Lead
On Friday, Jan. 2, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco held that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most of the state is unconstitutional. The 2–1 ruling targeted a rule applying to counties with populations above 200,000, a policy that covered roughly 95% of Californians. The majority cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen as the controlling legal framework. The court left intact the state’s open-carry permit process while striking down the broad urban ban.
Key Takeaways
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 decision on Jan. 2, 2026, finding California’s open-carry ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The ban applied to counties with populations greater than 200,000 and affected an estimated 95% of the state’s population.
- Judges Lawrence VanDyke and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (Trump appointees) formed the majority; Judge N. Randy Smith (a George W. Bush appointee) dissented.
- The majority relied on the Bruen test, which requires modern firearms restrictions to align with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
- The court upheld California’s existing open-carry permit procedures even while invalidating the broad urban prohibition.
- The legal challenge was brought by Siskiyou County resident Mark Baird, who contested both the ban and rural licensing rules.
- California’s attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the opinion and committed to defending the state’s gun laws, suggesting further legal steps are possible.
Background
California long has regulated public carriage of firearms through a mix of prohibitions, permitting regimes and local rules. The specific open-carry bar at issue restricted open display of firearms in counties exceeding 200,000 residents, a threshold that places the rule over areas that include the state’s largest cities. State lawmakers and regulators have defended the policy as a public-safety measure designed to reduce the risk of public disorder and panic.
The legal landscape shifted significantly after the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2022 Bruen decision, which narrowed deference to modern public-safety justifications and instead directed courts to assess whether regulations are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Since Bruen, lower courts across the country have applied the historical-tradition test with different outcomes, producing mounting litigation over both open- and concealed-carry restrictions.
Main Event
The appeal arose from a challenge by Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County resident who sued over the statewide rule that barred open-carry permits in populous counties and over aspects of the permit process in rural jurisdictions. On Jan. 2, 2026, the 9th Circuit panel issued a 2–1 opinion. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee; Judge N. Randy Smith dissented.
VanDyke’s majority opinion concluded that open carry is part of America’s historical tradition of bearing arms and that California’s blanket urban bar cannot be squared with Bruen’s historical test. The opinion notes that open carry was a common practice at the nation’s founding and at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, and that many states today permit open carry, including states with large urban centers.
Judge Smith’s dissent argued that California preserves the right to bear arms by allowing concealed-carry permits and that a state may lawfully forbid one manner of public carriage while leaving another available. Smith wrote that eliminating open carry alone does not necessarily violate the Second Amendment if other modes of carry remain lawful and regulated to protect public safety.
The panel struck down the urban open-carry ban but explicitly left the state’s permit procedures intact. Baird’s attorney had not offered an immediate comment to reporters, and the attorney general’s office said it was reviewing the decision and considering options, including possible appeal.
Analysis & Implications
The decision is likely to reverberate across jurisdictions that use population thresholds to limit open carry, forcing courts and legislatures to revisit rules premised on urban density. Because the 9th Circuit covers nine Western states and territories, its reasoning carries weight for a large and populous region. If the ruling stands, California may need to revise statutes or regulations that categorically bar public open carriage in densely populated counties.
Legally, the opinion underscores how Bruen’s historical-tradition approach can invalidate modern public-safety regulations that lack a clear analogue in earlier American histories. Advocates for gun-rights expansion can cite this opinion as a model for challenging categorical bans, while public-safety proponents will likely emphasize empirical differences between historical contexts and 21st-century urban environments when defending restrictions.
Practically, the immediate impact depends on whether California seeks a stay from the 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. A stay would preserve the status quo while appeals proceed; without a stay, local enforcement agencies and sheriffs could face uncertainty about permissibility and conditions for open carrying in affected counties. The court’s decision to leave permitting procedures in place limits the ruling’s logistical disruption but does not resolve whether or how states may regulate time, place and manner of public carry moving forward.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Population threshold in rule | > 200,000 residents |
| Share of California population affected | ~95% |
| Appeals court vote | 2–1 |
| Majority judges | Lawrence VanDyke, Kenneth Kiyul Lee |
| Dissenting judge | N. Randy Smith |
The table summarizes the court’s numerical findings and panel composition. The 95% figure indicates the breadth of the ban’s reach across the state’s residents; the 2–1 split highlights the narrowness of the appellate outcome and the potential for divergent legal interpretations at higher levels of review.
Reactions & Quotes
California’s attorney general’s office signaled a defensive posture and an intent to evaluate next steps. The statement indicates the state may seek further review in federal court.
“We are committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws and are reviewing the opinion and considering all options.”
California Attorney General’s Office (official statement)
One majority opinion passage framed open carry as historically protected and critiqued California’s public-safety rationale as inconsistent with historical practice.
“The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Judge Lawrence VanDyke (majority opinion)
In dissent, the panel’s lone dissenting judge emphasized the state’s preserved alternative—concealed-carry permits—as a lawful means to regulate public carriage without eliminating the right entirely.
“A state can lawfully eliminate one manner of carry to protect and ensure the safety of its citizens, as long as they are able to carry in another manner.”
Judge N. Randy Smith (dissent)
Unconfirmed
- Whether California will obtain an emergency stay of the 9th Circuit’s ruling before any practical change in enforcement occurs remains unclear and unannounced.
- The immediate effect on enforcement practices in specific counties is uncertain; local law enforcement agencies have not issued uniform guidance as of this writing.
- It is unconfirmed whether the state will seek Supreme Court review; the attorney general said it was “considering all options,” but no formal appeal filing had been made publicly.
Bottom Line
The 9th Circuit’s Jan. 2, 2026 opinion applies Bruen’s historical-tradition test to invalidate California’s broad ban on open carry in populous counties, while preserving the state’s permitting mechanisms. The narrow 2–1 ruling—issued by a panel with two Trump appointees in the majority and a Bush appointee dissenting—illustrates the fine margins on which contemporary Second Amendment law is decided.
Immediate legal and practical consequences hinge on whether California secures a stay and pursues further review. Regardless of next procedural steps, the opinion is likely to be cited in other challenges to open-carry prohibitions and will shape how courts balance historical evidence against modern regulatory aims.
Sources
- Los Angeles Times — (news report)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — (official court site)