Is there a right to one method of "bearing arms" over another?

26150(b)(2). In other words, by traveling outside their counties, plaintiffs are "penalized" only by having to switch from openly carrying their weapons to carrying them concealed. Plaintiffs have not cited, nor has the court located any viable authority suggesting there is a right to one method of "bearing" arms over another, with the possible exception of the vacated decision in Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d at 1070, which is not authoritative. Peruta II, 824 F.3d at 946 (Callahan, J., dissenting) ("While states may choose between different manners of bearing arms for self-defense, the right [to bear arms for self-defense] must be accommodated.").