Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law on Concealed Weapons
wsj.com
wsj.com
As an anti-gun person, this decision is not surprising, but still depressing.
EDIT: concealed-carry, not open-carry
Not sure what you mean in this context about "open-carriers", "open carry" is the oldest and historically least restricted form of carrying weapons, vs. concealed which prior to the Civil War the first restrictions were imposed upon under a questionable theory that would discourage dueling.
You, and if SCOTUSBlog got it right, Roberts and Kavanaugh are also wrong about needing a license, for half the states in the nation have "Constitutional Carry", no licence required.
"As an anti-gun person, this decision is not surprising, but still depressing."
You've got a remedy right there in the Constitution, repeal or even reverse the Second Amendment, or call a constitutional convention and repeal the whole thing which far too many want to do because they find it restrictive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...
Per the chart in that Wikipedia article, municipalities can ban open carry unless you have a concealed carry licence in Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The pro-RKBA community is deeply divided on the issue of open carry, and the NRA's cat lady who got the nationwide sweep of concealed carry laws started with Florida in 1986 is I think one of those opposed to it, as well as the usual GOPe types who are as anti-gun as Democrats are, but generally can't be openly so.
As an analogy, felons have free-speech and every other constitutional right, but they can't own certain guns. Do you think the Constitution confers unfettered gun ownership rights, in a similar manner as other rights?
Do you think every Supreme Court, since the founding (gun regulation is that old), was wrong about gun regulation and the Constitution, and this particular Supreme Court was right?
That's not completely true - felons lose the right to vote. Historically being convicted of a felony meant that you had forfeit your life. According to the principle that "he who may do more may do less", the government that chose to spare your life could certainly impose any punishment less than death, including the loss of any right whatsoever.
It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it. So, yes, the Court has certainly erred in the past ... multiple times. 2A has been recognized as an individual and enumerated right for a long time. It's somewhat an invention of modern media that it isn't an individual right, and lots of people have been summarily gaslit into thinking it has something to do with membership in a (state run) militia.
Worth even more noting that's a finding in Dred Scott and Clarence Thomas quoted it in his opinion today.