States and local communities have regulated open carry for over 200 years. Yet no one's successfully brought a case under the 2A to challenge it in all that time. What's obvious to everyone is that you haven't the foggiest notion of federalism and the sovereignty of the several states.
Back the truck up, J. I'd like to play the role of peacemaker here and ask that we all dial down the vituperation a notch. There are ways to stand up for a position without being too personal. I doubt that either position on either side is being held for the purpose of making the nation less secure or pleasant., which means we are all fundamentally on the same side.
The idea that open carry is NOT a viable position based on Constitutional (exclusionary) grounds is a minority view. This is because some states have already authorized open carry on the basis of overriding Constitutional authority, so QED the case very obviously has been made, (and by very contemporary litigators) regardless of your assertion otherwise.
That being said, the issue will likely land in front of the SCOTUS because of the complex nature of the statues in regard to how it falls into the regime of the entire constellation on federal, state and local law in the U.S.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that legal minds on all sides of the issues are working diligently to explore every possible facet of the law in order to either affirm or erode the right to carry firearms openly.
BTW why won't you answer the question about why you are so passionately opposed to open carry? That's not intended to be a gotchya question. I'm just curious why this issue elicits such a strong response from some when it comes up? Sometimes the fears that people have about issues can be key to understanding where a basis for amelioration may lie.