A federal appeals court delivered a major blow to California’s gun control regime on Friday, ruling that the state’s ban on open carry in most populated areas violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
In a 2–1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s restriction on openly carrying firearms in counties with populations over 200,000 runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework. That test, expanded by the high court in 2022, requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the case was straightforward under the Supreme Court’s guidance. According to VanDyke, open carry was not only lawful at the nation’s founding but was widely protected as a core constitutional right.
“Quite the opposite: in antebellum America it was clear that open carry was widely seen as entitled to special constitutional protection,” VanDyke wrote. He emphasized that history cuts sharply against California’s attempt to prohibit open carry for the vast majority of its residents.
California’s law bans open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents, which encompasses nearly all of the state’s population. The challenge was brought by Mark Baird, who sued over the restriction in 2019. His case has moved back and forth through the courts for years and gained new momentum after the Supreme Court reshaped Second Amendment jurisprudence in 2022.
That Supreme Court expansion has already resulted in numerous gun laws being struck down nationwide, as lower courts revisit long-standing restrictions under the history-and-tradition test. The justices are expected to further clarify the boundaries of that test this term, including in a case reviewing another 9th Circuit decision that upheld a Hawaii firearms law.
VanDyke made clear that California’s approach goes far beyond a minor regulation. “In our Nation’s history and tradition, open carry was widely recognized as being central to the Second Amendment right,” he wrote. “A ban on that which is at the core of the Second Amendment is not a ‘minimal burden’ on the Second Amendment right.”
VanDyke is no stranger to clashes with California over gun policy. Last year, he drew national attention when he dissented from a ruling upholding the state’s large-capacity magazine ban and released a video demonstration explaining his objections.
He was joined in the majority by U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, who was appointed alongside VanDyke during President Donald Trump’s first term. In a separate concurring opinion, Lee accused California of misleading residents in smaller counties, where the open carry ban does not apply, about their legal rights.
“But that appears to be the very point—California tries to hide the fact that citizens in those counties have a right to open carry their weapon under the law,” Lee wrote. “Our constitutional rights, however, should not hinge on a Where’s Waldo quiz.”
Despite invalidating the broad ban, the panel left intact California’s open carry licensing system for smaller counties, ruling that Baird had waived some of his challenges to that framework.
In dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith argued the majority misapplied Supreme Court precedent. Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush, contended that states may restrict one method of carrying firearms as long as another lawful option remains available.
“A state may not prohibit the public carriage of firearms by eliminating both open and concealed carry,” Smith wrote, “but a state can lawfully eliminate one manner of carry to protect and ensure the safety of its citizens.”
The ruling marks another significant setback for California’s aggressive gun control agenda and adds to a growing list of court decisions reaffirming that the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, places real limits on how far states can go in restricting lawful firearm carry.
[READ MORE: Violinist Sues Will Smith, Alleges Harassment and Retaliation on 2025 Tour]
About Post Author
