May of 2007? A little dated, I should think.
BTAIM, one of the main reasons that the courts have upheld the various concealed carry laws is because of the amount of precedence there is that upholds State restrictions on concealed carry in the first place.
And why is that, you might ask? Because in those cases that upheld the restrictions, open carry was not only the norm, it could not be legislated against. See
Nunn v. Georgia (for just one example).
Within the next 5 years, I see validation of the CCW laws, but only in the context that open carry is lawful. One simply cannot admit that the state can charge for the exercise of a right, if the right is not fully addressable, without charge, by some other means. If you read the dicta in
Heller very carefully, Justice Scalia points this all out.
As stated in another case (
In re Brickey 8 Idaho 597 (1902)):
While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit [Regulate] the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.