The 1840 case, Reid, does not address the issue. There, a person was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in violation of an act which was intended "'to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly,'" by prohibiting one from carrying "'concealed about his person, any species of fire arms, or any Bowie knife, Arkansaw tooth pick, or any other knife of the like kind, dirk, or any other deadly weapon....'"
The defendant challenged the statute as violating the RKBA in Alabama's constitution, but the Supreme Court did not agree, and upheld the conviction.
The statement discussing whether one could carry openly was obiter dictum
--it was a statement not affecting the decision of the Court, and thus is not law and has no legal consequence.
WTF...here we go with the friggin Latin again....using legal terms doesn't impress any greater understanding of the issue upon you....understanding the plain written word is sufficient.
I never made any claim that the quoted section from Reid was part of the decision....it WAS, however, a part of the courts understanding of the law and the Constitution......it was part of what led them to the decision that they made.......how can it not have ANY "legal consequence"?
In any event, the discussion was in the context of whether a law prohibiting carrying a concealed weapon violated the right to bear arms--the Court held that it did not because, while it was a regulation on the right, it did not wholly forbid it. The Court then speculated that another law forbidding open carry would be unconstitutional because both concealed and open carry would both be barred. The Court stated:
"We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument, to enact laws of both descriptions
. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted."
In other words, a prohibition on concealed carry did not violate the RKBA because open carry was legal. The legislature could, under the Court's rationale, forbid one or the other, but not both.
Applying that rationale today, it is legal to forbid open carry because concealed carry is legal (with a permit).
I see nothing in Reid allowing open carry or proscribing a law forbidding open carry, as long as concealed carry is legal (which it is, with a permit).
It could be interpreted that way but, SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that a right cannot be abrogated away nor can it be licensed or taxed etc.
....now, if OC was "forbidden"....there could be NO LAWS CONTROLLING CONCEALED CARRY as they would be unconstitutional........one way or the other, OC or CC, must remain UNINHIBITED to remain constitutional.
PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF THIS HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE
*none of the above is to be considered legal advice