‘Makes her uncomfortable’: Viral video shows woman reacting after courts rule open carry bans unconstitutional

Colion Noir opens his latest video with a simple point: a court ruling drops, and the internet reacts before most people even finish reading the headline. He says a clip started circulating right after a federal appeals court in California ruled the state’s open-carry ban unconstitutional, and he frames what happens next as a perfect case study in how gun debates actually work online.

In Colion’s telling, the loudest arguments aren’t built on crime stats or policy outcomes. They’re built on feelings. And he says the viral reaction video he’s responding to accidentally proves it.

The clip he plays shows a woman on Instagram describing the ruling and then explaining why she doesn’t like the idea of open carry. Colion pauses repeatedly to “dissect” her reasoning, and he argues the word she keeps returning to—“feel”—is the whole story.

That’s his thesis: people aren’t always arguing about danger. They’re arguing about discomfort, and the two are not the same thing.

The Viral Clip That Lit The Fuse

The woman in the Instagram clip begins by saying a federal appeals court in California ruled the state’s ban on open carry unconstitutional. She quickly adds that the two judges in the majority were “Trump appointees,” a detail Colion immediately zeroes in on.

Colion says that moment matters because it frames the issue as politics first and law second. He mocks the idea that constitutional rights should rise or fall depending on “who nominated the judge,” and he suggests she’s laying “political groundwork” rather than making a safety argument.

From his perspective, it’s not an accident that she leads with the judges. He reads it as an attempt to prime viewers to distrust the outcome before they even hear the reasoning.

That interpretation is persuasive in one way and debatable in another. Yes, people often use labels to tell the audience how to feel. But it’s also true that in real life, court decisions are often discussed through political lenses – sometimes unfairly, sometimes because the public has learned that judicial philosophy really does shape outcomes.

Colion isn’t interested in giving that much grace, though. He keeps the focus on what he sees as her real argument, which shows up a few seconds later.

“It Feels Unsafe” Versus “It Is Unsafe”

The turning point comes when the woman says she doesn’t want to be at the bar or grocery store “looking at somebody’s gun.” She adds that it “feels” like it creates an unsafe environment.

Colion pounces on that wording. He repeats it, slows it down, and says the key word is “feels,” not “is.”

He argues she never claims open carry increases violence, causes crime, or produces worse outcomes. In his framing, she’s describing discomfort – being unsettled by the sight of a gun – and then using that discomfort as if it’s proof of danger.

Colion goes further and says her reaction exposes what he believes sits behind a lot of gun control advocacy: a desire to “feel safe” rather than to “be safe.” He treats that as a fundamental mismatch, almost like two different languages being mistaken for the same conversation.

There’s a real tension here, and it’s worth spelling out plainly. Feelings absolutely matter in public spaces because comfort shapes how people live and where they go. But feelings also aren’t automatically evidence, and Colion’s point is that rights can’t be erased just because something makes someone uneasy.

Even people who don’t agree with his broader politics can probably recognize the conflict. Public policy often responds to fear, sometimes wisely and sometimes recklessly.

Colion’s argument is that this is one of those moments where fear is trying to do the job of fact.

His “You’re Already Around Guns” Argument

Colion then makes what he treats as a reality check. He tells the woman – really, he tells the audience – that she is likely “surrounded by guns” already, because people carry concealed firearms every day and she doesn’t notice.

In his view, the only difference with open carry is visibility. The gun isn’t newly introduced into the environment; it’s newly seen.

And that, he argues, is why the reaction is emotional. Seeing the firearm triggers discomfort in a way that not seeing it doesn’t, even if the underlying reality – armed people existing in public – doesn’t change.

He also references the woman’s mention that “30 other states” have open carry and that “it’ll be fine,” treating that as a common-sense rebuttal to panic. Colion describes the idea that open carry states are collapsing into chaos as a fantasy, and he insists there aren’t “roaming bands” of open carriers terrorizing grocery stores.

The way he presents it is very confident, very blunt. He’s not saying everyone must like open carry. He’s saying the intensity of the fear doesn’t match what he believes is happening in real life.

Still, there’s a piece missing that he doesn’t linger on: seeing a gun in public can change the mood of a space even if nobody intends harm. Some people interpret it as intimidation, others interpret it as normal, and many people interpret it depending on context – what kind of place it is, how the person is acting, and what else is going on.

Colion’s message is that discomfort alone isn’t a legal or moral trump card. But discomfort is also not nothing, and the bigger challenge is what society is supposed to do when the law protects something that a chunk of the public hates seeing.

The Dissent, The “One Method” Idea, And The Slippery Slope

The Instagram clip also references a dissenting judge, identified as “N. Randy Smith,” and a line of reasoning the woman reads out: that California is already upholding the right to bear arms through concealed carry permits, and that a state can eliminate one manner of carry while allowing another.

Colion calls this the point where “the wheels come off.”

He argues that if the government can ban open carry as long as concealed carry exists, then it can keep shrinking the right through technicalities. He paints a picture of rules that still allow “carry” in theory but make it “functionally useless” – forcing carry in a bag, requiring an unloaded magazine, separating ammo, and so on.

Colion labels that not as regulation, but as “disarmament through bureaucracy.” He even mocks the logic as childish, saying it resembles “the argument of a 12-year-old.”

Whether you agree with him or not, the concern he’s raising is straightforward: when a right is treated as something you’re allowed to exercise only in the one way the government approves, it becomes easier to narrow until it barely exists.

That said, slippery slope arguments can be overused. Sometimes they correctly predict a pattern, and sometimes they assume the worst without evidence. Colion is convinced the pattern is real, and his skepticism is rooted in the idea that restrictions often expand, not shrink, once the door is opened.

He also adds a practical angle that’s less ideological and more grounded. Colion asks what happens to people who cannot easily conceal: disabled individuals, or women whose clothing may not make traditional concealment easy. In his view, banning one method doesn’t just regulate behavior – it disadvantages certain groups.

That point lands because it reframes “carry methods” as access issues, not just style preferences.

A Debate About Rights, But Also About Trust

Colion closes his argument by returning to the woman’s repeated use of “feel.” He points to her line – “Is America great again? Because it certainly doesn’t feel like it” – as more proof that her political worldview and emotional reaction are driving the conclusion.

To Colion, this is the pattern: feelings first, then policy demands.

He also accuses her, more broadly, of wanting the government to take responsibility for her safety so she can feel protected, even though he claims the government won’t be there “when it matters.” That’s a familiar theme in his work: personal responsibility versus state reliance.

Here’s where the conversation gets bigger than open carry. A lot of this is about trust—trust in strangers, trust in institutions, trust in law enforcement, trust in courts, and trust in the public to behave responsibly with rights.

The woman in the viral clip doesn’t talk like she trusts the public to handle open carry comfortably. Colion doesn’t talk like he trusts the government to regulate without abusing the power.

And when both sides are arguing from distrust, the debate turns into a culture clash, not a policy discussion.

Colion says he personally doesn’t open carry and doesn’t plan to. But he insists rights don’t exist only for what makes him comfortable, and he frames the ruling as a reminder that constitutional rights can’t be treated like optional privileges.

Even if you don’t share his sharp edges, the core question he raises is hard to escape: when people use discomfort as their main argument, what exactly are they asking for – safety, control, or simply a world that looks the way they prefer?

And if the answer is “a world that looks the way I prefer,” then the fight isn’t really about guns. It’s about who gets to set the rules for everyone else’s normal.