Never ever underestimate the desire of people just wanting to be left alone, without attracting police attention continuously and continual social rejections. To them, concealed carry is the ONLY right that they can count on that gives them the maximum benefit for defense with almost no down sides.
My end goal is where both methods of loaded carry is not prior restraint licensed. What's yours?
Your goal can be whatever you say it is, but this is not the object of your actions.
I'm not sure how you have convinced yourself that bowing to mostly-fictitious "social rejections" and secretively exercising a privilege is going to result in license-free carry of either sort.
There are two methods before us: use the courts, affect popular opinion.
Your approach accomplishes nothing in the second aim, and in the first is totally dependent upon a strained and fit-to-expectations interpretation of court dicta.
The reference which
Heller makes to
Bliss does not relate to the bit you've extracted from it.
In fact, the dicta in
Heller seems carefully chosen and selected to reinforce the notion that, while bearing arms is a right, concealing them is not.
The only logical conclusion to be reached from this is that the
Heller court intends to interpret "bear" as "bear openly".
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that GCF is going to utterly fail their immediate goals. Y'all have completely ignored what was actually said, in favor of interpretations which make
your strategy seem the most practicable -- a strategy you have selected for some of the most dubious reasons I have encountered (something about granny and social pressure).
Whereas
Heller totally ignored the part of
Bliss you mentioned, they didn't ignore the following at all, although you sure have:
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 guar- anteed 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.”
Whereas the term "concealed" is used 11 times, each of which as an example of precedent which determined the right doesn't extend to concealment:
Aymette held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons.
...
For exam- ple, 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.
While I agree that concealed carry may be better for granny, and while I agree that in an ideal society government will not restrict such a right, I believe we are very far from such a society.
The SCOTUS is too pro-cop to take away a useful (although morally indefensible) law enforcement tool. They will favor OC since criminals prefer to CC.
The SCOTUS already did their analysis of the Jim Crowe history of gun control, and they didn't bother to point out that notions against CC were Jim Crowe in origin; nope, instead they advocated those notions themselves.
Your last post becomes very shrill in the defense of CC. In the same way you get so defensive over it, expect the SCOTUS to get defensive over OC. There seems to be very little chance they will share your perspective.
