Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Urban Open-Carry Ban

[[{“value”:”

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California’s ban on open carry in large, urban counties violates the Second Amendment, delivering another major blow to the state’s public-carry regime.

In Baird v. Bonta, the court held that California’s prohibition on openly carrying firearms in counties with populations over 200,000 (covering roughly 95 percent of the state’s residents) cannot survive constitutional scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

The panel ordered judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Mark Baird on that claim and remanded the case accordingly.

Writing for the court, Judge Lawrence VanDyke concluded that open carry is firmly rooted in America’s history and tradition and was widely protected both at the Founding and at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The court emphasized that there is no historical analogue for a broad ban on open carry, particularly one as sweeping as California’s urban prohibition.

SEE ALSO: Thirty Regulators, One CEO: Inside the Rise of Silencer Central

Applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel rejected California’s argument that its law amounted to a permissible licensing scheme. In practice, the court found, the statute functions as a near-total ban on open carry in the areas where most Californians live, with no meaningful historical precedent to justify it.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding California’s licensing system in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. While acknowledging skepticism about how that system operates in reality, the panel held that, on its face, the rural licensing scheme resembles a “shall-issue” regime that Bruen indicated could be constitutional. Baird’s as-applied challenge to that portion of the law was deemed waived on appeal.

In a concurrence, Judge Kenneth Lee criticized California for what he described as bureaucratic gamesmanship, noting that the state could not identify a single issued open-carry license despite claiming the system exists in theory.

Judge N.R. Smith dissented in part, arguing that California may restrict open carry so long as another method of public carry (such as concealed carry) remains available. The majority rejected that reasoning, pointing to extensive historical evidence treating open and concealed carry as constitutionally distinct.

The ruling directly undermines California’s long-standing effort to confine lawful public carry almost entirely to concealed permits and sets up a potential showdown over how far states can go in limiting one mode of carry while allowing another.

With multiple circuits now openly disagreeing over open-carry bans, Baird v. Bonta adds to the growing pressure for Supreme Court review of post-Bruen carry restrictions nationwide.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

“}]]