm in a confined space like your car.

And if Jane Doe should be able to carry a firearm while pumping gas without a permit, why shouldn’t she able to buy groceries while armed? Play with her kids? Leave her own property — where she’s legally armed without a permit — to talk to a neighbor?

Those who believe that a government mandated carry permit makes us safer are muddling along under a false sense of security. Besides, it’s not the government’s job to guard us from criminals or stupid people – nor are they able to do so. It’s their job to bring justice to someone who causes harm. It’s our job to protect ourselves.

This is logical, but it’s also factual. Statistics from Constitutional Carry states are new and not yet extensive. But we have evidence that indicates that Constitutional Carry may reduce violent crime — contrary to the cry of “there will be blood in the streets if we don’t require a piece of plastic!”

The Crime Prevention Research Center reports that “the five states in 2013 that allowed concealed carry without a permit had much lower murder and violent crime rates than the five jurisdictions with the lowest permit rates. Indeed, the murder rate was 33 percent lower in the states not requiring permits. The violent crime rate was 32 percent lower.”

Instead of fearing the unknown, let’s find boldness in truth. Evil is all too real in this world, but it’s already illegal to do harm to another. It should not be illegal to simply carry a defensive tool without governmental approval.


If you’re a Texan, please join me in promoting Constitutional Carry at the hearing on March 28. Click on this pdf or contact [email protected] for the time, place and process.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Compare the smiles between the young lady of this article and the battle-ax of the next article. Kind of sums up ladies of the gun compared to the dour collectivist gun grabbers.

    • Notice that difference between more conservative women and their liberal counterparts. The conservative ladies are, IMHO, much better looking. Are there some good looking liberal girls out there? You betcha, but there isn’t much going on upstairs with them. Every beautiful conservative woman I’ve ever met, could actually carry on a conversation as well and know what she’s talking about.

      • Agree completely. Conservative women seem much more relaxed and fun to be around. They just don’t seem to be tangled up in mental knots trying to figure out the jumbled mess of wiring in their brain.

        • To be fair, women have not been allowed to think long enough for the ability to be widespread. Another couple generations, perhaps. Meanwhile, those of us who have already found one with the ability should rejoice every day. I know I do, and have for 50 years, now..

        • Definitely anecdotal as well as biased by my own conservatism. But liberals just seem more pissed off to me.

      • According to several studies, conservative ladies are not cold and stern. The are wilder in the bedroom (and elsewhere). The liberal ladies are so uninhibited and liberal that they have far less pent up sexual tensions to release. So liberated that they feel that a display of extra interest would violate their liberation because a man’s pleasure would be involved. Conservative women, being more traditional, care about their partner’s experience, and are evolved enough that they also have an interest in their own pleasure. It’s kinda like steak and lobster. If you partake of surf and turf everyday, it will eventually lose being a special meal. In fact, a far simpler meal might become special.

        Thank Heaven for The Women of the Gun! (I find women with guns HOT, and even better if in uniform!)

    • Rachel Malone is fine as hell. I listen to her on the polite society podcast. I always figured she’d be homely since most pretty sounding women are not pretty. But she sure is. And she’s an apple seed instructor. Wow. Be still my heart lol.

  2. Constitutional Carry: It’s The Safest Option

    It is not an option, it is a mandate. All laws restricting the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. It really chaps my hide anytime I read the word “allow” in the same sentence as a natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right.

    • Yeah, keep pointing it out. We all know you’re right, even when we have fallen back into more common terminology.

    • “Constitutional Carry. HB 375 would allow anyone who is not prohibited from possessing a handgun to carry it open or concealed without a permit.”

      “If you concede that the very government the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you prevent them from expanding those lists to include you?” – Cliff H

  3. “It’s their job to bring justice to someone who causes harm. It’s our job to protect ourselves.”
    It’s really that simple.
    Ms. Malone, however, is anything but. Her strategy of testimony during the last session on Open Carry and Campus Carry was very well thought out, especially for someone who appears fairly new to the Texas legislative process.

      • That is my understanding, yes.

        Can we count on you to testify on Tuesday? Bring the family. Bring friends. Let’s get 1000 rational reasonable gun owners there making coherent statements and testimony to the legislature.

  4. “Besides, it’s not the government’s job to guard us from criminals or stupid people – nor are they able to do so. It’s their job to bring justice to someone who causes harm. It’s our job to protect ourselves.”

    The Daily Mail had a headline this morning that reads in part “How one open gate let knife maniac in to kill…”.

    I think there’s a lesson in there, you know, for those that care to look.

  5. I still can’t figure out what this sentence means:

    “It does not in increase the ability of firearms to someone who’s intent on breaking the law and causing you harm from doing so.”

  6. “In fact, believing that government vetting prevents violent crime or suicide is a dangerously deluded idea.”

    Impossible! The Almighty Government is, well, almighty and infallible. Except when it isn’t. Which is pretty much all the time.

  7. Great article.

    In this venue, however, it’s almost a dictionary example for “preaching to the choir.” The only other ones likely to read it are the trolls who sometimes grace this site with their presence.

    Anyone got any ideas for getting articles like this placed in mainstream media outlets? I suppose paid ads would work, but that would quickly become prohibitively expensive unless we can recruit a pro-gun person with Bloombergian resources.

  8. Constitutional/permitless carry has passed the House and Senate in North Dakota(clear majority in both). We are waiting to see what the Governor will do.

  9. Texans – GO TESTIFY!

    I’m going to drive up to testify.

    Bloomberg’s Moms will probably turn out 40 or 50 robots who will read the same ridiculous prepared speech, clearly frustrating and irritating the legislators.

    If the POTG turn out 500 or 1000 who make cogent, coherent, reasonable arguments like Rachel Malone’s, it could have an impact.

    And if we can’t turn out 1000 Texans to support Constitutional Carry, then — we deserve what we get.

    Stand for freedom. Show up. Testify.

  10. The Governor of Texas filed a brief with the court in a California suit. That is exactly the kind of publicity we need everywhere.

  11. ….”Constitutional Carry” NOT coming to the state of Massachusetts! Anytime soon….Nor has the 2nd Amendment-(MA. Privilege.)- arrived here either….Without Bureaucratic paramilitary Local/State Police department permissions without an FID/LTC card..(No permit…No ownership…)Yet this state has the highest level of crime..As well as, political, corporate, and police corruption….

  12. Why are people arguing about Constitutional carry?
    It is Constitutional ie the law of the land.
    We should be getting rid of gov parasites who don’t obey the Constitution.

    • Because what you interpret “the law of the land” to mean, is not the same as what any of the three branches of government interpret it to mean. Even Scalia went out of his way to say that gun ownership/carrying is not an unrestricted right. And the 9th Circuit has already ruled that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

      So the argument continues.

  13. I’m not impressed by the source — the CPRC has yet to have any of its papers published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Some of that is likely due to ideological bias by journal editors, but that can’t explain the total lack.

    OTOH, for this particular piece, the data and thus the results look sound. The paper is a decent read for an academic effort as well.

Comments are closed.