Furthermore, most states only permit open/concealed carry if no laws are being broken. So if you're breaking curfew, entering a restricted area, unlawfully assembling, etc, you lose the privilege of carrying.
Real question is whether the governments in those states have the political will to act against carry laws.
stems from the mentality of "if you're not with us, you're against us" that has been popular du jour.
No. See for example 42 USC 5207 at the federal level. The southern states I’m familiar with have similar provisions, unsure of others.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
The temporary surrender under 5207(b) is quite limited both in scope and duration, more than you suggest:
> Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.
The reference you make to “otherwise authorized to carry firearms…” (I assume) in 5207(a)(4) is also more limited in scope than you state:
> prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
I do know of states that relax bearing of arms during an emergency (Florida) and several that largely mirror the federal code. You’ve made a very broad claim that “Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry.” that I don’t think holds across the entire US, and I am skeptical would hold even across a majority of the US. Some concrete examples would be helpful.
Which law? The one that says “shall not be infringed?”
But on a pragmatic basis, not a very smart idea to bring a gun to a protest. Most citizens are going to assume you are there to provoke violence or partake in it. If you end up in front of a jury, a reasonable citizen not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. And if an officer engages you, they will prevail legally.
Bring a sign or a bullhorn to a protest. 2A is for personal self defense when law enforcement is not available or when the state calls on able bodied citizens as a militia.
Also, it's kinda bad optics. The kind of people who'd bring a gun to a protest are the kind of people who usually oppose gun control....but having a bunch of yahoos with guns getting worked up with overheated rhetoric is going to push more people over to the gun control side.
Though, the kind of people who are coming to these protests seem to be the kind of people who (incorrectly) think the bill of rights means they get to be irresponsible assholes without experiencing any consequences, political or otherwise.
We can debate many things about guns, but I think we can agree that for a vast number of gun owners, that's not a statement that applies. No matter if we're textualists or not.