mekender,
Thanks for your help. I know you have lots of experience with this.
It looks like you are saying that "all the gun groups"( which ones ?) are concerned with" some kind of gun possession but what kind "does not matter" and that problems like "gaps in carry..... and bans" will get fixed later(somewhere, some how). You say that "gun groups are not focusing on OC should not be a big concern" but I don't know why that is not of concern here at OPEN CARRY dot ORG where we focus on OPEN CARRY.
I'm sorry if this post sounds confused but I have gotten confused here. Your post sounds like you really know what you are talking about but you don't really say anything specific. You don't state who is going to do what or when. You seem to just say that someone will do something. Well, you may be right but I don't see what you mean.
I don't recognize any "bigger fish to fry" or "more fundamental parts of the right to keep and bear arms" than OC.
So if I got this wrong I just hope someone here can help me figure out what I'm missing.
Thanks again.
The right to keep and bear arms will always have limitations, that is just how our political and judicial system works, you will NEVER get a 100% unfettered right. At the moment, the NRA and SAF along with Calguns and other groups are working on court cases that will establish once and for all that there is a right to bear arms.
It is likely that some manner of restricting time, manner and place of carry will be permitted by the courts as has already been hinted at by the "sensitive places" parts of Heller. The key is, that because of cases in CA, TX, MD and other places, within the next couple of years there will be a court recognized right that SOME form of bearing arms must be permitted in each state. Now I actually had a problem with this at first because the method of challenging these cases will likely lead to a situation where states will have the ability to ban OC so long as CC is permitted, at least from the court's perspective. As I said, the "bigger fish to fry" is that in some states there is a complete ban or a de facto ban on carry at all. Additionally another prize that these groups are heading toward is a national reciprocity just like you now have for drivers licenses. I pretty much think that will become a reality in the next 5 years or so if it does not get implemented legislatively before that.
However you have to look at the politics of gun rights too... For one, we have a 40+ state majority that is almost 100% shall issue when it comes to CCW. That means that politically, even if the courts do not recognize a right to bear arms, there is still enough states that do to make Amendment 28 a reality.
Secondly, there is a big political momentum now trending toward constitutional carry. What I see is that just like with CCW as more states trend toward constitutional carry, there will be more and more evidence that shows that it just is not a big problem. This means it is normalized and becomes a better likelihood of being dealt with at the legislative level. This is likely the same path that parts of the NFA are going to have to be dealt with using... You will never get a court to say that a machine gun is part of the fundamental 2A... Nor will you likely get a court to say that all forms of carry must be allowed as part of the 2nd. So like I said, the legislature becomes just as important of a tool as the courts for fixing these problems.
But I do not think that the legislature will be fully on our side until we have unequivocal declarations from the courts that say that there is a fundamental right to bear arms. Once that happens, it is a lot easier to ratchet up the pressure on those legislators that vote against bills because now they are voting against rights that have been specifically defined by the courts as being fundamental. As I said, that the gun groups aren't laser focused on OC right now is not a big concern, there are foundational steps that have to be handled and they are handling those it seems. Once some of the big stuff gets knocked out of the way a bit, they will have much more ability to pick off the lower hanging fruit for things like the pistol permit, OC bans by municipalities, NFA sections, etc...
ETA: One more thing... You really have to be careful if you start to take the "I don't recognize any "bigger fish to fry" or "more fundamental parts of the right to keep and bear arms" than OC." stance... That stance is no different than the absolutists that want to scream "shall not be infringed" or the Libertarians that start screaming "legalize drugs" as soon as one of their candidates gets a good podium to speak from. While you might be right, you will not get Suzy Soccermom to agree with you and Suzy and her pals have a lot more voting numbers than you do.