I've never noted this Forum before and just a few precepts here in general.
Rights enumerated within the original Ten Amendments to the Constitution carry very special powers and are ultimately determined by SCOTUS. These Rights were originally Freedoms assured against trespasses by the Federal Government. They were made applicable to the States as limiting their Sovereign Powers by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also contains important Constructional Rights under categories of "Equal Protections", "Liberty Interests" and "Procedural Due Process". All important as granting SCOTUS broad powers to review and prohibit "State Actions" - a term in 14th A Law reflecting the State overstepping its bounds.
Next precept, "Nexus". The State Actions claimed in violations are typically stated in terms of "Nexus". That is the relationship between State Action and Constitutional prohibitions. "If such as open carry is lawful" the possession of narcotics, may of course be charged. But the use of "enhancements as armed" may well be a violation of Constitutional Rights. The "nexus" is the relationship the State must show in making laws enhancing penalties as a "compelling State interest of open carry to a direct proclivity to cause illegal narcotics possession or sale. A question of Law and such as use may be proven by compelling statistics of gun carry as instrument insuring safety in commission of a crime. So... This wild example of perhaps a Jury factor to determine if the weapon associated was a factor in promoting a crime. A specific circumstance. But NOT a general presumption that IF Carrying, an automatic enhancement or automatic evidence of the nexus between carry and intent to commit a crime. Is it illegal to carry a pocket watch as suggestion of "timing coordination" of a crime. If the act itself is constitutional, it may still be used as "evidence" IF sufficient nexus.
Next percept. Ever of "Balancing". To view an act or refraining from an act, and say it is either protected conduct or conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, NO. Gun laws may well provide broad Constitutional Authority to "Carry". But that is not unlimited. The right of State and Federal regulation must balance such as public safety issues against individual rights. Carry on commercial aircraft, just such example the right of "reasonable regulation commensurate with certain parameters of government discretion. "A Balance!"
Recently SCOTUS has found the dimension of Constitutional 14th Amendment "Procedural Due Process" in administration of lawful gun laws or widget laws. Where a compelling State (or Federal) interest is recognized, there must be a reasonable and objective "administrative mechanism" including a right of hearing to contest results unfavorable to the party complaining. Generally known by now, a law enforcement official "discretionary" right to allow or refuse certain conduct, on self-judgement, does not afford Constitutional Due Process and therefore is unconstitutional. Now again the "balancing". Barking dogs in urban night settings are going to afford far more enforcement discretion than right to carry. Balancing in terms of rights affected.
If you want to play the game of "Constitutional Law interpretation" look at the 2nd amendment cases and particularly all of the Justices' "Opinions".
No legal advice intended nor to be taken! Ta Da!
***
