Which is precisely why the denial of cert was improper.
The circumstances of the arrest seem to moot the question. Read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3765981511731510248&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
Okay, so your claim now amounts to one that someone will have to challenge a licensing requirement specifically on open carry, and do so by getting arrested for carrying openly without a license.
If the law in question says, as the Maryland statute did, "open or concealed", do you believe that fact alone will "taint" the case so as to cause the Supreme Court to deny cert? My question is: how "pure" does the case actually have to be before the Supreme Court will deign from on high to grant cert to it?
Where's the Supreme Court's demand for such purity as regards any other Constitutional right?
Ok, I remember this one. Williams was hiding his firearm in the bushes. My god, if people only knew their 4th Amendment rights...Anyway,..maybe the court didn't take the case because the 2nd Amendment hadn't been incorporated to apply to the states at the time of his arrest. No denial of cert objection from any of our 5 guys should tell you something. Yes,...as far as licensing goes, a state can license concealed carry and not open carry. So challenging a license for concealed carry would be quite foolish. Heller could have challenged the license requirements to possess a firearm within his home with his civil action, but failed to do so...But I'm sure that had more to do with future litigation possibilities on the part of Gura, than anything else. We will certainly find out about licensing a right with the Norman v Florida open carry case, won't we.