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.
I think that regardless of the questionable history of the 14th amendment, which was basically shoved down the throats of the defeated South, it is here to stay, and the incorporation doctrine as well. We might as well use it to our advantage, as it’s not going away, IMO. That’s not always a bad thing.
Don’t worry, I’ve learned that Mojave exaggerates and distorts things. If he provided a link quoting you as saying concealed carry violates the 2A, I would believe you said it. Without evidence and with your denial, his assertion means nothing.
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms . But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.