Here's the Legal Historians brief.
I found that not only disenheartening, but intellectually suspect.
They have to dig pretty deep to find historical precedents for the prohibition on carry, but when presented with counter-evidence like Nunn v. State
, they sink to pointing out Judge Lumpkin's support of slavery by way of a tenuous rebuttal.
If this is the best professional veneer the opposition can muster, I'm feeling optimistic indeed.