There is nothing wrong with the logic of plaintiffs arguments, but the court saw a direct challenge to the open carry ban as the more direct route. The plaintiff expressly declined to make that argument.
It does seem unavoidable that localities which ban open carry but allow licensed carry will eventually have to be held to that choice, and not be allowed to use it to deny the right completely, which IS the argument out forth in this case.
Because of the home rule exception, the court didn't think they could 'get there from here'. But relying on historical bans on concealed carry while ignoring all the sets of facts under which they were upheld is, well, sloppy, and more than a little disingenuous.
Whatever the legal reasoning, if the result is the denial of a fundamental right, then the court has failed utterly. I am not a lawyer, obviously, but I feel like my head is going to explode when a court settles for an unconstitutional outcome in the interest of maintaining status quo. It is worse than useless.
Last edited by maestro pistolero; February 25, 2013 at 02:06 AM.