9th Circuit Strikes Down California's Open Carry Ban

In a 2-1 decision issued Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that California's ban on openly carrying firearms in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 is unconstitutional. The ruling affects roughly 95% of California's population and represents one of the most significant Second Amendment decisions since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Ruling

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, writing for the majority and joined by Judge Kenneth Lee ( both appointed by President Trump during his first term), found that California's urban open carry ban "is inconsistent with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." The court applied the historical analysis required by Bruen, finding that open carry has been part of American tradition since the Founding and that California failed to present evidence of any historical precedent for banning it.

"There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation," VanDyke wrote. The court noted that while some states historically banned concealed carry, courts in the 19th century explicitly recognized open carry as constitutionally protected, often as the preferred method of carry for self-defense.

The case, Baird v. Bonta ( full decision here), was brought by Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County resident who challenged California's prohibition on open carry under sections 25850 and 26350 of the state's Penal Code.

What This Means for California Gun Owners

Not much changes immediately. The ruling becomes effective when the 9th Circuit issues its mandate, though California will likely request a stay pending appeal. The court struck down the geographic ban on open carry in urban counties, but the practical implications of how California's licensing requirements will apply going forward remain to be determined. Other restrictions, like prohibitions on carrying in schools or government buildings, remain in effect.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office stated they are "reviewing the opinion and considering all options," while remaining "committed to defending California's commonsense gun laws." Governor Gavin Newsom's office was more pointed, stating that "California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West."

The Historical Context

The majority opinion spent considerable time on the history of open carry restrictions in California. The state didn't regulate public carry at all until 1967's Mulford Act, which was passed in response to the Black Panther Party's armed patrols protesting police behavior in African-American communities. That law banned loaded open carry but still allowed unloaded open carry. California didn't ban unloaded open carry in urban areas until 2012—making it, according to the court, "the only state in the Ninth Circuit that has entirely banned open carry for the overwhelming majority of its citizens."

The dissent by Senior Judge N. Randy Smith (a George W. Bush appointee) argued that because California allows concealed carry statewide, "California may lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect its citizens so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense."

Rural Licensing Scheme Survives

The court upheld California's licensing requirements for open carry in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. However, Judge Lee wrote a concurrence highlighting that California appears to have deliberately made it difficult to obtain these licenses. The application form mentions "concealed" or "CCW" 67 times but never mentions "open carry," potentially confusing applicants into thinking they're applying for the wrong permit.

Next Steps

California can request an en banc rehearing before the full 9th Circuit or petition the Supreme Court. Given the court's recent grant of certiorari in another 9th Circuit gun case (Wolford v. Lopez, involving California and Hawaii's "sensitive places" restrictions on firearms in parks, bars, and other locations), there's a decent chance the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on Second Amendment questions more broadly.

For now, California gun owners should continue following the current law until the mandate issues and any stays are resolved. We'll update this story as developments unfold.

The full 75-page decision in Baird v. Bonta can be read here.