Dave Hardy of Arms of the Law (and one author of amici briefs in Heller) participated in an online chat on the Heller case last Friday. I logged in to get a few of my own questions answered.
Basically, I'm trying to see if he thinks the "arbitrary and capricious" language is suitable for requiring a shall-issue standard for concealed carry licenses.
TriggerFinger: How do you see the "arbitrary and capricious" language concerning licensing schemes playing out with respect to concealed-carry licensing? Chicago's laws are an obvious target (with a local official trying to pass a very brief amnesty reregistration period because he forgot to reregister his guns), but there are other obvious applications. I'm thinking of New York's only-the-rich-and-famous-may-carry, and California's maybe-if-you-donate-to-my-campaign licensing system.
I think that spells it out pretty clearly. Shall-issue concealed carry might ride in under the coattails of Heller, but only after we connect the dots in other cases first.
David H (davehardy): After incorporation, this might come into play (altho as noted above, Heller is a keep arms case, so the first challenges should be to bans on that rather than on carrying). Hard to see how a right can be restricted on an entirely arbitrary basis, i.e., whether a local official is convinced you have a "need," not further defined, to exercise it.