In the 1970s, anti-gun script writers were claiming the Miller Decision by the SCOTUS proved RIFLES were protected under the 2nd Amendment but handguns were not.
Lots of TV shows at that time parroted that thought.
Now, suddenly rifles are BAD, but we knew it was coming.
Yes. Whatever the anti-gunners think they CAN ban is what SHOULD be banned.
The recent Peruta decision from the Ninth Circuit poses an interesting question.
The decision notes that Kalifornia has outlawed open carry and thus is expressing a preference for concealed carry. Thus the local law enforcement must accept "self defense" as GOOD CAUSE to issue a permit to carry concealed.
The dissenting judge in that case rightfully points out that there is no level of infringement of the Second Amendment which transform an unprotected activity into a protected activity.
This is actually a very astute observation.
The fact is that rifles and other long guns CANNOT be concealed. To accept the Peruta decision, without some further mention of how the bearing of long guns is protected, is to suggest that our Founders intended that the bearing of rifles could be banned by the government.
That is absolute nonsense.
The good news is that the anti-gunners will NEVER agree willingly to allow open carry of firearms. Once such open carry is clearly included in the right to keep and bear arms, the anti-gunners will BEG for a "shall-issue" concealed carry law in order to make open carry less acceptable even though such carry is protected.