The case reference to paragraph 124 in Hamdan is of little value to the argument. It is the personal opinion of justice Bablitch. The WSC decision in Hamdan ends at paragraph 89.
By prohibiting a right (open carry) and mandating a privilege (concealed carry) I feel the governor creates a conflict with Article I section 25. Essentially the decision evicerates Art.I sect 25 as concerns the rights of the people. I think these paragraphs in the WSC decision in Hamdan are relative.
¶38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.
¶39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25. Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power
¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶44. As we explained in Cole, when an exercise of the State's police power implicates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the validity of the exercise is measured by the reasonableness of the restriction on the asserted right.
¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.
In Hamdan the WSC and later the Attorney General, ruled that because of the strict application of the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23, open carry was the only reasonable alternate manner of carry and therefore constitutionally protected by Art I sec 25.
Open carry of firearms was never allowed in goverment buildings, concealed or otherwise, prior to A-35. A-35 now makes an exception in ss941.235 for concealed carry by licensed individuals. Some issues arise. First: It trumps a constitutional right (open carry) with a state issued privilege (concealed carry). Second: For those persons that do not have the means to obtain a concealed carry license it eviscerates their constitutional rights under Art I sec 25.
Finally: ss941.235 no longer absolutely prohibits carry of firearms in state buildings. It only regulates the manner and types that may be carried. Essentially Act 35 changed the reach to imply that the carry of long guns and visible handguns is still prohibited but the carry of licensed conceal carry of handguns is allowed. In doing so it recognizes the need for persons to provide for their personal protection in public buildings. However, it regulates that manner in such a way that it eviscerates a right and replaces it with a privilege. It discriminates against persons that do not have the means to acquire the privilege. Even though Act 35 recognizes the need for personal protection by firearms in public buildings it denies that right to certain qualified persons. Therefore the state ban of open carry by lawful unlicensed citizens in defference to people with a licensed privilege is unconstitutional.
These are my opinions. Do what you will with them.