The “open-carry” movement first came to national attention when armed men began turning up at presidential events last summer, wearing their pistols in full view.

This show of defiance was misunderstood as a harbinger of a right-wing insurrection, when really it was no more than firearms enthusiasts exercising what they see as their right to bear arms. Under Barack Obama, the gun lobby’s triumph has been so complete that there’s nothing to do but flaunt it.

It might seem hard for the European mind to process, but in the US many gun owners are not content with having a firearm stashed in their house should a burglar attack, they also want to walk down Main Street with a revolver on their hip in public sight – preserving the libertarian standards of the Wild West in 21st century USA: that’s the essence of the open-carry movement.

In recent weeks, the battlefield has shifted from presidential visits to Starbucks. Supporters of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, have taken to meeting in coffee shops, bringing their revolvers and automatics with them. The chain’s policy is to let them pack heat, if state law allows it.

When the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence issued a petition calling for “espresso shots, not gun shots” in cafés, the company asked both sides “to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue”. Some franchises have banned guns on their premises, but many big-name shops and restaurants allow firearms. In states where it is legal to carry a gun openly, customers at McDonald’s, Walmart, Home Depot and even Barnes & Noble bookstores can wear their .45s with pride.

It has been an incredible year and a half for the National Rifle Association. Across the country, states are loosening local firearm laws. The Supreme Court is poised to declare all handgun bans unconstitutional. Federal gun regulations have been weakened through a series of congressional compromises, to push through items further up the Obama administration’s agenda.

Every few weeks a mass shooting occurs which would scandalise any other developed nation. These are reported in lurid detail – and soon forgotten, without making any impact on the gun control debate.

In February, professor Amy Bishop shot dead three colleagues after being denied tenure by the University of Alabama. In November, Maurice Clemmons walked into a coffee shop in Parkland, Washington, and murdered four police officers catching up with administrative work before the start of their shifts. Last March, Michael McLendon shot his mother, uncle, grandmother, five neighbours and two passers-by in the towns of Samson and Kinston, Alabama.

On an average day, 85 Americans die from gunshot wounds – more than 30,000 each year. Gun owners point out that the vast majority of these deaths are gang- and drug-related. But scan the local newspaper in any state on any day and there is likely to be a report about a shooting. On Tuesday, in Ohio, school caretaker Nathaniel Brown shot two of his superiors and then killed himself. On Wednesday, police in Dallas charged Barinder Singh with murdering his wife in front of their two small children after an argument at home.

Meanwhile, arms manufacturers are thriving: there were 14 million FBI background checks made for gun sales in 2009, up from 12.7 million in 2008 and 11.2 million in 2007.

The official NRA line is that the government is biding its time. “The watchword for gun owners is, ‘Stay ready’,” says Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the NRA. “We have had some successes but we know the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

However, hunting columnist Bill Schneider has said the NRA “should erect a statue of Barack Obama in front of its DC headquarters”, arguing he has “done more for firearm owners than any president in recent history”.

The Democratic regime has been a letdown to gun control groups. Mr Obama’s campaign promise to require background checks at gun shows has been shelved. Plans to reintroduce an assault weapons ban have been abandoned. It is now legal to carry concealed weapons in National Parks because of a clause in the small print of a bill regulating credit card firms, added to secure the votes of gun-friendly senators. Amtrak trains will soon let passengers check in bags containing firearms, thanks to the latest transportation funding bill.

In January, the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence issued a critical report. “President Obama’s first-year record on gun violence prevention has been an abject failure,” it concluded.

The organisation’s president, Paul Helmke, is a little more circumspect. “We’re very disappointed. We certainly didn’t think the Obama administration would make the situation worse by signing legislation that contained weakening of gun restrictions,” he says.

“I also thought that, after some of the major shootings that occurred last year, the president would speak out about the need to do something about reducing gun violence. But it was always just sympathy for the victims and nothing about guns.”

The biggest changes in gun law are taking place at state level. Montana and Tennessee have introduced laws exempting guns and ammunition produced, sold and used within the state from any federal regulation at all.

Arizona and Wyoming will soon allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. In Virginia, home of the NRA, Republicans backed a measure to repeal the state’s one-gun-a-month law, but were stymied by a committee packed with Democrats. The Virginia Citizens Defence League is keeping up the pressure, with a proposal to allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in bars, providing they do not drink.

The VCDL has been at the forefront of the open-carry movement. Member John Pierce founded opencarry.org a decade ago. He believes firearms should only be banned from prisons, courtrooms and beyond the security line at airports. In his worldview, schools, bars and churches would be safer places if they were protected by responsible gun owners, carrying openly.

Mr Pierce equates his cause with the civil rights movement, framing it as a libertarian crusade.

He said: “We’re really doing the same thing that the gay and lesbian community have been doing in their very successful attempts to do away with prejudice against their lifestyle.

“By proclaiming loudly and proudly who they are, they are in fact making people confront their prejudices and move past them. That’s what we want to do with properly holstered guns carried by law-abiding citizens.”

As the NRA has historically focused on extending concealed-carry rights, the open-carry movement has drawn criticism from some mainstream gun-rights advocates. Richard Feldman, of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, calls it “a silly, in your face exercise in pushing the envelope”.

Mr Feldman was at the presidential rally in New Hampshire where William Kostric, among others, came with a loaded gun strapped to his leg. Asked by MSNBC why he felt the need to bring a weapon, he replied: “That’s not even a relevant question. The question is, why don’t people bear arms these days?”

To Mr Feldman, this was a counter-productive gesture. “I suggested it was foolish and nonsensical because they were taking resources away from stopping someone that might have been a threat to the president, just to make a point,” he says.

Cities, particularly in the north-east and California, tend to have much tighter restrictions on gun ownership than rural areas. These local ordinances are about to face a fresh wave of legal challenges, thanks to an anticipated Supreme Court ruling in the case of McDonald v Chicago.

The plaintiff, Otis McDonald, is an African-American grandfather who wants a handgun to defend himself from gang members who have broken into his house three times. He already owns a shotgun. Supporters outside the court brought placards of a black man holding a rifle. “Civil rights legislation did not stop Klan riders. Men like him did,” read the slogan.

The verdict is not expected until June, but in oral arguments last week it was clear the court’s conservative majority will overturn Chicago’s handgun ban – and, by extension, every blanket gun prohibition in the US.

States and cities will still be able to enforce strict background checks, require guns to be registered and impose harsh penalties for carrying illegal weapons, but a whole new front has opened up in the gun lobby’s permanent campaign against regulation.

Most firearms enthusiasts favour sensible controls. In a poll by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released last December, 69% of NRA members said they would support closing the gun show loophole – which allows private individuals to sell guns at shows without conducting background checks or maintaining sale records. The organisation itself, however, will not budge.

Mr Feldman said: “The average gun owner is very reasonable, very responsible, they support things like background checks at gun shows, but the core NRA activist contributor is in the small minority that opposes it.”

Gun control campaigners are hopeful the open-carry movement will create a backlash against guns in public places. every shred of optimism is welcome. “I’m still hopeful,” the Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke says, with a weary laugh. “Our laws are so weak that you can be on the terrorist watch list and buy a gun in this country.”