[Hugh the Scot]

"A plain language reading of the Constitution doesn't touch on "how" weaponry is carried AT ALL...open OR concealed. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, the assumption must be that the subject IS protected. This "was" the clear understanding of those who wrote the Constitution (Federalist papers...who considered the Bill of Rights as un-necessary for that very reason).:

Gay marriage? Abortion? Obamacare?
Horsesh!t.

Going back to my original post: I oppose concealed carry on principle.

"Society has changed, and open carry is now very rare, and in many locales, actively discouraged."

That's exactly the principle I'm referring to. Licensure schemes, fingerprinting and paying for a Constitutionally protected right... And you appear to have bought-in. Nevermind that the lack of people exercising their right to carry openly is EXACTLY the thing that allows this.
By your own words:

" The ASSUMPTION of the law at the time was that open carry was so wide-spread, that anyone carrying concealed obviously had nefarious intentions."

[Wonder Warthog]

Note that I said "was the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution". That the courts have usurped power and done a great many things contrary to the Constitution doesn't change that.

You must have missed my stated preference for "constitutional carry"....carry however you wish whenever you wish, concealed or open, with no licenses, payments or anything else. So I could hardly have "bought in". "On principle" is great, but this is the world we have to live in today. The antigun types would ban ALL carry if they could get away with it.