Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just as wrong as the one you attribute to Alan Gura. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee open carry anymore than it guarantees conceal carry. What the 2nd Amendment guarantees is carry, period!
You constantly mischaracterize Gura's position. California and DC outlaw all types of loaded carry. Your position is that the Constitution guarntees open carry. Gura's position, when characterized properly, is that the Constitution guarantees some form of carry and since they have outlawed open carry and allow concealed carry with a permit then they must issue their permits to all law abiding applicants (shall issue).
Therefore, from a legal perspective, you are the one who is wrong and he is right. Which is not surprising given that he has a legal degree and you do not.
Being able to quote one line from a Scalia opinion (“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.”) regarding open carry does not qualify you to render a legal opinion.
This was not the Supreme Court's holding in the case. Rather, Scalia referenced this Pre-Civil War Louisiana case in his analysis of whether the right was an individual right or belonged solely to militias. The inclusion of this case in the analysis had nothing to do with open carry as opposed to conceal carry!
Therefore, your use of this case for the proposition that the Supreme Court has in some way preferred or protected open carry over concealed carry is both misleading and legally incorrect!
And yet every Federal court has held that I am right and you, Alan Gura, and the lawyers in every other concealed carry case are wrong.
You are, of course, free to provide the pinpoint citations to the cases which prove me wrong. Here are a few which prove that you are merely blowing smoke. There are hundreds more which have held that the presumptively lawful prohibitions listed in the Heller decision are lawful.
Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F. 3d 61 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit (2012)
"Under current Supreme Court precedent, Hightower cannot make out her Second Amendment claim as to the concealed weapon aspect of her revoked license, as she must for her as-applied challenge to succeed. Under our analysis of Heller, as follows, the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home.
In Heller, the Court explained that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under Second Amendment or state analogues." 128 S.Ct. at 2816. We have interpreted this portion of Heller as stating that "laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" are an "example[] of `longstanding' restrictions that [are] `presumptively lawful' under the Second Amendment." United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2816-17 & n. 26); see also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897) (observing that "the first 10 amendments to the [C]onstitution" protect rights that are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions" and stating, in dicta, that the Second Amendment right "is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons").[9] Licensing of the carrying of concealed weapons is presumptively lawful, and Hightower makes no serious argument to the contrary." Id at 73-74.
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (2012)
"Notably, Chandler and Reid conflict with Plaintiffs' position, at least in part. Plaintiffs contend that a state may choose to ban open carrying so long as concealed carrying is permitted. But both Chandler and Reid suggest that open carrying must be permitted. The Reid court explained:
Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.
1840 WL 229, at *5; see also Chandler, 1850 WL 3838, at *1." Id at [fn 13]
Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (2013)
"New Jersey's longstanding handgun permitting schema is not an anomaly. Many recent judicial opinions have discussed historical laws regulating or prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public. See, e.g., Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 433*433 1197, 1201 (10th Cir.2013) ("extending" the recognized Heller exceptions to cover regulations on the carrying of concealed firearms, stating that "
n light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections")." Id at 433
Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (2013)
"The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to the entry of the court's injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly burdened by Maryland's good-and-substantial-reason requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F.Supp.2d 462 (D.Md.2012). Because we disagree with the court's conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second Amendment." Id at 868
National Rifle Ass'n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 700 F. 3d 185 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2012)
"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. 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 .... [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id at 193
National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F. 3d 338 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2013)
"For example, the Court said, "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."" Id at 346
Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (2012)
"And a state may be able to require "open carry" — that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783..." Id at 938
US v. Fincher, 538 F. 3d 868 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2008)
"[T]he 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." Id at 873
Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F. 3d 1197 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit (2013)
"With respect to Peterson's claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause." Id at 1201
Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F. 3d 1244 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (2011)
"The Court identified other historical limitations upon the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment. For example, it noted "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."" Id at 1252
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2014) (vacated)
"To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry." Id at 1172.
"The majority's first — and crucial — mistake is to misidentify the "conduct at issue." Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. The majority frames the question as "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." This is certainly an important issue, but it is not the question we are called upon to answer. The Plaintiffs are not seeking a general license to carry firearms in public for self-defense — they are seeking a license to carry concealed firearms in public." Peruta dissent at 1181.
"Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry." Peruta dissent at 1195
Note that it is “the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” which is binding on all states and local governments via the McDonald decision. Not the imagined right to carry concealed which the Supreme Court in Heller clearly states is not a right under the Second Amendment.
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
