We interpret the Constitution by what was in the mind of those who wrote and ratified the amendments, not what came 20 years later. Concealed weapons were common at the time of ratification. They were not banned anywhere, nor were permits required, until it happened in two states, over twenty years later, one of which was overturned by the Kentucky Supreme Court, as you mentioned, in Bliss v.Commonwealth, which readers can find at the link.
Kentucky specifically amended their Constitution to allow the legislature to ban concealed carry. The Second Amendment was never amended.
Please educate me where Blackstone shows concealed carry as an exception to the English right to bear arms. I do not see it.
In any case, Blackstone references English common law, which did not ban concealed carry, and was overruled by the Second Amendment, which was a far broader protection, as the colonists had learned was necessary during and before the revolution. Here is Dave Kopel explaining the state of law in 1789 or 1791:
The claims that there was a categorical ban on carry are absolutely unsupported by early American history, except for the, there were rules against slaves who didn't have their, their master's permission. There were laws say against Indians carrying guns in towns. People weren't part of the you know, American polity, but for regular law abiding, peaceable Americans, there were no bans in 1791, in 1789, or at any time before that on either open or concealed carry, with the exception of the East Jersey, short lived East Jersey laws we talked about in the late 1600s.
Louisiana mimicked Spanish and French common law, and they passed the ban on concealed carry under that tradition. No one challenged it in court. Louisiana was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and had not been under English law.
Just because there were a couple of unusual court cases, where concealed carry was upheld, decades after the Second Amendment was ratified, is no reason to assume prohibitions on concealed carry were common at the time of ratification. They were not.
Nor are Heller and McDonald very instructive, or the Ninth Circuit case of Peruta. We should get some clarification in a few weeks in the New York Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case, which is all about carry outside the home. New York City bans both open and concealed carry for nearly everyone outside the home.
The Ninth circuit has been extremely hostile to the Second Amendment.
Kentucky specifically amended their Constitution to allow the legislature to ban concealed carry. The Second Amendment was never amended.
If the Federal Constitution made concealed carry a right, Kentucky and many other states could not have laws and constitutions permitting a state regulation or ban of concealed carry.
Please educate me where Blackstone shows concealed carry as an exception to the English right to bear arms. I do not see it.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
See the part about "such as are allowed by law?" Consult your state law.
I would note that Blackstone is not the common law per se. It is a compendium restating the common law. The actual common law is pre-DOI collection of English case law, the decision of their courts. There are two such compendiums, but the first published about a century earlier than Blackstone was in Latin, as were many of the early English court opinions.
And, of course, Heller (affirmed by McDonald which incorporated it against the states) stated at 554 U.S. 626:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Nor are Heller and McDonald very instructive, or the Ninth Circuit case of Peruta.
They may not be instructive to you, but they are clear to the courts.
We should get some clarification in a few weeks in the New York Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case, which is all about carry outside the home. New York City bans both open and concealed carry for nearly everyone outside the home.
The Court tends to write narrow decisions, only deciding what is necessary. I would certainly favor holding the New York law unconstitutional. I believe they will strike down the "proper cause" requirement. Concealed carry with extremely onerous regulations, and selective grants of permits, is probably going to be held unconstitutional. They may also address the granting of a disporportionate amount of permits to less populated areas. I should think they are most needed in places like alphabet city. There is some sort of reverse logic going on there. The court could state that carry outside the home is a fundamental right. A state could probably authorize open carry, or concealed carry, and not violate anyone's RKBA.
Peruta upheld a law on concealed carry and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. That says nothing more than they chose not to hear it. It could mean that the argument was not persuasive, but a different argument might yield a different result. It is not really a matter of whether concealed carry can be regulated, but to what extent. Whatever the case, it stands as good law in the 9th Circuit.
Just because there were a couple of unusual court cases, where concealed carry was upheld, decades after the Second Amendment was ratified, is no reason to assume prohibitions on concealed carry were common at the time of ratification. They were not.
Whether they were common or not it irrelevant. Whether the 2nd Amendment made concealed carry a fundamental right is relevant. The common law did not make it a right, and the 2nd Amendment did nothing to add it to the right. I'm all for states authorizing licensed concealed carry. I'm fine with open carry. Heck, they have driver ed in schools, at whatever age guns may be carried they should have firearm safety classes in schools.
If enough people want concealed carry, or open carry, they can put it in their state constitution or their state law. One state found that they had worded their constitution to prohibit a concealed carry law. They changed their constitution.