This article from philly.com talks about Melanie Hain's habit of carrying an unconcealed pistol around town, and the reactions of various classes of locals.
In different parts of the article, the Brady Center spokesperson makes two entirely opposite arguments - first that nothing is likely to happen that requires her to have a gun, and later that by not concealing the weapon she is making herself a target and losing the element of surprise. Hmmm, what's wrong with these two arguments being made by the same person? Because if either one is true, it cancels the other as a valid issue.
More likely, the Brady Center just doesn't want Americans to start exercising their rights to carry weapons and "normalizing" the sight of an armed American. Thus, the Brady Center will make any number of incompatible arguments to get their way on the issue.
Interesting claim about state law, that I find hard to believe is constitutional -
In Pennsylvania, gun owners are allowed to carry weapons in the open as Hain does, but need a permit to conceal them in a pocket, purse or car. So without a permit, Hain could still carry a gun at the game but couldn't take it in the car to get there.
Can't conceal it in a car, or can't possess it in a car? It would be hard to imagine how the latter could avoid violating the second amendment. On the other hand, if you can't leave it stowed in the car when you go somewhere it isn't allowed, like a bank, then that makes it very hard to exercise your rights at all. I wish Melanie Hain all the best in her lawsuit.