[mack59]

Standing Wolf wrote: "I can easily see California-style may issue laws being upheld as a model for the nation down the road."

The only way I could see this happening is one of two scenarios - one the court doesn't support bearing arms, unlikey, and/or two Obama appoints a replacement for one of the current conservative majority before bearing arms is set in legal precedent.

Currently, Gura (the atty in Heller and McDonald) has cases pending addressing the right to carry - his argument in those cases is that a state may ban CCW or open carry but they can't ban both and that one or the other must be essentially open and available to all citizens, unless an individual is disqualified by felony or serious mental illness.

Then consider that Justice Kennedy - who has been called the swing vote in the majority - or softest on the 2nd - has stated that the 2nd amendment/RKBA is a fundamental right and also consider that he signed on to the majority decision in Heller which ruled out the rational basis review test for the second amendment - (if Heller was under rational basis review then the DC ban might have still have been held to be constitutional and it wasn't).

Therefore one could reasonably state that (given McDonald goes our way) that we have an individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms and that it gets at least intermediate scrutiny if not possibly a squishy strict scrutiny. Also note that in Heller, Kennedy and the others in the majority really focus on the idea that individuals have a right to self-defense describing in their own words that it is part of the core of the right protected.

To me all those factors point to the probability that Gura is right in his argument and that the courts will rule that as a fundamental right - particularly in regards to self-defense - that states violate that right when they ban both CCW and open carry or only allow one or both on a discretionary basis. In other words you don't get to pick and choose who gets to exercise a right - unless that picking and choosing is grounded in due process and passes the provisions of equal protection. They may well say and probably will that a state can say how you carry, openly and/or concealed, but not if you can carry.

If that is the case, as I feel it will be because of what has been ruled so far, then the only way California CCW laws could be upheld is if California allows nondiscretionary open carry (with a loaded gun not as they do now with an unloaded gun). Therefore, I feel it safe to say - that of those states that do not like the legal carrying of a gun (California, Illinois) - most will opt if forced to choose between the two (open or concealed carry) for concealed carry. And therefore, few if any states, including California, will have California style or discretionary style concealed carry in the not too distant future.