Can you cite the laws regarding carrying a concealed weapon (not using it to commit murder, but peacefully carrying and using only in legit self-defense) in the Independent United States, in any of the States under the articles of confederation, or in the States at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791?
Interestingly the Nunn State Supreme court decision permitted a State ban on concealed carry while overturning a ban on handguns while using the following language to protect the right to own and carry said guns:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!
...
But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
In other words, laws adopted prior to the passage of the 2nd amendment, prior to the American Revolution, that trampled on rights were the very reason we had a revolution and adopted the Bill of Rights. To cite an English law of 1630 (or other English laws restricting the ownership or public possession of weapons as you have previously done to support your position) is to utterly fail to understand or acknowledge the reasons for our Independence. At best, they are circular logic claiming that because there is no right to conceal, laws against such are not offensive, and because such laws existed in England long ago, there must not be any right to conceal.
Even in this early win for OC, the court using some double-speak. It recognizes the natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. But then claims a limitation on carrying concealed is acceptable? How is it I might posses a natural right to bear arms, but only to do so visibly? I have no natural right to cover my property with a coat in inclement weather? Consider on the usability of a flintlock pistol exposed to the elements on a rainy day. I know parts of Cali have 366 days a year of perfect weather. But in most of the United States, inclement weather of one form or another is not uncommon.
Nunn cited Bliss. Bliss overturned a statute banning concealed weapons with the rational that:
"But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the [Kentucky State] constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the [Kentucky State] constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the [Kentucky State] constitution."
The Kentucky State constitution did not specifically authorize concealed carry. It simply said,
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned"
A State ConAmd was required to overturn Bliss and allow the State to encroach upon the pre-existing, natural right to carry weapons concealed.
Of note, Nunn, Bliss, and the far more offensive Aymette and Buzzard all come out of slave States. The political and social concerns of slaves or other "undesirables" carrying firearms cannot be ignored in reading these decisions. Cramer's
"Racist Roots of Gun Control" provides several examples of both overt and subtle racial bias in gun laws, court decisions, and constitutional provisions dealing with RKBA.
To argue that the SCOTUS does not (currently/yet) recognize any right to carry concealed is a honest and defensible position. Of course, the same thing would have to be said about the SCOTUS and OC. Heller deals with keeping a usable gun in your home, not carrying in public. Nor do we yet have a single, modern federal court decision declaring that OC is a fundamental right. Indeed, so long as any permitting process for carrying in public is tolerated by the courts, the courts are not truly recognizing the public possession of usable arms for self defense as a fundamental right on par with other fundamental rights. It is beyond comprehension of any federal court today tolerating a permit requirement to preach a sermon, attend a worship service, print or read a newspaper, access an attorney if accused of a crime, to avoid a warrantless wiretap, or even to get an elective abortion.
So to rely on Heller or other recent federal court decisions to argue there never has been any right to carry a gun concealed is either ignorant or dishonest.
ETA:
I believe those same State and left coast federal courts that are shooting down discrete carry with your full support, will turn around and likewise shoot down open carry. After all, California's history regarding Open Carry quite well mirrors that of the antebellum slave states as bans on OC were put into statute after the Black Panthers took to patrolling the streets and watching police officers while carrying shotguns. Those who think a ban on discrete carry will somehow "force" the courts to accept permit free OC have clearly not read enough court decisions to understand the tremendous "flexibility" (is the nicest word we might use here) of the judicial mind.
Charles