A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday delivered a major Second Amendment victory for gun rights advocates by ruling that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most of the state is unconstitutional, dealing a setback to one of the nation’s strictest gun-control regimes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, in a 2-1 decision, sided with plaintiff Mark Baird – a California gun owner – finding that the prohibition on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear arms.
The Core Legal Ruling
Under California law, openly carrying firearms in public — even for lawful purposes such as self-defense — has long been prohibited in urban and suburban regions that house roughly 95% of the state’s population. The appeals court majority held that this blanket ban cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Bruen set a new standard for evaluating gun laws, requiring that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Lawrence VanDyke — a Trump appointee — emphasized that open carry has long historical roots in American tradition and was a widely accepted practice at the time of the founding.
The panel noted that more than 30 states currently allow open carry of firearms and that California itself permitted open carry for most lawful citizens prior to 2012. That historical lineage, the opinion said, persuades the court that such carry is protected by the Constitution.
Split Decision and Dissent
While the majority struck down the ban in densely populated counties, it upheld California’s licensing requirements for open carry in smaller, rural counties — where permits may still be required and more difficult to obtain in practice.
In dissent, Senior Judge N. Randy Smith — appointed by President George W. Bush — argued that California’s restrictions should be considered constitutional because the state still allows other forms of lawful firearm carry, such as concealed carry under licensed regimes. Smith said restricting one mode of firearm carry does not inherently violate the Second Amendment if alternative avenues remain open.
Background and Broader Legal Context
The case stems from a long-running challenge dating back several years. Gun owners have repeatedly contested California’s powerful gun-control apparatus, which also includes background checks for ammunition purchases and bans on certain ammunition magazines — many of which have themselves been targets of recent court challenges under the Bruen framework.
California’s open-carry ban had stood for over a decade, but in recent years the legal landscape shifted dramatically after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which injected constitutional history as the guiding test for gun laws nationwide. This has led to a wave of litigation against firearm regulations not only in California but across multiple states.
Reactions
Officials from the California Attorney General’s office indicated they are reviewing options, including possible appeals to a larger Ninth Circuit en banc panel or to the U.S. Supreme Court. A spokesperson reiterated the state’s commitment to defending what it characterizes as “common-sense gun safety laws.”
Gun rights groups hailed the ruling as a crucial affirmation of constitutional freedoms, while gun-control advocates warned it could lead to increased armed presence in public spaces, raising concerns over public safety and violence.
What Happens Next
Observers expect that California, represented by Attorney General Rob Bonta, will consider seeking a full Ninth Circuit rehearing or ultimately push the case to the U.S. Supreme Court — a tribunal that has been sharply divided along ideological lines on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The decision also adds to a mounting list of challenges to California’s expansive gun laws, which have frequently been at odds with recent constitutional interpretations by federal courts.