[Moose4]

I don’t think so. Heller spoke to the ownership of a firearm “in the home”...there’s nothing in there about concealed carry at all. I expect that this will have little to no practical effect on restrictive CCW laws. I see where you might be able to say that “possess and carry” can be extended into shall-issue CCW—I sure would—but I seriously doubt other courts are going to see it that way.

But what do I know. I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

}:-)4

[green iguana]

You could be right. But if I lived in a may-issue state, I’d sure be challenging those laws based on that wording.

[Darren McCarty]

expect that this will have little to no practical effect on restrictive CCW laws. I see where you might be able to say that “possess and carry” can be extended into shall-issue CCW—I sure would—but I seriously doubt other courts are going to see it that way.

There may be a shot, albeit a VERY long shot on OPEN carry, but CCW is much less likely. CCW has only really been acceptable in the last 20 years. Open carry was considered the honest way and concealed carry the criminal's way. Today, CCW is much more acceptable.

As for Heller addressing that, it doesn't. It wasn't challenged in court, so it can not be addressed (that's at least how it is supposed to be). All that was challenged was the total DC ban (at the federal level) itself.