Why not? The only reason concealed carry laws became a thing in the first place was to prevent free blacks from hiding their weapons.
Your right to keep and bear arms does not become void when you put on a jacket.
I doubt that this SCOTUS will revisit and reverse
Heller and declare the 2nd Amendment
does secure a right to keep and carry in any manner whatsoever. I disagree with
@Glitch that the right is absolute and beyond any regulation, especially in a narrow aspect such as a "right" to concealed carry, which is entirely a creation of state law.
Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry and
concealed carry specifically (primarily and simply because the 2nd was not applicable to the states).
The
concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the 1800's, state laws forbidding the
concealing of a gun were not an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).
Both sides need to understand that this New York situation is peculiar in the overall scheme of gun rights simply because New York (and California and New Jersey and Maryland) do not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution.
In each of those states, the state legislatures has taken that to mean
ANYTHING is possible as far as gun control goes, so they prohibited or severely restricted all carry (open and concealed) . . .
This has created a legal problem though, New York's (and CA's, NJ's and MD's) legal justification for state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (not just carry and we are talking about looking back over 100 years) was not built upon any interest in what a "right to keep and bear arms" is, and how that constrains legislative action . . . There was no testing of NY state laws against a state RKBA provision like what occurred in states
with a RKBA provision.
This legal 'insulation' has led to much ignorance regarding the basic question of what the right to arms "
is" in those states and has polluted state court decisions which tee up the law for their federal Districts and Circuits to examine. Much of that lower court law is thoroughly incompatible with the 2ndA . . .
There is a hydra of laws to de-tangle and I do not see the Court unwinding all state power to regulate the carriage of arms within their borders -- at least through this case. I understand the absolutist arguments and the equal protection arguments but there is also the 10th Amendment that recognizes certain powers over internal order remain in the state government's prerogative.
The enforcement of the RKBA is in its infancy and it will not occur in one fell swoop.
@Glitch is right, the delay of enforcement has been a travesty of law and is long overdue but what he demands will not be happening in one decision.
.