On March 2, 2026, a federal judge dismissed our lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s 2023 ban on the open carry of firearms in the state, which we firmly believe to be an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court cited as controlling precedent the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), as well as the more recent Second Circuit decision of Frey v. City of New York, which upheld New York’s open carry ban. But while the Bruen framework requires courts to examine the historical tradition of firearms regulation in order to determine whether a firearms restriction is constitutional, the court noted that Heller itself acknowledges that “the majority of 19th century courts allowed statutory prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.” (Emphasis added.)
But in the court’s view, the ban on open carry is analogous to the historical tradition of banning concealed carry because it simply bans one form of carry, while leaving open another form. The court noted that in the Frey decision, “the Second Circuit held that the New York open carry ban, is the ‘converse of many of these historical laws: it eliminates open carry while permitting concealed carry.’ ”
In our view, what is lost in this analysis is that the historical tradition has been that states viewed concealed carry to be more dangerous than open carry. But in the court’s view, the tradition is that states ban the mode of carry they believe to be more dangerous. There’s just one problem with that: the state didn’t actually ever provide evidence that open carry is more dangerous than concealed carry.
It seems pretty clear to us that Connecticut banned open carry for one reason and one reason only – to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense, since concealed carry permits are costly and require an application process that can be lengthy and intrusive. Connecticut has not produced one example of shootings that were caused because the shooter was allowed to carry openly. Instead, the state cited the fact that open carry causes others to be “concerned” or “intimidated”.
Whether or not you are a Second Amendment supporter, we hope you can understand why that is dangerous precedent. So the “concern” or fear of others is justification for the government to infringe on a fundamental right? Would it be acceptable for the government to restrict your use of the internet because you made a comment online that caused someone to be “concerned”?
Our answer is a definitive and unequivocal NO, and that’s why we’re going to appeal this ruling. But we need your help to do that. Litigation is expensive business, and we rely exclusively on the generosity of our supporters to fund our operations. Please consider a gift today to help us continue this fight.