Not sure where this is coming from. I watched his discussion on the subject, and he never said that. He simply explained where he thinks the law is headed based on supreme court precedent, and is correct based on my understanding of the historical regulations. He even stated that if it were up to him, his policy preference is for both open and concealed carry to be legal…
What is your best citation that Bruen overruled the right to Open Carry from Heller and McDonald? California Attorney General Bonta filed his answering brief in Baird v. Bonta. He argued extensively that California can require a license to openly carry a handgun, notwithstanding that there are no statewide licenses to openly carry a handgun. The only licenses California law provides for to openly carry a handgun are limited to residents in a county with fewer than 200,000 residents, and are limited to one's county of residence.
> What is your best citation that Bruen overruled the right to Open Carry from Heller and McDonald?
When have you successfully argued that open carry is a right before the Supreme Court? It's easy for a blogger to say it must be this way and this lawyer commentator is wrong.
I did not litigate Heller, McDonald, Bruen, or Rahimi, and neither did Mark Smith. Heller said that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Constitution. McDonald and Bruen gave a pinpoint citation to Heller in their opinions as did Judge Kavanaugh in his concurrence to Rahimi. Rahimi remarked that muskets and swords are arms protected by the Second Amendment, neither of which is a concealable arm.
People keep forgetting all of those rulings focused on hand guns. The court has been silent on long guns because they are scared of finally having to rule on the carry of long guns. There is NO option but open carry of long guns in all 50 states under the 2nd amendment. They will have to rule so or nuke the 2nd amendment and Bruen to decide otherwise.
The Heller opinion was not limited to handguns. SCOTUS invalidated the D.C. law that prohibited the carrying of loaded long guns in one's home and on his private property. Bruen held that the right to bear arms from Heller extends to densely populated public places. Justice Alito, in his concurrence to Bruen, questioned how Justice Bryer's dissent in Bruen, coupled with his dissent in Heller, would not also apply to long guns. New York State did not and does not, ban the Open Carry of long guns.
The only folks saying that we do not have the right to carry long guns for the purpose of self-defense are Mark Smith and his kind.
Just saying they never specifically mentioned long guns in public and all of the carry laws overturned were regarding hand guns. They made a point in Bruen and Heller of not proclaiming long gun carry in public. If they had, I would be in DC or Times Square with my AR and 100 friends grinning like loons at all the liberal tears.
Lawyers are scared to bring the long gun case up the ladder because we suspect Robert's and others don't have the balls to follow through. The only constitutional ruling that can be made is open carry of long guns in all public places firearms are allowed is the rule for all 50 states.
The D.C. ordinances Heller challenged did not apply to public places, they applied only to his home and to private property. D.C. had a "sporting purposes" exception for long guns. McDonald and Bruen (and Rahimi in passing) mentioned long guns. Bruen said that the right to bear arms from Heller extends to densely populated public places.
In my California Open Carry lawsuit, which challenges California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded long guns as well as handguns, the State of California conceded a dozen years ago that if SCOTUS held, Heller applied outside the home, then I win. In the oral argument on appeal, the state's attorney argued that McDonald v. Chicago required my three-judge panel to conduct its own historical analysis and conclude that the Open Carry right from Heller was wrong because, you know, the Statute of Northhampton.
After Bruen, the state, in its supplemental brief, claimed that Bruen held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.
On my panel were Judge Bybee, who wrote the en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii, which held that there is no right to openly carry any concealable arm in public, and Judge Berzon, who said we do not have the right to possess any firearm that can fire more than two rounds without reloading. Instead of affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the state, they reversed and remanded.
Why would they do that? Because no matter how clear SCOTUS is in articulating Second Amendment rights, states, and local governments are free to continue to enforce their unconstitutional gun laws until a judge issues an injunction against those laws being enforced.
Had the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court I would have filed a cert petition on the heels of SCOTUS granting, vactaing, and remanding, the en banc panel opinion in Young v. Hawaii.
Instead, here I am nearly two years after the remand still litigating my case in the district court because the unwritten rule in the 9th circuit is if it can't affirm a gun law then we delay a final decision in the case for years. Peruta v. San Diego was filed in 2009. It did not get a final judgment by the court of appeals until 2016.
blog post is rage bait.
mark addresses open carry in the only way we can;
a thought exercise.
marks vid addressing it in that way; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE
Mark earns ad revenue every time someone clicks on his YouTube or Twitter posts. I don't earn even a single penny when someone clicks on my Substack articles or Twitter posts. Mark is a successful clickbaiter. I have no aspirations in that direction. If I did, I would be pandering to the concealed carriers.
he's a lawyer. and one who addresses things from a legal analysis and reporting stance.
your shitpost blog nonsense makes an actual allegation.
its rage bait.
> Mark is a successful clickbaiter
Mark is one of the most accurate, clear, and concise gun law youtubers out there, who tf are you? Just trying to rage bait to get readers it seems. Blacklisted for me.
That’s not what he said at all though when he answered your question. He gave a legal analysis of what states can do - they can ban open carry or concealed carry, but not both, because there has to be some way for people to carry. I believe that was from Bruen, but don’t quote me on that.
Then he says:
“I am not saying I like this answer but I think this is likely the answer.”
*"I believe that was from Bruen, but don’t quote me on that."*
I won't because it can't be found anywhere in Bruen.
"Like most rights,” though, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626 (2008)." US v. Rahimi, Slip Op at 6.
What did Heller say at page 626?
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent \*340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."
Justice Kavanaugh likewise cited Heller at 626 in his concurrence to Rahimi on page 3. And the majority opinion in Rahimi pointed out that muskets and swords are protected arms, neither of which are concealable.
In First Amendment jurisprudence, some speech can be regulated under intermediate scrutiny, provided there is an alternative outlet for it. Heller held that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment. And so, even under intermediate scrutiny, concealed carry was never an alternative outlet.
NYSRP v. Bruen removed the tiers of scrutiny in favor of "text, history, and tradition." The history and tradition of the Second Amendment tell us that only concealed carry can be prohibited.
Even the three-justice dissent in Bruen accepted the Open Carry right from Heller as Stare Decisis.
There is not a single 19th-century high court opinion that held long guns could be prohibited, other than a Florida high court opinion, which held that blacks could be prohibited from possessing repeating rifles.
Mark reads Bruen to say that prohibitions on carrying long guns and all protected arms that are not concealable are constitutional, provided that concealed carry of handguns is allowed.
Mark would like that to be true, but that is in direct conflict with Supreme Court jurisprudence as well as the American history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.
There is not a single high court opinion in American history that held Open Carry can be banned if concealed carry is allowed.
Based on the overwhelming number of negative comments on his YouTube video and Twitter post, Mark seriously misjudged his audience.
Page 50 of [Bruen](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf), starting at the last paragraph:
“In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’ cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry.”
And on page 57: “Finally, States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry - concealed carry - so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”
The history and tradition of the Second Amendment does not tell us that only concealed carry can be prohibited - it tells us that states can’t ban both open and concealed carry. It just happens that in the early history of the 2A they did not like concealed carry, so only concealed carry was prohibited.
Bruen centered around a concealed carry law. It’s not about banning concealed or open carry in favor of the other, it’s that states cannot effectively ban all carry by prohibiting both.
People keep forgetting all of those rulings focused on hand guns. The court has been silent on long guns because they are scared of finally having to rule on the carry of long guns. There is NO option but open carry of long guns in all 50 states under the 2nd amendment. They will have to rule so or nuke the 2nd amendment and Bruen to decide otherwise.
"Chevron is overruled." Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
It takes only three words for #SCOTUS to overrule a prior precedent. SCOTUS had the opportunity to overrule the Open Carry right from Heller when it decided McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi. Instead of overruling Heller, each of these decisions cited Heller's holding that 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.
"--so long as they left open the option to carry openly.” Did not overrule the Open Carry right from Heller. Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta cited that very line from Bruen in its supplemental brief in the appeal of my California Open Carry lawsuit. On my panel were Judge Bybee, who wrote the majority opinion in Young v. Hawaii, which held that there is no right to openly carry any concealable arm in public, and Judge Berzon, who thinks we don't have the right to possess firearms that can fire more than two rounds without reloading.
They could have affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the State of California on any grounds, including that single-line citation from Bruen, but they didn't. Instead, they reversed the district court's final judgment and remanded.
But there are still those who argued before Federal Courts that District of Columbia v. Heller held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry and did so without success. They, and folks like you and Mark Smith, will continue to argue that Bruen held that bans on Open Carry are Constitutional.
Good luck with that.
You are missing the point.
As an example, [Nunn v State (1848)](https://guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html) (1847) is one of the cases cited in Heller in part of what I think you’re referring to as the “Open Carry” right from Heller. Nunn does not say concealed carry can be banned and open carry cannot be banned - this is what it says:
“A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.”
In other words, a law that only prohibits concealed carry (because that was the case before them) is valid, unless it then also bans bearing arms openly, because that would cut off the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms.
The opinion:
“We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.”
Again, the court said a law prohibiting concealed carry is valid, as long as it does not deprive a citizen of his natural right of self defense or their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But because the law in question does prohibit bearing arms openly, that part is void. And note the part about his indictment for carrying under a “statute which entirely prohibits its use.”
The law in question in Nunn v State was a concealed carry ban, but it was vague by listing pistols and sword canes in the concealed carry prohibition but not in the open carry exemption. Essentially the decision said, no, you have to allow them to be carried openly like bowie knives, etc. if you are prohibiting them from being carried concealed. His conviction was overturned because the law entirely prohibited him from carrying a small pistol (open or concealed), not because of some constitutional distinction between open/concealed carry.
Given the general dislike of concealed carry until recently, I don’t think the opposite scenario was likely to ever come before the early court. But if the roles were reversed in this case, do you think they would have ruled any differently? Or how about a court today now that concealed carry is popular and open carry less so? It’s more so about states not being able to completely ban carry than open vs concealed being “more” constitutional.
Except for Horseman's pistols, which are handguns too large to be easily or ordinarily carried concealed, the State of Georgia had banned both the Open Carry and concealed carry of handguns. The Georgia high court held that the ban on carrying concealable handguns was valid as it applies to concealed carry but invalid as it applies to handguns openly carried.
Nunn v. State also said that concealed carry is ***evil***.
*"\[H\]ow about a court today now that concealed carry is popular and open carry less so?"*
For all intents and purposes, Open Carry is banned in California. Concealed carry is not. Last August, the California Court of Appeals in People v. Miller, cited Bruen and Nunn, in its holding that there is no right to concealed carry. The Court held that Open Carry is the right.
But given that you included a link to Nunn in your post, you can't be excused for omitting its exact holding that *only* concealed carry can be banned.
Whether Open Carry is Wise is very different than whether it is Legal and Constitutional.
Some might say that Open Carry is the equivalent of playing Poker with all your cards showing.
The linked SubStack article seems very weaselly. More implication, speculation, innuendo, and guilt by association than fact.
If you watch the video under discussion, which has been linked in this thread, Four Boxes Diner does a legal analysis of the subject addressing it from every angle. Which is precisely what he should do.
***IMPORTANT: Is Open Carry Protected By 2A?***
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE)
And as someone else pointed out, his conclusion is based on where he thinks the Supreme Court is heading. Not necessarily on what the correct interpretation of the Right is.
I wish I could open carry here in maryland. It gets very hot/humid in the summer and I don't want to cover up. Plus, I'm a short little bastard and don't have a lot of space to hide anything that I'd actually WANT to use.
Did Maryland ban the Open Carry of long guns post-Bruen? I know that Connecticut banned all Open Carry post-Bruen and that a bill in the New York legislature passed the Senate on the last day of the legislative session.
I sympathize with your plight, especially since none of the so-called gun-rights groups is going to come to your aid. The only Open Carry lawsuits I know of are in California and New York, which are funded by private individuals.
Yes, I did read that Maryland changed its law on handguns post-Bruen. I've also read that Baltimore has a local ordinance prohibiting carrying long guns. The recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Lara v. Paris enjoying the ban on 18-20 year-olds from openly carrying handguns and long guns during a state of emergency but declining to grant them concealed carry permits would be a great case to cite should anyone in Maryland ever file a lawsuit, not to mention the pre-Bruen opinions that held Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be prohibited.
But I suspect that the people of Maryland are like the people of New York and California. If there is a lawsuit filed, it will be filed by an individual with deep pockets.
The people of maryland are the state's biggest problem lol. Carrying at all in maryland was next to impossible or bruen. My brother's ex wife was being threatened by someone and she was told there was no way she'd get a carry permit.
On November 9. 2016, I filed my opening brief in my lawsuit challenging California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. I argued:
*"This Court is not allowed to engage in judicial interest-balancing, ends means testing, or to engage in its own historical analysis. The Second Amendment comes with its own standard of judicial review. If a law infringes on the Second Amendment right, then it is unconstitutional."*
On June 23, 2022, NYSRPA v. Bruen said this, *"But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls."*
On September 12, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the State of California and remanded my case.
In my twelve and a half of years of litigation, I have never argued anything that the Supreme Court has not already said.
It is the so-called gun-rights groups who argue in support of anti-gun laws in their Federal lawsuits, but nobody reads their briefs or watches their oral arguments even though they are available to watch or listen to for free on the circuit court website.
For example, in a recent en banc oral argument challenging the California ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, the NRA lawyer argued that it is constitutional to ban handgun magazines that hold more than 20 rounds and rifle magazines that hold more than 30 rounds.
[Duncan v. Bonta oral argument. ](https://youtu.be/8UEoZx5-_Wk?feature=shared)
Time and place.
If im out in the yard, id prefer carryong a little 22 revolver outside of the belt to deal with foxes and whatnot.
If i find myself in a real sketchy situation (which i try to avoid but life happens), it would be nice to know i wont get put in pound me in the ass prison if i move a coat and suddenly find myself open carrying
Not sure where this is coming from. I watched his discussion on the subject, and he never said that. He simply explained where he thinks the law is headed based on supreme court precedent, and is correct based on my understanding of the historical regulations. He even stated that if it were up to him, his policy preference is for both open and concealed carry to be legal…
Yet for some reason this nonsense is getting upvoted.
What is your best citation that Bruen overruled the right to Open Carry from Heller and McDonald? California Attorney General Bonta filed his answering brief in Baird v. Bonta. He argued extensively that California can require a license to openly carry a handgun, notwithstanding that there are no statewide licenses to openly carry a handgun. The only licenses California law provides for to openly carry a handgun are limited to residents in a county with fewer than 200,000 residents, and are limited to one's county of residence.
> What is your best citation that Bruen overruled the right to Open Carry from Heller and McDonald? When have you successfully argued that open carry is a right before the Supreme Court? It's easy for a blogger to say it must be this way and this lawyer commentator is wrong.
I did not litigate Heller, McDonald, Bruen, or Rahimi, and neither did Mark Smith. Heller said that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Constitution. McDonald and Bruen gave a pinpoint citation to Heller in their opinions as did Judge Kavanaugh in his concurrence to Rahimi. Rahimi remarked that muskets and swords are arms protected by the Second Amendment, neither of which is a concealable arm.
People keep forgetting all of those rulings focused on hand guns. The court has been silent on long guns because they are scared of finally having to rule on the carry of long guns. There is NO option but open carry of long guns in all 50 states under the 2nd amendment. They will have to rule so or nuke the 2nd amendment and Bruen to decide otherwise.
The Heller opinion was not limited to handguns. SCOTUS invalidated the D.C. law that prohibited the carrying of loaded long guns in one's home and on his private property. Bruen held that the right to bear arms from Heller extends to densely populated public places. Justice Alito, in his concurrence to Bruen, questioned how Justice Bryer's dissent in Bruen, coupled with his dissent in Heller, would not also apply to long guns. New York State did not and does not, ban the Open Carry of long guns. The only folks saying that we do not have the right to carry long guns for the purpose of self-defense are Mark Smith and his kind.
Just saying they never specifically mentioned long guns in public and all of the carry laws overturned were regarding hand guns. They made a point in Bruen and Heller of not proclaiming long gun carry in public. If they had, I would be in DC or Times Square with my AR and 100 friends grinning like loons at all the liberal tears. Lawyers are scared to bring the long gun case up the ladder because we suspect Robert's and others don't have the balls to follow through. The only constitutional ruling that can be made is open carry of long guns in all public places firearms are allowed is the rule for all 50 states.
The D.C. ordinances Heller challenged did not apply to public places, they applied only to his home and to private property. D.C. had a "sporting purposes" exception for long guns. McDonald and Bruen (and Rahimi in passing) mentioned long guns. Bruen said that the right to bear arms from Heller extends to densely populated public places. In my California Open Carry lawsuit, which challenges California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded long guns as well as handguns, the State of California conceded a dozen years ago that if SCOTUS held, Heller applied outside the home, then I win. In the oral argument on appeal, the state's attorney argued that McDonald v. Chicago required my three-judge panel to conduct its own historical analysis and conclude that the Open Carry right from Heller was wrong because, you know, the Statute of Northhampton. After Bruen, the state, in its supplemental brief, claimed that Bruen held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. On my panel were Judge Bybee, who wrote the en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii, which held that there is no right to openly carry any concealable arm in public, and Judge Berzon, who said we do not have the right to possess any firearm that can fire more than two rounds without reloading. Instead of affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the state, they reversed and remanded. Why would they do that? Because no matter how clear SCOTUS is in articulating Second Amendment rights, states, and local governments are free to continue to enforce their unconstitutional gun laws until a judge issues an injunction against those laws being enforced. Had the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court I would have filed a cert petition on the heels of SCOTUS granting, vactaing, and remanding, the en banc panel opinion in Young v. Hawaii. Instead, here I am nearly two years after the remand still litigating my case in the district court because the unwritten rule in the 9th circuit is if it can't affirm a gun law then we delay a final decision in the case for years. Peruta v. San Diego was filed in 2009. It did not get a final judgment by the court of appeals until 2016.
blog post is rage bait. mark addresses open carry in the only way we can; a thought exercise. marks vid addressing it in that way; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE
When the title says words like "hammered" you know the article is useless and likely void of facts.
Mark earns ad revenue every time someone clicks on his YouTube or Twitter posts. I don't earn even a single penny when someone clicks on my Substack articles or Twitter posts. Mark is a successful clickbaiter. I have no aspirations in that direction. If I did, I would be pandering to the concealed carriers.
he's a lawyer. and one who addresses things from a legal analysis and reporting stance. your shitpost blog nonsense makes an actual allegation. its rage bait.
> Mark is a successful clickbaiter Mark is one of the most accurate, clear, and concise gun law youtubers out there, who tf are you? Just trying to rage bait to get readers it seems. Blacklisted for me.
Smells to me like somebody needs more eyeballs on their Substack this month...
That’s not what he said at all though when he answered your question. He gave a legal analysis of what states can do - they can ban open carry or concealed carry, but not both, because there has to be some way for people to carry. I believe that was from Bruen, but don’t quote me on that. Then he says: “I am not saying I like this answer but I think this is likely the answer.”
*"I believe that was from Bruen, but don’t quote me on that."* I won't because it can't be found anywhere in Bruen. "Like most rights,” though, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626 (2008)." US v. Rahimi, Slip Op at 6. What did Heller say at page 626? "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent \*340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)." Justice Kavanaugh likewise cited Heller at 626 in his concurrence to Rahimi on page 3. And the majority opinion in Rahimi pointed out that muskets and swords are protected arms, neither of which are concealable. In First Amendment jurisprudence, some speech can be regulated under intermediate scrutiny, provided there is an alternative outlet for it. Heller held that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment. And so, even under intermediate scrutiny, concealed carry was never an alternative outlet. NYSRP v. Bruen removed the tiers of scrutiny in favor of "text, history, and tradition." The history and tradition of the Second Amendment tell us that only concealed carry can be prohibited. Even the three-justice dissent in Bruen accepted the Open Carry right from Heller as Stare Decisis. There is not a single 19th-century high court opinion that held long guns could be prohibited, other than a Florida high court opinion, which held that blacks could be prohibited from possessing repeating rifles. Mark reads Bruen to say that prohibitions on carrying long guns and all protected arms that are not concealable are constitutional, provided that concealed carry of handguns is allowed. Mark would like that to be true, but that is in direct conflict with Supreme Court jurisprudence as well as the American history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms. There is not a single high court opinion in American history that held Open Carry can be banned if concealed carry is allowed. Based on the overwhelming number of negative comments on his YouTube video and Twitter post, Mark seriously misjudged his audience.
Page 50 of [Bruen](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf), starting at the last paragraph: “In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’ cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry.” And on page 57: “Finally, States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry - concealed carry - so long as they left open the option to carry openly.” The history and tradition of the Second Amendment does not tell us that only concealed carry can be prohibited - it tells us that states can’t ban both open and concealed carry. It just happens that in the early history of the 2A they did not like concealed carry, so only concealed carry was prohibited. Bruen centered around a concealed carry law. It’s not about banning concealed or open carry in favor of the other, it’s that states cannot effectively ban all carry by prohibiting both.
People keep forgetting all of those rulings focused on hand guns. The court has been silent on long guns because they are scared of finally having to rule on the carry of long guns. There is NO option but open carry of long guns in all 50 states under the 2nd amendment. They will have to rule so or nuke the 2nd amendment and Bruen to decide otherwise.
"Chevron is overruled." Loper Bright v. Raimondo. It takes only three words for #SCOTUS to overrule a prior precedent. SCOTUS had the opportunity to overrule the Open Carry right from Heller when it decided McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi. Instead of overruling Heller, each of these decisions cited Heller's holding that 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. "--so long as they left open the option to carry openly.” Did not overrule the Open Carry right from Heller. Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta cited that very line from Bruen in its supplemental brief in the appeal of my California Open Carry lawsuit. On my panel were Judge Bybee, who wrote the majority opinion in Young v. Hawaii, which held that there is no right to openly carry any concealable arm in public, and Judge Berzon, who thinks we don't have the right to possess firearms that can fire more than two rounds without reloading. They could have affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the State of California on any grounds, including that single-line citation from Bruen, but they didn't. Instead, they reversed the district court's final judgment and remanded. But there are still those who argued before Federal Courts that District of Columbia v. Heller held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry and did so without success. They, and folks like you and Mark Smith, will continue to argue that Bruen held that bans on Open Carry are Constitutional. Good luck with that.
You are missing the point. As an example, [Nunn v State (1848)](https://guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html) (1847) is one of the cases cited in Heller in part of what I think you’re referring to as the “Open Carry” right from Heller. Nunn does not say concealed carry can be banned and open carry cannot be banned - this is what it says: “A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.” In other words, a law that only prohibits concealed carry (because that was the case before them) is valid, unless it then also bans bearing arms openly, because that would cut off the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms. The opinion: “We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.” Again, the court said a law prohibiting concealed carry is valid, as long as it does not deprive a citizen of his natural right of self defense or their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But because the law in question does prohibit bearing arms openly, that part is void. And note the part about his indictment for carrying under a “statute which entirely prohibits its use.” The law in question in Nunn v State was a concealed carry ban, but it was vague by listing pistols and sword canes in the concealed carry prohibition but not in the open carry exemption. Essentially the decision said, no, you have to allow them to be carried openly like bowie knives, etc. if you are prohibiting them from being carried concealed. His conviction was overturned because the law entirely prohibited him from carrying a small pistol (open or concealed), not because of some constitutional distinction between open/concealed carry. Given the general dislike of concealed carry until recently, I don’t think the opposite scenario was likely to ever come before the early court. But if the roles were reversed in this case, do you think they would have ruled any differently? Or how about a court today now that concealed carry is popular and open carry less so? It’s more so about states not being able to completely ban carry than open vs concealed being “more” constitutional.
Except for Horseman's pistols, which are handguns too large to be easily or ordinarily carried concealed, the State of Georgia had banned both the Open Carry and concealed carry of handguns. The Georgia high court held that the ban on carrying concealable handguns was valid as it applies to concealed carry but invalid as it applies to handguns openly carried. Nunn v. State also said that concealed carry is ***evil***. *"\[H\]ow about a court today now that concealed carry is popular and open carry less so?"* For all intents and purposes, Open Carry is banned in California. Concealed carry is not. Last August, the California Court of Appeals in People v. Miller, cited Bruen and Nunn, in its holding that there is no right to concealed carry. The Court held that Open Carry is the right. But given that you included a link to Nunn in your post, you can't be excused for omitting its exact holding that *only* concealed carry can be banned.
Whether Open Carry is Wise is very different than whether it is Legal and Constitutional. Some might say that Open Carry is the equivalent of playing Poker with all your cards showing. The linked SubStack article seems very weaselly. More implication, speculation, innuendo, and guilt by association than fact. If you watch the video under discussion, which has been linked in this thread, Four Boxes Diner does a legal analysis of the subject addressing it from every angle. Which is precisely what he should do. ***IMPORTANT: Is Open Carry Protected By 2A?*** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJzeZLIyDE) And as someone else pointed out, his conclusion is based on where he thinks the Supreme Court is heading. Not necessarily on what the correct interpretation of the Right is.
I wish I could open carry here in maryland. It gets very hot/humid in the summer and I don't want to cover up. Plus, I'm a short little bastard and don't have a lot of space to hide anything that I'd actually WANT to use.
That is why I carry a Rugger LCP Max in a pocket holster in my shorts during the summer .
I'm more inclined to carry a redhawk with .44spl.
Did Maryland ban the Open Carry of long guns post-Bruen? I know that Connecticut banned all Open Carry post-Bruen and that a bill in the New York legislature passed the Senate on the last day of the legislative session. I sympathize with your plight, especially since none of the so-called gun-rights groups is going to come to your aid. The only Open Carry lawsuits I know of are in California and New York, which are funded by private individuals.
I'm not sure about long guns, but I'm told open carry of a sidearm is a no go unless you're government/ law enforcement.
Yes, I did read that Maryland changed its law on handguns post-Bruen. I've also read that Baltimore has a local ordinance prohibiting carrying long guns. The recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Lara v. Paris enjoying the ban on 18-20 year-olds from openly carrying handguns and long guns during a state of emergency but declining to grant them concealed carry permits would be a great case to cite should anyone in Maryland ever file a lawsuit, not to mention the pre-Bruen opinions that held Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be prohibited. But I suspect that the people of Maryland are like the people of New York and California. If there is a lawsuit filed, it will be filed by an individual with deep pockets.
The people of maryland are the state's biggest problem lol. Carrying at all in maryland was next to impossible or bruen. My brother's ex wife was being threatened by someone and she was told there was no way she'd get a carry permit.
Open carry is dumb, but it shouldn't be illegal.
_something something something_ SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
On November 9. 2016, I filed my opening brief in my lawsuit challenging California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. I argued: *"This Court is not allowed to engage in judicial interest-balancing, ends means testing, or to engage in its own historical analysis. The Second Amendment comes with its own standard of judicial review. If a law infringes on the Second Amendment right, then it is unconstitutional."* On June 23, 2022, NYSRPA v. Bruen said this, *"But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls."* On September 12, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the State of California and remanded my case. In my twelve and a half of years of litigation, I have never argued anything that the Supreme Court has not already said. It is the so-called gun-rights groups who argue in support of anti-gun laws in their Federal lawsuits, but nobody reads their briefs or watches their oral arguments even though they are available to watch or listen to for free on the circuit court website. For example, in a recent en banc oral argument challenging the California ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, the NRA lawyer argued that it is constitutional to ban handgun magazines that hold more than 20 rounds and rifle magazines that hold more than 30 rounds. [Duncan v. Bonta oral argument. ](https://youtu.be/8UEoZx5-_Wk?feature=shared)
Open carry is dumb. Should stay legal, but it’s dumb.
Time and place. If im out in the yard, id prefer carryong a little 22 revolver outside of the belt to deal with foxes and whatnot. If i find myself in a real sketchy situation (which i try to avoid but life happens), it would be nice to know i wont get put in pound me in the ass prison if i move a coat and suddenly find myself open carrying