Not a single one of the cases you cited upheld prohibitions on concealed carry "when, or because, open carry was available."

As the dissent in the en banc Peruta/Richards case seemed to place a great deal of stock in the Reid decision, folks should actually read that decision before opining that it said something it didn't. The court in Reid explicitly considered the hypothetical case where Open Carry was banned and concealed carry was permitted. The Reid court concluded that would still result in the destruction of the right as would a ban on openly carrying handguns where the Open Carry of long guns was not banned.

Putting aside the question of guns, the logic of the minority in Peruta should terrify everyone. According to the minority, a fundamental, enumerated right can be banned in favor of something which it concedes is not a right (concealed carry) because (some) people don't like the right.

* * * * *

Charles Nichols is the President of California Right to Carry.