Mr. Norris, I understand your point, but I disagree with your conclusion.
It is interesting that, nearly 100 years after Idaho's case, the Ohio state supreme court made a very similar ruling. Like Idaho, Ohio ruled that the legislature may regulate the mode of carry, but because the state's constitution guarantees a right to keep AND BEAR arms, the legislature could not ban carry entirely. The ruling thus established that, since concealed carry was illegal in Ohio, open carry had to be legal.
But -- while I can accept the right of legislatures to "regulate" the bearing of arms, I am not prepared to accept your premise that charging money to allow a citizen to exercise a right is in any way constitutional. If the state wants to keep a record of who's carrying, maybe I can accept that -- if they do it at the state's expense. Charging ME a fee for a license to exercise a right is not regulation -- it's taxation.
But it depends on the state. In a state such as Ohio, and I guess Idaho, those who don't wish to pay the fee can carry openly. In such states I suppose the fee for a concealed carry license passes constitutional muster. However, I live in a state whose constitution (allegedly) guarantees my right to keep and bear arms, yet I am allowed to carry a firearm only if I possess a license from the state. No open carry without license. My state allows NO carry without a license -- which license, naturally, requires paying a fee, undergoing a background check, and requires taking a commercial firearms safety course as a prerequisite.
I do not regard this as "regulation," since without the license I have no (legal) mode of carry available to me.