Federal Judge Shuts Down Open Carry Permits

A federal judge has officially dismissed a lawsuit challenging Rhode Island’s handgun permit laws, effectively shutting the door on open carry licenses for now. As reported by Erik Uebelacker at Courthouse News Service, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith ruled on August 1 that the state’s requirement for applicants to show a “proper need” before receiving an open carry permit does not violate the Second Amendment or due process protections.

The case was brought forward by Michael O’Neill, a prominent gun rights advocate and lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, who claimed the state’s permitting rules were unconstitutional. His argument centered around being denied an open carry license in 2021 despite having already qualified for a restricted concealed carry permit.

Two Types of Carry – But Only One Is Easy to Get

Rhode Island uses a dual permitting system: municipalities are required to issue concealed carry licenses to applicants who meet objective criteria, while the state attorney general holds discretionary power over a separate license that allows both open and concealed carry.

It’s the second, more expansive license that stirred the legal battle. According to Uebelacker, the attorney general can approve it only upon a “proper showing of need.” That phrase became the focal point of the lawsuit, with plaintiffs claiming it was vague, subjective, and a violation of their rights.

The Bruen Case Argument Falls Flat

O’Neill and his legal team pointed to the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arguing that it reaffirmed the right to carry a firearm in public, including open carry, as protected by the Constitution.

However, Judge Smith pushed back, saying the Bruen decision did not mandate open carry specifically. As Uebelacker quoted from the ruling: “The Supreme Court concluded that the historical evidence from antebellum America does not demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation.” In other words, states can still regulate how guns are carried, as long as they allow some form of public carry.

Plaintiffs Still Have Concealed Carry Access

One key factor in Smith’s ruling was that all plaintiffs, including O’Neill, already had access to concealed carry permits. Since Rhode Island law grants the right to carry in some form, the judge determined that the state is not obligated to offer open carry as well.

According to the ruling, “an unrestricted license is a privilege and not a right.” Uebelacker notes that the attorney general’s office still must follow internal guidance for rejecting an application and must inform applicants of the reasons for denial. There’s even an option for judicial review, so the process wasn’t considered arbitrary in the court’s view.

Historical Traditions Support the Decision

Smith leaned heavily on historical precedent, arguing that Rhode Island’s permitting structure, even though it limits open carry, still aligns with the founding era’s firearm laws. The judge wrote that similar restrictions existed in early America and that states back then could require concealed carry while restricting open carry, or vice versa.

As cited in both sources, Smith concluded, “Defendants’ application of the act’s permitting structure to plaintiffs is relevantly similar to historical regulations, and thus consistent with the Second Amendment.”

The Four Boxes Diner: Mark Smith Breaks It Down

Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel, responded quickly to the decision, calling it a “major handgun carry ruling.” He explained the practical meaning behind the legal wording in plain terms.

According to Smith, “as long as the state lets you carry either openly or concealed, that satisfies the Second Amendment.” He acknowledged that while some may not like this outcome, it’s the legal standard courts are applying today – and likely will continue to apply.

Discretionary Permits Are Not Guaranteed Rights

Smith stressed that the “unrestricted permit” in Rhode Island, the one that allows open carry, is not a right at all, but a state-granted privilege. In his words, “you don’t get to pick whether you open or concealed carry – the state decides which one you’re allowed to do.”

This interpretation aligns with Judge Smith’s decision, confirming that gun rights exist, but how those rights are exercised depends on state-level discretion, as long as at least one carry method is permitted.

O’Neill Plans to Appeal

Despite the setback, O’Neill isn’t backing down. According to Uebelacker’s article, gun rights attorney Frank Saccoccio, representing O’Neill, announced plans to appeal the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the decision conflicts with the Bruen ruling and fails to protect open carry as a valid exercise of the right to bear arms.

Whether or not the First Circuit will take a different view remains to be seen. For now, the federal court’s decision has reinforced the state’s power to restrict open carry under current legal precedent.

The Attorney General Celebrates the Ruling

Attorney General Peter Neronha’s office expressed satisfaction with the decision. As quoted by Uebelacker, spokesperson Tim Rondeau said the ruling “fully resolves this case in the state’s favor.” He added that the attorney general “will continue to vigorously defend Rhode Island’s gun violence prevention laws.”

That’s not surprising – the AG has long been a defender of strict gun control policies. And with this ruling, Rhode Island’s system remains intact.

A Controversial but Predictable Outcome

Mark W. Smith commented that this result, while frustrating to some Second Amendment supporters, was not a surprise. He’s been warning viewers for months that courts would uphold state power over carry methods, as long as the state allows some form of public handgun carry.

He also pointed out the irony: historically, open carry was more acceptable, while concealed carry was often outlawed. Rhode Island’s system flips that tradition, yet it still passes constitutional scrutiny because the mode of carry is left to the state.

Why This Case Matters

This case touches on a larger national debate: should the government be allowed to tell you how you carry your firearm in public? For many gun owners, being told they can only carry hidden but not visible feels like a government overreach.

But from a legal perspective, the distinction matters less than whether you can carry at all. This ruling reinforces that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry, but it doesn’t guarantee a preferred method.

The Fight Isn’t Over

This ruling may seem like a setback for gun rights, but it also highlights where the real battle lines are today – not over whether you can carry, but how and when. O’Neill’s appeal could spark further discussion in higher courts, especially if it conflicts with other circuit decisions.

Until then, Rhode Island gun owners are limited to concealed carry, unless they can prove a special need for the more permissive license. Whether or not that’s fair is up for debate – and that debate isn’t going away anytime soon.