With the country nearly at 50% of the states not requiring people to have some sort of a license to carry a firearm concealed, now’s a good time to discuss the terms permitless carry versus constitutional carry. The first state that was considered to have constitutional carry was Vermont. Sometimes people refer to constitutional carry as to Vermont carry. Vermont does not have any licensing requirements to carry a firearm concealed.
Are these terms synonymous? No, not really. What’s going to go on here is a lot of opinion. Or, in some cases, not even giving this topic any thought at all. I personally use permitless carry to describe a state of jurisdiction that does not require a permit to carry concealed. My reason for using permitless over constitutional is because permitless blankets more circumstances.
The Constitution says what about the right to keep and bear arms? It says that “...it shall not be infringed.” We must define infringed to get to what may or may not be constitutional.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, we have the definition of infringed as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” What about encroach?
An encroachment is “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits” and “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.”
Since we’re talking semantics and not really law here, in your opinion, would any qualifier or requirement placed on someone be an infringement? Would that encroach on your rights? That is, if a governing body made a law that advances beyond the usual limits and or enters into your rights, governs your possessions, would that be an infringement? My answer to that is “yes.”
I’m of the opinion that all these permitting laws are infringements.
Therefore, in order for something to be “constitutional” in regards to the right to keep and bear arms, on its face that would mean there are no requirements concerning how one may bear their arm.
We have a couple of sources to turn to though to help further define and understand the differences between the terms “permitless” and “constitutional carry.”
US LawShield discusses the definition of constitutional carry:
“Constitutional carry refers to the legal carrying of a handgun without a license or permit.
Stated differently, in a constitutional carry state, if you can legally possess a handgun, you can legally carry that handgun without the need for a license or permit. Keep in mind, even though constitutional carry states allow for permitless carry, age, location, and residency restrictions may still apply.”
The “age, location, and residency restrictions” are some of what would separate permitless from constitutional carry. Those restrictions specifically paint the jurisdiction as being permitless. If there were no restrictions, the scheme would be constitutional, not infringed upon.
The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) takes the bull by the horns and really does a good job of spelling this out. Their post on the subject with their embedded video explaining the dynamic really hits the nail on the head.
“Although the terms constitutional carry, permitless carry and unrestricted carry are often used interchangeably, definitions of the terms differ.
Constitutional carry: Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required. Sometimes, constitutional carry may be conditional such as in those states that have no laws prohibiting the open carry of a handgun but which require a permit to carry the handgun concealed.
Permitless carry: Permitless carry includes constitutional carry states as well as states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry (Tennessee). Some states are fully unrestricted, meaning no permit is required for open or concealed carry. Others allow the open carry of a firearm/or handgun without a permit but require a permit for concealment.”
The way USCCA explains the differences is how I personally view the topic. Every state that has constitutional carry is a permitless carry state, however not every permitless carry state has constitutional carry.
When discussing states that don’t have permits required to carry a firearm, the reason I use permitless is because I don’t want to misrepresent what the nuance of the actual law might be. As of the time of writing this, there are 24 permitless carry states. Not all of them have constitutional carry. I don't know all the laws of all these states and if any of them have time, manner, and/or place restrictions. The definition from USCCA mentions Tennessee as having restrictions which would classify them as permitless. Maine is another state that I know has restrictions on time, manner, and/or place.
To that end, my modus operandi is not to discuss this, to call someone out or vilify other writers or content creators for using one term over the other, but rather to call to everyone’s attention that there is a distinction between the two phrases. People are going to use the terms they’re comfortable with for the reasons that they have. Some of those reasons I agree with, and some of them I do not. And some of those reasons might not be reasons other than what one is accustomed to.
If we truly had constitutional carry in any of these states, we’d have to ask ourselves if restricting any person, for any circumstances, from being able to carry a firearm for self-defense, would that classify as an infringement? Eighteen-year-olds? Minor children? Felons? Drug addicts? Mentally defectives? This is simply something to ponder when we toss around the idea of what’s constitutional.
Sound off in the comments, we’d love to know what you think.
Permitless Carry vs. Constitutional Carry