I said as much below, and got downvoted for it. Open carry states are in a different position entirely, though I’m not sure any state police department wants to deal with mass arrests of armed criminals. If they show up in Albany armed, for example, they’re already breaking the law. This could get very ugly.

Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry. As open/concealed carry is a privilege granted by legislative law, not a right granted by constitutional charter.

Furthermore, most states only permit open/concealed carry if no laws are being broken. So if you're breaking curfew, entering a restricted area, unlawfully assembling, etc, you lose the privilege of carrying.

Real question is whether the governments in those states have the political will to act against carry laws.

It may not just be political will. If you're facing armed protestors that heavily outnumber you, the better part of wisdom might be to not push the point. (On the other hand, if you're the armed crowd, the better part of wisdom might be to not push the point by trying to actually kill government officials. And that's great, but the better part of wisdom has been in short supply lately...)

> the better part of wisdom has been in short supply lately

stems from the mentality of "if you're not with us, you're against us" that has been popular du jour.

> Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry.

No. See for example 42 USC 5207 at the federal level. The southern states I’m familiar with have similar provisions, unsure of others.

Maybe read District of Columbia v. Heller.

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Even 42 U.S. Code § 5207 allows for temporary surrender and references "otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law" which implies authorization isn't guaranteed.

I am familiar with Heller.

The temporary surrender under 5207(b) is quite limited both in scope and duration, more than you suggest:

> Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

The reference you make to “otherwise authorized to carry firearms…” (I assume) in 5207(a)(4) is also more limited in scope than you state:

> prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

I do know of states that relax bearing of arms during an emergency (Florida) and several that largely mirror the federal code. You’ve made a very broad claim that “Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry.” that I don’t think holds across the entire US, and I am skeptical would hold even across a majority of the US. Some concrete examples would be helpful.

> breaking the law

Which law? The one that says “shall not be infringed?”

NYS Penal Law 400, but of course you were being facetious.

Those laws are unconstitutional. Open carry in particular is not concealment. I'm not fond of people bringing guns to non-2A protests but there is a document limiting the government's power and every state ratified it.

Under the Heller decision, you do have a right to open carry.

But on a pragmatic basis, not a very smart idea to bring a gun to a protest. Most citizens are going to assume you are there to provoke violence or partake in it. If you end up in front of a jury, a reasonable citizen not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. And if an officer engages you, they will prevail legally.

Bring a sign or a bullhorn to a protest. 2A is for personal self defense when law enforcement is not available or when the state calls on able bodied citizens as a militia.

> But on a pragmatic basis, not a very smart idea to bring a gun to a protest. Most citizens are going to assume you are there to provoke violence or partake in it. If you end up in front of a jury, a reasonable citizen not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Also, it's kinda bad optics. The kind of people who'd bring a gun to a protest are the kind of people who usually oppose gun control....but having a bunch of yahoos with guns getting worked up with overheated rhetoric is going to push more people over to the gun control side.

Though, the kind of people who are coming to these protests seem to be the kind of people who (incorrectly) think the bill of rights means they get to be irresponsible assholes without experiencing any consequences, political or otherwise.

No, the 2A says nothing about self-defense (or hunting or sporting, for that matter). And, the militia is not for “when the state calls,” but to ensure “the security of a free State.”

2A is there to permit reasonable use of home weapons so you don’t get to be a rusty shot when they muster you into militia, see response to Shay’s rebellion etc

Look at how the Kenosha shooter has been treated. Out on bail for a double murder. An armed protester has as much chance of getting a selfie with the police, as being arrested.

No, the one that says "well regulated"

“Well regulated” simply means “in a good working condition” (like, e.g., a watch).

Yes. It still says "a well regulated militia", which means a well-organized militia, in an effective fighting shape.

We can debate many things about guns, but I think we can agree that for a vast number of gun owners, that's not a statement that applies. No matter if we're textualists or not.

Why leave out the 'well regulated militia?'

Do you have actual evidence or is this a gut feeling of what should be right? There is actual evidence of an armed protest being completely peaceful. Michigan had armed protestors in the Capitol building (which was legal at the time) at the start of the covid protests and nothing criminal happened. Open carry advocates regularly demonstrate at least yearly in many states, and again nothing gets violent. The presence of guns seems to make people understand the gravity of the situation and behave accordingly.