I took quite a few law courses in college, most of them in the late 1970s. One of the professors was an old lawyer who told us "The only thing better than having 100 years of precedents supporting your case is to have a recent precedent affirming those 100 years of prior precedents."
There was absolutely no way any court decision in the past 400 years could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry as two of the judges said in the sharply divided and vacated (dead) three judge panel decision in Peruta. The Heller decision certainly did not say that and not a single decision it cited in the courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment right could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.
Every decision cited in Heller regarding the right to bear arms had held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and
that concealed carry is not a right.
I read today that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry case and might not appeal the Peruta decision. What the NRA won't tell you is that it is impossible for them to get ahead of me on appeal. Appeals are heard in the order filed and mine is the only carry case in the 9th Circuit which is a pure Open Carry case.
Alan Beck blew his Hawaii appeal because he asked for something that courts cannot do. Instead of asking for an injunction, he asked the court of appeals to issue an order compelling that a new law be written. Courts can issue injunctions. Courts can strike down part, or all of a law. A court can even stay its injunction for a period of time to give a legislature time to write a new law (as in Moore v. Madigan). The one thing a court can't do is to write a new law or issue an order requiring that a new law be written.
Like it or not, the future of the Second Amendment right to carry in the 9th Circuit rests on my shoulders.
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org