A Constitutional amendment that permits carry would be nice, but it would be a ridiculously high hurdle to expect to cross this legislative session.

What I mean by addressing concealed carry is that it doesn't grant the state rights to regulate carry (concealed or open). But, like wisconsin, the courts will give the state those powers. Saying that it's in the state's interest to regulate it.

There is at least one state that includes, in the amendment, the state's interest in regulating concealed carry.

For this amendment to mean anything, it would have to specifically spell out what powers the citizens have and what powers the state has.

The amendment as given should give us full powers to carry, open or concealed, but it will not be "interperted" that way.

Anyone here study the effects of an amendment like this on other states and what laws interfere with that?

All laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms are illegal. Even though there has been case law documenting otherwise, the 2nd amendment does not solely apply to the Federal government. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are pre-emptions on all laws passed by state, county, and municiple levels of government. To state that the 2nd amendment only applies to the fed is like stating that Free Speech or the 4th amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply if a local law contradicts this.

The US Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, legally trumps all other law in the United States. It is that simple. Don't be fooled into thinking that any of the restrictions are legal just because you see otherwise. The 2A isn't the only right being trampled - Private property rights continue to be erroded under eminent domain. The Fed continues to usurp power regardless of the 9th & 10th amendments.

Sorry for rambling, but this isn't that complicated. The Constitution is a wonderful document - give it a read if it has been a while. Then read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to can some insight on language and intention.

We have two choices - We can 'throw the bums out', both legislators and judges that literally commit treason by creating laws or ruling on anything contrary to the Constitution, or we can accept the consequences of civil disobedience to unjust and illegal action.

How is this different from what proposed?

A constitutional amendment is a higher hurdle.

A statute can be amended by the legislature alone, (or voided subject to a judge's opinion). A constitutional amendment requires the positive vote of majority of the people voting in an election in addition to the legislature voting to put it on the ballot.