This sure ain't what eye95 thinks. I'll tell you why: the SCOTUS doesn't share your reasoning. By your reasoning, all laws which create personal contraband are unconstitutional. Drug possession laws, knife possession laws, etc etc etc.
Furthermore, if the 4th protects such property despite the SCOTUS having said it doesn't, then the 2nd damn well protects all manners of bearing firearms too.
I don't disagree with this utility of the Fourth amendment, I merely disagree with your limiting the Second contrary to the plain language.
There is nothing in the second to support concealed carry, there is in the fourth. Bearing arms is a open act, they did not use the terminology of open carry back then because conceal carry was not really a option. Knives were large, and worn on the belt. You certainly could not conceal a sword. Pistols were large because they were used as one shot, and then as a club. They had to be large to be used as a club. People who hid small weapons were considered criminals. The second had nothing to do with self defense from one another. It had to do with self defense from tyranny, and that has to be done openly, and not controlled by government.
Private and personal matters as to a persons papers and affects are covered under the fourth. Most of the problems with what SCOTUS interprets has to do with our own bias. The court is wrong in assuming public and social norms when interpreting the constitution. It should only be interpreted by what is written. And what is written supports open carry in the second amendment. The fourth supports those things private remain private even if the public finds them distasteful. The fifth amendment supports that we do not have to tell the government we are carrying a howitzer under our coat, or a sex toy, or drugs. Only when we obviously break the law should we be subject to search.
The fourth circuit federal court made this clear when they let a felon off the hook for possession of a concealed weapon. And it was not done on the merits of 2A, it was done on the merit of 4A. If the ruling were to be pushed up, I have no doubt SCOTUS will agree with the circuit federal ruling.
People in all states have been concealing in states without concealed carry permits without arrest, for decades, probably a couple centuries. They do it, because they do it right and keep their nose clean. I carried a large Gerber folder under my truck seat for years, and NCHP/DOT inspectors have even seen it there when the door was opened. Technically the knife was concealed and over length limits, yet no arrests, not even a question. Police officers in the past understood the concept of the constitution, actually most people with common sense did. Common sense is a thing of the past it seems. And it got that way by having stupid laws, that outlaw commons sense. Mind you they are not constitutional. The only cases where the gov supports personal contraband is when there is a lawful search. If the search is not lawful there is no contraband.
In the past to make a concealed weapons charge stick, or even get the SA to charge, there had to be supporting charges. Even old Judge Rhodes one of the toughest judges for a criminal to go against would toss a case on CW without a good supporting charge. I have a good story about him sometime.
I don't need no stinken privilege card.