Buckeye Firearms Foundation (BFF) is the non-profit arm of Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA)
Wollard v. Gallagher & Wollard v. Sheridan were about changing "may-issue" licensing to "shall-issue" licensing.
Maryland does NOT allow open or concealed carry without a permit.
Wrong, Maryland does not prohibit the Open Carry of long guns. The permit would have enabled persons to carry handguns concealed. Gura argued extensively in his briefs that states can ban Open Carry if they want to. In his cert petition, he said that the manner of carry was not at issue. Hence, Gura attempted to obtain concealed carry despite the Heller Court saying that concealed carry can be banned.
The amicus brief in Wollard that BFF submitted was an excellent read, in my non-lawyer opinion.
Nowhere in these cases, nor the brief, did I see anything arguing for or against open carry specifically.
That makes sense, as that is NOT what was at issue.
An Amicus has three choices. It can either file an Amicus brief that is for one side, against one side or neither for nor against one side. When an Amicus files a brief for one side, as Buckeye Firearms did in Woollard, it embraced the arguments made by Gura. The Buckeye Firearms Amicus Brief had the opportunity to argue in favor of Open Carry and, as you say, it did not.
As to the footnote from the BFA website, you must first consider that Ohio is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, an open carry state. That footnote ONLY dealt with a concealed handgun license question...yes, with a CHL you can still open carry. There is no need to explain further that WITHOUT a CHL you can also carry.
Where is the tab for Open Carry at the BFA website? I looked around and couldn't find any support for Open Carry.
To think this means BFA/BFF is against open carry is to HORRIBLY take the citation out of context.
Not my citation, and not one I ran across at their site. Which goes to show that someone looked harder and that was the best he could find.
Ohio's two premier gun rights organizations are Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) and BFA.
Although BB62 will be along shortly to disagree with me about OFCC, both of these organizations support open carry!
This is the first I have heard of Ohioans for Concealed Carry but the name of their organization suggests that they are concealed carry proponents.
On the other hand my organization,
California Right To Carry, fully embraces the right to bear arms as defined by the US Supreme Court in Heller. Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and, with few exceptions such as for travelers while on a journey, there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry in public.
Three years ago, I was of a different mind. I supported the Second Amendment Right as understood by the Framer's when it was adopted in 1791. There were no prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons but there were significant prohibitions on the use of concealed weapons which were:
If one enters into an otherwise fair fight with the intention of using the concealed weapon and he uses it to kill his opponent then he is guilty of murder.
If one enters into an otherwise fair fight without the intention of using the concealed weapon and he uses it to kill his opponent then he is guilty of manslaughter.
If one does not engage in an otherwise fair fight but uses his concealed weapon to kill an attacker, such as a robber then no crime has been committed.
The various concealed carry proponents from CalGuns, NRA, CRPA, SAF, here and elsewhere have convinced me that Justice Scalia was correct in embracing the 19th Century prohibitions on concealed carry that were in effect when the 14th Amendment was adopted (1868) and the McDonald Court was correct when it incorporated those concealed carry prohibitions in Heller to all state and local governments.
Charles Nichols - President of
California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
