I don't recall anyone claiming that; many of those people were carrying openly. I do recall claims that they didn't use their firearms, which is a different thing altogether.
I guess this really comes down to your definition of "anyone" because I've certainly seen a number of comments alleging this and Ron Johnson has said "It wasn't an armed insurrection" which, again, depends on your definition or on how pedantic you want to be.
iirc it was 1997 that I sat out on the Mall in DC for a day or two pushing pamphlets; I wore a sword at the time and no one had an issue with it.
Keep in mind that open carry it not permitted in DC and "visitors" are not allowed to carry guns in the capitol.
However, in this most recent case, it was not a password used to unlock the phone but facial recognition:
> The judge granted the Justice Department's request to place Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt in front of his laptop so they could use facial recognition to unlock the device
And apparently this is not protected by the same ruling, which is interesting.
There is no such protection covering other evidence (although a warrant may be required). The police can force you to give up DNA, fingerprints and to stand still and be photographed.
Whether the information in either case is used to unlock a computer or a safe, is shown to witness or matched against samples is irrelevant.
Should the judge say: Because the face could be used for a task that is often performed using a secret, it is a secret in the sense of the law?
