The Classical open mapping theorem for Banach spaces tells that if $T:X \to Y$ is a continuous surjective linear map, then it is open.
I have attempted to essentially "adapt" the proof for Lie groups:
Let $G,H$ be connected Lie groups (embedded in $\mathbb R^n$, I've used second-countability and completeness so far). If $\phi: G \to H$ is a surjective Lie group homomorphism, then the image of an open neighborhood $U$ of the identity in $G$ is again a neighborhood with nonempty interior about $1 \in H$.
Pick some neighborhood $U$ of $1 \in G$. We want to pick some open ball $V$in $U$ so that the closure of $V$ is compact and contained in $U$. Hence,
$$G=\{x V \mid x \in G\}$$
but we can choose countably many such $x \in G$. We can call this collection $\{x_n\}$, and consider the image of $G$ under $\phi$, which is all of $H$. In particular, $H:=\{\phi(x_n \overline{V}) \mid n \in \mathbb N\}$. But since $\phi$ is a homomorphism, this is the same thing as considering a whole bunch of $\phi(x_n)\phi(\overline{V})$, whose images are compact and hence closed. By Baire category, one of these guys has empty interior, say $\phi(x_n)\phi(\overline{V})$. But then $\phi(\overline{V})$ has nonempty interior, since multiplication by an element is a homeomorphism. But then $\phi(U)$ has nonempty interior.
From here, one can finish by first showing that this implies that there is a basis $\mathcal U$ about the origin so that the image of each element contains the identity in $H$, which is sufficient to show the main theorem, since we can then use the homomorphism property to show that for every open set $W$ about $w \in G$, the image $f(w) \in \mathrm{Int}(W)$, proving the theorem.
Is My proof correct?
I've seen one reference "An Open Mapping Theorem for Topological Groups". but this ultimately just redirects to a source that I cannot find. Is there a better way to show this Theorem? I'm not looking for maximal generality (weakest hypotheses) just yet, only to understand why this theorem might be true.
A sufficient answer in my eyes is either a convincing argument for why my proof fails (including something in the way of "is this idea recoverable?") or some affirmation that it is indeed correct.