Bummer about the specific wording in the constitution!!!!
It's unfortunate, but see my reply to tahiti. My opinion is that that particular clause, though not self-contradictory when passed in 1875, has become self-contradictory. Open carry is not a viable option in 2002 for most law-abiding citizens. (How many wives can you imagine openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster?) And requiring open carry as the only legal means of armed self-defense now places an undue (and in many cases nearly impossible) burden on the right that the Constitution established. A requirement for OPEN-ONLY carry therefore infringes on the right established by the Constitution.
In 1875, when the law was passed, almost without exception, women simply did not carry a handgun for self-defense. However, men did, and they were regarded as tools. They did not produce a mass panic whenever a man walked into the general store with a firearm on his hip. Moreover, it was only criminals who carried concealed -- an honest man had nothing to hide.
Here in 2002, times have changed. The "shall not justify" clause has become contradictory to the main point. The "shall not justify" clause is therefore, itself, now unconstitutional, because it now contradicts the main point.
Our laws must therefore make SOME provision for concealed carry in order to avoid infringing the right.
Now even if you don't accept that quite reasonable IMO logic, it's still true that "this shall not justify" simply means "this shall not justify." It doesn't prohibit. The Constitution doesn't justify baking chocolate chip cookies, either, but citizens are allowed to do so.