http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/
Is rather interesting to think how this ruling can mean that weapons permits now must be honored in all states.
That article was written by Bob Owens an inveterate opponent of Open Carry who, despite longstanding legal precedents, thinks he has a right to carry concealed and that government has the right to ban Open Carry. The headline alone should have told you that Owens hasn't a clue but if it didn't, reading his article should have left no doubt.
The Obergefell decision was certainly an interesting one but it relied on the premise that marriage is a fundamental right. No Federal court has ever held that concealed carry is a right, fundamental or otherwise (not even the vacated 2-1 Peruta decision) and certainly not Moore v. Madigan.
Absent a fundamental right or a law which is suspect because it involves a classification (such as race) which requires heightened scrutiny by the courts, rational review applies which almost invariably entails that the challenged law survives. Notwithstanding the Federal circuits which assumed that concealed carry implicates the Second Amendment but upheld the laws under intermediate scrutiny which seems to have become the new rational basis review (at least when the Second Amendment is at issue).
Read the Obergefell decision and then try to rewrite it as if the decision were about concealed carry. What are the prior precedents you would use to shoehorn concealed carry into the Second Amendment right to bear arms? There aren't any.
This leaves one with a very weak 14th Amendment argument to make in support of concealed carry absent any proof that there was any impermissible motive (such as race) for enacting the concealed carry law, you lose. That 14th Amendment argument would have to be independent of the Second Amendment or the courts will simply construe your 14th Amendment argument to be a Second Amendment argument in disguise which also means you lose.
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282.
"In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816