[publiusF27]

But once incorporated, those concealed carry laws can be challenged in federal court.

We might lose the argument that they are protected under the 2A, but how could state concealed carry laws suffer beyond that from 2A incorporation? The 2A says nothing that could be used to prohibit states from allowing concealed carry, and I don't see how even the most creative court could find that state concealed carry laws violate the 2A. How would a state CWP law be challenged under an incorporated 2A? The only possible challenge I can think of would be one saying concealed carry is none of the state's business, and we should be allowed to carry concealed with no permit, as in Vermont.

Use my state as an example. What exactly might happen to Florida's CWP laws under your scenario? How would it get challenged, on what basis, and what might happen to jeopardize our laws?

[Mojave]

The 2A says nothing that could be used to prohibit states from allowing concealed carry

Not according to Dead Corpse. He constantly invokes a Georgia decision holding that concealed weapons may be barred pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.

[Dead Corpse]

If the SCOTUS insists on this mythology of "incorporation", then an "incorporated" 2A would mandate that States who do not allow carry at all, must allow some type of carry. Either open, concealed, or both. I'd prefer the option to carry openly out of sheer comfort and speed of access.

Right now, folks like Bobby and Roscoe think it's just peachy that states can prohibit ANY form of carry, much less ownership.

This, despite the clear language of the Constitutional Conventions legislation that the Amendments in the BoR were to be as if they were part of the Constitution's original language once ratified. This would have "incorporated" them under Art 6 para 2, and not required some fictitious judicial review power not found in the Constitution to "incorporate" them.

[robertpaulsen]

"and I don't see how even the most creative court could find that state concealed carry laws violate the 2A."

Not violate. Simply that to "bear arms" concealed is not protected by the second amendment.

"The words "bear arms," too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority."

"They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
-- Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154, (1840)

That's how the U.S. Supreme Court could do away with concealed carry.