This would seem to be a no brainer - except the government of the state of California put severe limits on conceal carry permits.

The 9th district circuit court found those limits unconstitutional.

National Review:

The court concludes that California's broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns - with no "shall-issue" licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a "good cause" regime under which no license need be given - "impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

In other words, one has the right to carry a gun. The state can elect to recognize this by permitting either "shall-issue" concealed-carry or "shall-issue" open carry, but it cannot restrict or prohibit both.

The key part, as noted by Ace of Spades's Gabriel Malor, is this:

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to "keep" arms but also to "bear" them-the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word's plain meaning: "At the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' meant to 'carry.'" Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not "carry" in the ordinary sense of "convey[ing] or transport[ing]" an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but "carry for a particular purpose-confrontation." Id.

The circuit courts are split on this question, and it is likely that this - or a case like it - will make its way to the Supreme Court before long.