I will take a stab at making a case that concealed carry is a constitutionally protected Right. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't still believe that OC is the "core" right, but that keeping and bearing does and should include concealed firearms, bladed weapons, tazers, etc.
So, here's my statement. Bear in mind, that I am neither a judge nor a lawyer. I'm a pragmatist.
In cases where a total ban on carry has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts, a shall issue concealed carry law has satisfied both the courts, and the *plaintiffs*.
While there are elements of many of these laws passed to relieve these flat bans that may in fact remain "unconstitutional," I, myself, am willing to accept concealed carry as a constitutional remedy to a portion of the egregious infringements levied on our second amendment freedoms.
Also, I wonder why 19th century interpretations are acceptable? I see no reason to accept any restrictions of any kind as in keeping with the constitution.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"In cases where a total ban on carry has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts, a shall issue concealed carry law has satisfied both the courts, and the *plaintiffs*. "
That is not a "case." That cannot even be liberally construed to be a "case."
Plaintiffs do not get to decide what is constitutional and no Federal court of Appeals or SCOTUS or any state high court has upheld a prohibition on Open Carry being constitutional.
I imagine you are referring to the Moore v. Madigan decision to which Judge Posner said in the subsequent appeal by the NRA that he has no idea if the new Illinois law is constitutional.
Sixty posts now and not a single case has been made in support of concealed carry being a Second Amendment right. Lots of personal opinions and personal attacks but not a single case has been made in support of this topic.
Well, the plaintiffs do get to decide to file an appeal to a decision. And it's not just M v. M. (Though it is a perfect example, as the entire uuw law was struck as noted by Myerscough on remand.) Where there have been shall issue (and even some may issue) laws passed as a remedy, the plaintiffs ceased their pursuit of a better judgement via continued appeals (not all, of course.) Yes, I understand and agree that the scope of such cases was focused for the most part on concealed carry. But my point, or my "case" if you prefer, is that if the people making the challenges and winning the judgements accept concealed carry only laws as allowing them to exercise their constitutional rights under the 2A, then practically speaking, that's what the right is. No amount of case law supporting or refuting this has an impact on what is actually happening.
To be sure, I do think pursuing OC in California is a good angle. I would love to see those commies have to choke on OC. But what I really think will become of this is, the state will be compelled to pass a much more widely accepted CC law in an effort to dodge OC. If you do prevail, what you will find is a million laws "regulating" when and where (no time and nowhere) which would no doubt lead to a whole other round of lawsuits.