Open carry in the United States

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.
The practice of open carry, where gun owners openly carry firearms while they go about their daily business, has seen an increase in the United States in recent years, and is a hotly debated topic in gun politics. This has been marked by a number of organized events intended to increase the visibility of open carry and public awareness about the practice. Proponents of open carry point to history and statistics, noting that criminals usually conceal their weapons, in contrast to the law-abiding citizens who display their weapons. As of 2022, almost all US states allow for open carry either without a permit or with a permit/license.
The gun rights community has become supportive of the practice, while gun control groups are generally opposed.
Today in the United States, the laws vary from state to state regarding open carry of firearms. The categories are defined as follows:
In the United States, the laws concerning open carry vary by state and sometimes by municipality. The following chart lists state policies for openly carrying a loaded handgun in public.
Open carry has never been authoritatively addressed by the United States Supreme Court. The most obvious predicate for a federal right to do so would arise under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In the majority opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote concerning the entirety of the elements of the Second Amendment: "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." However, Scalia continued: "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."
Forty-five state constitutions recognize and secure the right to keep and bear arms in some form, and none of those prohibit the open carrying of firearms. Five state constitutions provide that the state legislature may regulate the manner of keeping or bearing arms, and advocates argue that none rule out open carry specifically. Nine state constitutions indicate that the concealed carrying of firearms may be regulated and/or prohibited by the state legislature. Open carry advocates argue that, by exclusion, open carrying of arms may not be legislatively controlled in these states.
Section 1.7 of the Kentucky State Constitution empowers the state to enact laws prohibiting "concealed carry", but open carry without a permit is a specifically protected right that may not be questioned, as decided on Holland v. Kentucky (1956): "We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer's right so to do."
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in North Carolina v. Kerner (1921) that requiring any form of permit, fee, or license to openly carry a firearm off one's own premises is unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 30 of the state constitution, which declares: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not not infringed." The court ruled, however, that concealed carry was not a right protected by the state's constitution and thus could be regulated by law.
In July 2018, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Hawaii's licensing requirement for open carry violated the Second Amendment. That ruling was vacated on February 8, 2019, and the case is scheduled to be heard en banc.
Several courts have ruled that the mere carriage of a firearm, where it is allowable by law, is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone; however, some courts have ruled that simply being armed is grounds for seizure.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that police may stop a person only if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and they may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. In an analogous case, the Supreme Court ruled in Delaware v. Prouse (1979) that stopping an automobile for no reason other than to check the driver's license and registration violates the Fourth Amendment. In the case Florida v. J. L. (2000), the court ruled that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply describes that person's location and appearance without information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.
Unless otherwise stated, the following courts ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone or being armed is not a justifiable reason to frisk someone:
The Third Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. Ubiles (2000), United States v. Navedo (2012), and United States v. Lewis (2012).
The Fourth Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. Black (2013); however, the decision in United States v. Robinson (2017) found that a suspect stopped for a lawful reason can be frisked if the officer reasonably suspects them to be armed, regardless of whether in legal possession or not.
The Sixth Circuit issued its ruling in Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Department (2015).
The Seventh Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. Leo (2015).
The Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. Brown (2019); however, the decision in United States v. Orman (2007) held that a police officer seizing a firearm for safety did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Tenth Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. King (1993) and United States v. Roch (1993); however, the decision in United States v. Rodriguez (2013) found that the presence of a handgun in a waistband is grounds for reasonable suspicion of unlawful carry of a deadly weapon, thus justifying a stop and frisk.
The District Court of New Mexico issued its ruling in St. John v. McColley (2009).
Unless otherwise stated, the following courts ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone or being armed is not a justifiable reason to frisk someone:
The Arizona Supreme Court issued its ruling in State v. Serna (2014).
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its ruling in Regalado v. State (2009).
The Idaho Supreme Court issued its ruling in State v. Bishop (2009).
The Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in People v. Granados (2002); however, the decision in People v. Colyar (2013) found that the presence of a bullet justified officers' search for weapons on grounds of officer safety.
The Indiana Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pinner v. Indiana (2017).
The Kentucky Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Pulley v. Commonwealth (2016).
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division issued its ruling in State v. Goree (2000).
The New Mexico Supreme Court issued its ruling in State v. Vandenberg and Swanson (2003) holding that frisking for weapons was reasonable.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its ruling in Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997) and Commonwealth v. Hicks (2019).
The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its ruling in State v. Williamson (2012).
As of 2018, 45 states allowed open carry, but the details vary widely.
Four states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia fully prohibit the open carry of handguns. Twenty-five states permit open carry of a handgun without requiring the citizen to apply for any permit or license. Fifteen states require some form of permit (often the same permit as allows a person to carry concealed), and the remaining five states, though not prohibiting the practice in general, do not preempt local laws or law enforcement policies, and/or have significant restrictions on the practice, such as prohibiting it within the boundaries of an incorporated urban area. Illinois allows open carry on private property only.
On October 11, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law decreeing that it would be a "misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle." This does not apply to the open carrying of rifles or long guns or to persons in rural areas where permitted by local ordinance.
On November 1, 2011, Wisconsin explicitly acknowledged the legality of open carry by amending its disorderly conduct statute (Wis. Stat. 947.01). A new subsection 2 states: "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried."
On May 15, 2012, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed Senate Bill 1733, an amendment to the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, which will allow people with Oklahoma concealed weapons permits to open carry if they so choose. The law took effect November 1, 2012. "Under the measure, businesses may continue to prohibit firearms to be carried on their premises. SB 1733 prohibits carrying firearms on properties owned or leased by the city, state or federal government, at corrections facilities, in schools or college campuses, liquor stores and at sports arenas during sporting events."
The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 limits where a person may legally carry a firearm by generally prohibiting carry within one thousand feet of the property line of any K–12 school in the nation, with private property excluded.
In United States v. Lopez (1995) case, the act was declared unconstitutional (on federalism grounds, not due to any violation of the Second Amendment), but it was reenacted in a slightly different form in 1996.