Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 51

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

45 

Opinion of the Court 

cited  opinions  agreed  that  concealed-carry  prohibitions
were  constitutional  only  if  they  did  not  similarly  prohibit 
open carry.  That was true in Alabama.  See State v. Reid, 
1 Ala. 612, 616, 619–621 (1840).18  It was also true in Loui-
siana.  See State v. Chandler, 5 La. 489, 490 (1850).19  Ken-
tucky,  meanwhile,  went  one  step  further—the  State  Su-
preme Court invalidated a concealed-carry prohibition.  See 
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822).20 

The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Nunn v. State, 
1 Ga. 243 (1846), is particularly instructive.  Georgia’s 1837
statute  broadly  prohibited  “wearing”  or  “carrying”  pistols 
“as arms of offence or defence,” without distinguishing be-
tween concealed and open carry.  1837 Ga. Acts 90, §1.  To 
the extent the 1837 Act prohibited “carrying certain weap-
ons secretly,” the court explained, it was “valid.”  Nunn, 1 

—————— 

18 See Reid, 1 Ala., at 619 (holding that “the Legislature cannot inhibit
the citizen from bearing arms openly”); id., at 621 (noting that there was
no evidence “tending to show that the defendant could not have defended 
himself as successfully, by carrying the pistol openly, as by secreting it 
about his person”). 

19 See, e.g., Chandler, 5 La., at 490 (Louisiana concealed-carry prohibi-
tion “interfered with no man’s right to carry arms (to use its words) ‘in 
full open view,’ which places men upon an equality”); Smith, 11 La., at 
633 (The “arms” described in the Second Amendment “are such as are 
borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly”); Jumel, 13 La., at 
399–400 (“The statute in question does not infringe the right of the peo-
ple  to  keep  or  bear  arms.  It  is a  measure  of  police,  prohibiting  only a 
particular mode of bearing arms which is found dangerous to the peace 
of society”). 

20 With  respect  to  Indiana’s  concealed-carry  prohibition,  the  Indiana
Supreme Court’s reasons for upholding it are unknown because the court 
issued a one-sentence per curiam order holding the law “not unconstitu-
tional.”  Mitchell,  3  Blackf.,  at  229.    Similarly,  the  Arkansas  Supreme
Court upheld Arkansas’ prohibition, but without reaching a majority ra-
tionale.  See Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18.  The Arkansas Supreme Court would 
later adopt Tennessee’s approach, which tolerated the prohibition of all 
public  carry  of  handguns  except  for  military-style  revolvers.    See,  e.g., 
Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876).