The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling that specifically requires states to allow open carry, but its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. In its historical analysis, the Court went further than many expected on the open carry question itself: it found that open carry has deeper historical support than concealed carry, and that states could historically ban concealed weapons only as long as they left open the option to carry openly. The practical result is that states must permit some form of public carry, but they keep significant room to decide how.
What Bruen Said About Carrying in Public
The case came out of New York’s concealed carry licensing system, which required applicants to show “proper cause” — a special need for self-defense beyond what an average person faces. Two applicants whose requests for unrestricted licenses were denied joined the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association to challenge the requirement.1Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen – Supreme Court Bulletin
In June 2022, the Court ruled 6–3 that New York’s “proper cause” standard was unconstitutional. The majority found that the word “bear” in the Second Amendment “naturally encompasses public carry” and that the amendment “presumptively guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self-defense.”2Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 The core problem was that New York gave licensing officials open-ended discretion to decide who had a good enough reason to exercise a constitutional right.
Bruen also replaced the interest-balancing tests many lower courts had been using with a “text, history, and tradition” standard. If the Second Amendment’s text covers the regulated conduct, the government has to show that the regulation fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.2Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 In United States v. Rahimi two years later, the Court clarified that a modern regulation does not need to be a “dead ringer” or a “historical twin” of a founding-era law; it only has to be “relevantly similar” to laws the tradition is understood to permit.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915
Why Open Carry Has Stronger Historical Footing Than Concealed Carry
Bruen was a concealed carry case, but its reasoning cuts the other way. The majority reviewed centuries of American gun regulation and concluded that “States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry — concealed carry — so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”2Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 Historically, open carry drew broad acceptance while concealed carry drew broad suspicion.
What the Court did not say is just as important. It did not hold that states must allow both forms. It did not say a state must pick one. And it did not directly strike down any open carry restriction. The logic still puts states in a bind: a state that bans open carry needs to allow concealed carry under the historical record, and a state that bans both forms of public carry would be on very shaky constitutional ground after Bruen.
The current map reflects that pressure. A majority of states allow open carry in some form, though many require a permit. Roughly 29 states now allow some form of permitless carry, often called “constitutional carry,” where residents can carry in public without any license. That trend accelerated after Bruen, though many of those laws were already moving before 2022.
What States Can Still Require
Bruen invalidated “may-issue” licensing, where officials could deny a permit based on subjective judgment about an applicant’s need. It explicitly left “shall-issue” licensing intact. In a shall-issue system, the licensing authority must grant a permit to anyone who meets a defined set of objective requirements.1Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen – Supreme Court Bulletin Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence underlined the point: states may continue to require licenses for public carry as long as the criteria are objective and do not require applicants to show a special need beyond self-defense.2Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843
Shall-issue states commonly require a background check, fingerprint submission, and completion of a firearms safety course. Permit costs range from under $50 to several hundred dollars depending on the state, and processing times run from a few weeks to several months. As long as the requirements apply equally to everyone and do not function as a disguised denial mechanism, they remain permissible.
Where You Still Cannot Carry
Going back to District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Court has recognized that governments can prohibit firearms in “sensitive places.” The examples it offered were schools and government buildings, and it noted that list was not exhaustive.4Justia. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 After Bruen, several states tried to expand the concept, designating locations like public parks, subway systems, bars, and entire commercial districts as sensitive places where firearms are banned. The litigation that followed has produced mixed results. Federal appeals courts have generally upheld firearm restrictions in bars and establishments that serve alcohol, while striking down broader designations that lack a clear historical basis. The boundaries of this concept remain one of the most actively contested questions in Second Amendment law.
Private property is a separate limit. Property owners can restrict firearms on their premises, and that authority is not displaced by any state carry right or permit.
Who Cannot Carry at All
Regardless of what any state allows, federal law bars certain people from possessing a firearm at all, which bars them from carrying one. The categories under 18 U.S.C. § 922 include:5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 922 – Unlawful Acts
- Anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.
- Fugitives from justice.
- People who regularly and recently use controlled substances illegally.
- People involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally unfit, at age 16 or older.
- People unlawfully present in the United States, and most nonimmigrant visa holders.
- Veterans dishonorably discharged.
- Former U.S. citizens who formally renounced their citizenship.
- People subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order after a hearing, where the court found a credible threat to an intimate partner or child.
- People convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
In Rahimi, decided 8–1 in June 2024, the Court confirmed that at least the restraining-order category survives Second Amendment scrutiny, pointing to historical “surety” laws and “going armed” laws as adequate analogues.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 Challenges to other categories are still moving through the lower courts.
Carrying Across State Lines
A carry permit from one state does not automatically work in another. States negotiate reciprocity agreements that honor each other’s permits, but coverage is inconsistent. A permit valid in 35 states might be worthless in the state next door. Checking whether your destination recognizes your permit before you travel can be the difference between a legal trip and a felony arrest.
Federal law provides a narrow safe harbor for interstate transport. If you can legally possess a firearm in both your starting point and your destination, you may transport it through states where you lack a permit, as long as the gun is unloaded and neither it nor any ammunition is readily accessible from the passenger compartment. In a vehicle without a separate trunk, the firearm and ammunition must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 926A – Interstate Transportation of Firearms This covers transport only. It does not let you stop for extended periods, carry on your person, or otherwise treat the pass-through state as if you had a local permit.
Qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who meet certain training and identification requirements get broader federal protection under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows concealed carry nationwide. Even that override has limits: it does not apply on state or local government property where firearms are prohibited, and private property owners can still restrict firearms on their premises.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 926B – Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Law Enforcement Officers
What Is Still Being Fought Over
Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test has generated more litigation than it resolved. Lower courts are applying historical analysis to regulations that were previously evaluated under entirely different frameworks, and the results have been inconsistent. Judges on the Fourth Circuit described the test as a “labyrinth,” conceding that “questions abound” about how to apply it at each step.8Congressional Research Service. Supreme Court Declines Review of Decision Upholding Assault Weapons Ban Rahimi helped by loosening the requirement for precise historical matches, but the underlying tension remains, and the full boundaries of the right to carry firearms in public will take years of additional litigation to define.