Open-Carry Ban WIN!

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just delivered a crushing blow to California’s anti-gun agenda, striking down the state’s ban on open carry in urban areas and restoring Second Amendment rights to millions of law-abiding citizens.

Story Highlights

  • Ninth Circuit panel rules California’s urban open-carry ban unconstitutional under Second Amendment
  • Matthew Baird’s lawsuit successfully challenges restrictions affecting 90% of California’s population
  • Court rejects state’s argument that concealed carry permits are adequate substitute for open carry
  • Decision follows Supreme Court’s Bruen framework requiring historical tradition for gun restrictions

Federal Court Rebukes California’s Gun Control Overreach

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark ruling on January 2, 2026, in Baird v. Bonta, declaring California’s ban on open carry in populous counties unconstitutional. The three-judge panel reversed a lower court’s summary judgment favoring the state, remanding the case with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiff Matthew Baird. This decision affects counties with populations exceeding 200,000, encompassing over 90% of California residents who were previously denied their constitutional right to bear arms openly.

California’s complex gun laws under Penal Code sections 25850 and 26350 created a deceptive framework that nominally allowed “shall-issue” licenses for both concealed and open carry while effectively banning open carry in urban areas. The state restricted open carry to rural counties under 200,000 population, leaving most Californians with no meaningful access to this fundamental right. The court found this geographic discrimination violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee that citizens may “bear arms” in public for self-defense.

Supreme Court Precedent Guides Constitutional Analysis

The Ninth Circuit’s decision builds directly on the Supreme Court’s transformative 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must align with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. The majority panel rejected California’s argument that the ban constituted mere “licensing” and found no historical precedent for prohibiting open carry in urban areas while allowing concealed carry. Historical evidence from the 1840s actually favored open carry for immediate self-defense over concealed weapons, undermining California’s position.

The concurring opinion by Judges Lee and VanDyke highlighted California’s potentially deceptive practices regarding rural open-carry permits, noting the state may block applications despite statutory authorization. This critique exposes how California officials have systematically misled citizens about their Second Amendment rights while maintaining the facade of compliance with constitutional requirements. The dissenting Judge N.R. Smith argued unsuccessfully that states could eliminate open carry as long as concealed alternatives remained available.

Victory Restores Constitutional Rights to Millions

Law-abiding California gun owners now have immediate legal grounds to challenge enforcement of the urban open-carry ban, with the case returning to district court for implementation. The ruling affects millions of residents in major metropolitan areas including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego counties who were previously denied equal protection under the Second Amendment. This represents the first Ninth Circuit decision fully invalidating California’s near-total prohibition on open carry for the vast majority of citizens.

The long-term implications extend beyond California’s borders, as this precedent may inspire similar constitutional challenges to restrictive carry laws nationwide. The decision signals increased judicial scrutiny of geographic restrictions and reinforces that different modes of carrying firearms serve distinct self-defense purposes that cannot be arbitrarily eliminated by state governments. California officials face a choice between compliance with federal constitutional mandates or potential appeals that risk further adverse Supreme Court precedent under the Bruen framework.

Sources:

Ninth Circuit Court Opinion in Baird v. Bonta (Case 24-565)

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR