{"id":12647,"date":"2026-01-03T05:04:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-03T05:04:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/california-open-carry-unconstitutional\/"},"modified":"2026-01-03T05:04:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-03T05:04:11","slug":"california-open-carry-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/california-open-carry-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"California&#8217;s open carry ban unconstitutional, appeals court rules &#8211; NBC News"},"content":{"rendered":"<article>\n<p><strong>Lead:<\/strong> A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Friday that California\u2019s broad prohibition on openly carrying firearms in most counties is unconstitutional, finding it conflicts with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2022. The panel voted 2-1 for gun owner Mark Baird, who challenged the state restriction that applies in counties with populations above 200,000. The decision applies to the larger counties that contain roughly 95% of California\u2019s population and partially reverses a lower-court ruling from 2023. California officials said they are reviewing options, including appeal.<\/p>\n<h2>Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that California\u2019s ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 Bruen framework.<\/li>\n<li>About 95% of California\u2019s population lives in counties exceeding the 200,000-resident threshold targeted by the ban.<\/li>\n<li>Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion and was joined by another Trump appointee; Senior Judge N. Randy Smith dissented.<\/li>\n<li>The appeals court reversed parts of a 2023 lower-court decision rejecting Mark Baird\u2019s 2019 challenge but left intact licensing requirements for smaller counties.<\/li>\n<li>The panel noted that open carry has historical roots in early American practice and observed that more than 30 states currently permit open carry in general.<\/li>\n<li>California Attorney General Rob Bonta\u2019s office, which defended the ban, said it is considering legal options to defend the state\u2019s gun regulations.<\/li>\n<li>The ruling arrives amid a wave of post-Bruen litigation contesting modern firearm restrictions nationwide, including recent Ninth Circuit decisions about sensitive-place limits.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p>California has long been among the states with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S., implementing a series of limits on possession, sales and public carrying of firearms. In 2012 the state tightened rules around public carry, and over the past decade several statutes and local ordinances have created different regimes for concealed and open carry depending on county population and permitting schemes. The legal landscape shifted in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle &#038; Pistol Association v. Bruen established a new test for assessing firearm regulations: modern restrictions must be consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.<\/p>\n<p>That Bruen decision, issued by a 6-3 conservative majority, has spawned many challenges to state and local gun rules by requiring courts to examine historical analogues rather than using means-end scrutiny such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. Plaintiffs have pressed challenges in multiple circuits, and lower courts have split on how to apply historical analysis to diverse modern regulations. Stakeholders in California include state officials defending public-safety-focused laws, gun owners challenging limits on carrying, public-health and law-enforcement groups pressing for restrictions, and a wide public that largely lives in higher-population counties affected by the ban.<\/p>\n<h2>Main Event<\/h2>\n<p>The appeal stems from Mark Baird\u2019s 2019 lawsuit challenging a California statute that generally forbids openly carrying a firearm in counties with populations above 200,000 while allowing licensing regimes in smaller counties. A federal district judge rejected Baird\u2019s claim in 2023, but a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel revisited the case this year. On Friday the panel, in a 2-1 decision, found the categorical ban incompatible with Bruen\u2019s historical-tradition inquiry and ruled for Baird on that claim.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Lawrence VanDyke, writing the majority opinion, emphasized historical practice and noted that open carry has antecedents predating the Bill of Rights and that many states currently permit open carriage of firearms. The opinion pointed to the fact that California allowed openly holstered handguns for self-defense until 2012 and to broader historical evidence the majority considered relevant under Bruen. The panel, however, did not accept every challenge Baird raised: it upheld California\u2019s licensing requirements for open carry in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents.<\/p>\n<p>Senior Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, arguing the court erred in part and maintained that California\u2019s restrictions comply with the Supreme Court\u2019s framework. California Attorney General Rob Bonta\u2019s office issued a statement saying it was reviewing the decision and remains committed to defending the state\u2019s gun laws. The ruling leaves in place some limits and creates an immediate path for further appellate review or possible Supreme Court review.<\/p>\n<h2>Analysis &#038; Implications<\/h2>\n<p>The Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision applies Bruen\u2019s historical-tradition test in a way that privileges historical acceptance of open carry as a constitutional baseline. If upheld on further review, the ruling would significantly constrain California\u2019s ability to ban open carry in its most populous counties, affecting law enforcement practices and permitting procedures across a state that contains nearly one-third of the nation\u2019s population. The majority\u2019s reliance on historical analogues will likely be a focal point for any subsequent appeals, with opponents arguing that historic practice is not a one-to-one guide to modern public-safety regulation.<\/p>\n<p>For state lawmakers and regulators, the decision raises practical questions about how to rewrite or justify statutes to survive Bruen review: whether to craft narrowly tailored restrictions tied to demonstrable risks, to expand licensing schemes, or to seek other regulatory tools such as location-based prohibitions. California\u2019s existing regime for smaller counties \u2014 where open-carry permits may be issued \u2014 survived this challenge, which further complicates a uniform regulatory response across counties of widely differing population sizes.<\/p>\n<p>Nationally, the ruling adds to a body of appellate jurisprudence that lower courts and state governments will cite as they navigate post-Bruen litigation. Other circuits have reached different conclusions on aspects of open-carry and sensitive-place rules; those splits increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court could take up another gun-rights case to clarify Bruen\u2019s application. Meanwhile, public-safety advocates and law-enforcement agencies will be voicing concerns about operational impacts, while gun-rights groups will point to this decision as confirmation of broader Second Amendment protections.<\/p>\n<h2>Comparison &#038; Data<\/h2>\n<figure>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Metric<\/th>\n<th>Fact<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Population affected<\/td>\n<td>~95% of California residents live in counties >200,000 people<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ninth Circuit vote<\/td>\n<td>2\u20131 for the challenger (Mark Baird)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>States allowing open carry<\/td>\n<td>More than 30 states generally permit open carry<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Key precedent<\/td>\n<td>New York State Rifle &#038; Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><figcaption>High-level figures cited by the Ninth Circuit and in media coverage.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The table summarizes the central numerical and legal touchpoints for the decision. These figures contextualize why a county-size threshold in California translates into an effect on nearly the whole state and why appellate rulings in the Ninth Circuit carry substantial practical weight.<\/p>\n<h2>Reactions &#038; Quotes<\/h2>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThe historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation\u2019s history and tradition,\u201d<\/p>\n<p><cite>Judge Lawrence VanDyke, Ninth Circuit (majority opinion)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>VanDyke\u2019s remark encapsulated the majority\u2019s lead legal premise: that historical practice supports a constitutional protection for public, open carriage of firearms absent historically grounded regulation.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThe court got this case half right,\u201d<\/p>\n<p><cite>Senior Judge N. Randy Smith (dissent)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Judge Smith\u2019s terse dissent argued that the majority failed to give proper weight to modern regulatory interests and that California\u2019s restrictions can be reconciled with Bruen when viewed in full context.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cWe are committed to defending California\u2019s common sense gun laws,\u201d<\/p>\n<p><cite>Office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta (spokesperson)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Attorney General\u2019s office signaled an intent to consider further legal steps; that statement frames likely next moves including seeking an en banc Ninth Circuit rehearing or taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<aside>\n<details>\n<summary>Explainer: The Bruen test and open carry<\/summary>\n<p>Bruen requires courts to assess whether a modern firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rather than applying balancing tests like strict or intermediate scrutiny, judges examine historical analogues from the founding era and the 19th century to decide whether a law fits within those traditions. Open carry broadly refers to carrying a firearm visibly in public, typically holstered; modern regulation of open carry varies by state, with some states allowing it generally, others requiring permits, and some outlawing it in places or altogether. The test is complex because historical practices are often context-specific and do not map neatly onto modern regulatory schemes, which creates room for differing judicial interpretations.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/aside>\n<h2>Unconfirmed<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether California will immediately request an en banc Ninth Circuit rehearing or file a stay pending appeal is not yet confirmed and will depend on decisions by the Attorney General\u2019s office.<\/li>\n<li>It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case; no certiorari petition has been filed as of this writing.<\/li>\n<li>Practical enforcement changes \u2014 such as whether local law enforcement will alter patrol or permitting practices before final appellate resolution \u2014 are not uniformly confirmed across counties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Bottom Line<\/h2>\n<p>The Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling narrows one dimension of California\u2019s open-carry regime by holding that a near-total ban in larger counties cannot survive Bruen\u2019s historical-tradition test. The decision affects counties that encompass the vast majority of the state\u2019s population and will likely prompt further litigation as state officials weigh appeals and possible legislative responses.<\/p>\n<p>Because Bruen relies on historical analogues, outcome predictability in future challenges remains limited and will depend on how higher courts interpret historical evidence and the scope of permissible modern regulation. Observers should expect rapid legal maneuvering \u2014 including potential emergency applications and appeals to the Supreme Court \u2014 and continued debate about how to balance constitutional rights with public-safety concerns.<\/p>\n<h3>Sources<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/california-open-carry-ban-unconstitutional-appeals-court-rules-rcna252007\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">NBC News<\/a> \u2014 Media report summarizing the Ninth Circuit decision and reactions.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/20-843_3q35.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) opinion<\/a> \u2014 U.S. Supreme Court (official opinion used as legal precedent).<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/oag.ca.gov\/news\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Department of Justice: News<\/a> \u2014 Official statements and press releases from the Attorney General\u2019s office (official source for state responses).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lead: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Friday that California\u2019s broad prohibition on openly carrying firearms in most counties is unconstitutional, finding it conflicts with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2022. The panel voted 2-1 for gun owner Mark Baird, who &#8230; <a title=\"California&#8217;s open carry ban unconstitutional, appeals court rules &#8211; NBC News\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/california-open-carry-unconstitutional\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about California&#8217;s open carry ban unconstitutional, appeals court rules &#8211; NBC News\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12643,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_title":"California open-carry ban unconstitutional \u2014 DeepNews","rank_math_description":"A Ninth Circuit panel ruled California\u2019s ban on open carry in most counties violates the Second Amendment under Bruen, affecting areas with 95% of the state\u2019s population.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"California, open carry, Ninth Circuit, Second Amendment, Bruen","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12647\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}