Should the right to bear arms in a concealed fashion be limited to pirvate property?

The right to bear arms, like any other fundamental, individual right, should only be limited in ways that can be proven to be the least possible infringement for the purpose where such purpose is proven to be a valuable goal of public policy and one that is actually implemented by enacting the limitations.

In states that have no regulation of concealed carry there is no increase in gun crime. Since there is no valid reason to prevent all law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed anywhere they want, it should not require any license or permit from anyone.

For anyone yanking you around about crazy Americans; just point out that the USA is not even in the top twenty countries for murder-rate per capita.

No or there would be no point in concealed carry since you could only carry concealed in your house or someone elses house. Although I'm certain criminals would love it because they could rob, rape, and murder without fear of getting shot. and if you have a problem with other people owning guns move we don't want you here.

Since violent crime and the requirement to defend yourself is not restricted to private property, carrying a concealed weapon should not be restricted either. No, carrying a concealed weapon should not be infringed.

@Gazza

You must live in the middle east then? I'm sure you do like the fact that the villagers you push around don't have guns ... its good for your health.

We, who don't live in the USA, thank out lucky stars that the right to bear arms is limited to the USA.

@ Rob. I live in the civilised country North of your border. That's were your right to bear arms stops.

No.