A federal appeals court has ruled California's prohibition on openly carrying firearms in most areas of the state unconstitutional. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco determined in a 2-1 decision on Friday that the state's restriction, applicable to counties with populations over 200,000, infringes upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and is inconsistent with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The Appeals Court Decision
The three-judge panel's majority opinion found California's law, which affects approximately 95% of the state's residents, to be in violation of constitutional protections. U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee, also a Trump appointee. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, filed a dissenting opinion.
Legal Precedent and Majority Rationale
The court's decision cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That 6-3 Supreme Court decision established a legal standard requiring firearm regulations to be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Judge VanDyke asserted that California's law failed this historical test. His opinion highlighted that open carry is a historical practice predating the 1791 ratification of the Bill of Rights and was protected at the time of the Founding and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. He noted that more than 30 states generally permit open carry, and California itself allowed the open carrying of holstered handguns for self-defense until 2012. VanDyke also stated that open carry has historically been the "default lawful means" for carrying a firearm and that concerns about potential panic or chaos related to open carry have been addressed historically.
Dissenting Opinion
In his dissent, Judge Smith argued that California's restrictions adhere to the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. He contended that a state can lawfully restrict one manner of public firearm carry, such as open carry, if another manner, like concealed carry, is permitted, thereby ensuring public safety while respecting the right to bear arms.
Origin of the Case and Scope
The case originated from a 2019 challenge filed by Mark Baird, a resident of Siskiyou County. The appellate ruling partially overturned a 2023 lower-court decision. While the court supported Baird's primary challenge against the open-carry ban in populated areas, it dismissed his separate challenge concerning California’s existing licensing requirements for open-carry permits in counties with populations under 200,000, where such permits may be issued.
State Response
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that the office is reviewing its options and remains committed to defending California's gun laws. The press office for Governor Gavin Newsom, via social media, indicated that California's law was developed to comply with the Second Amendment and expressed concern about the ruling's potential impact.
Broader Context of Gun Law Challenges
This ruling is part of a series of legal challenges to firearm restrictions across the nation following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, particularly in California, which has some of the nation's strictest gun-control legislation. In a separate instance, a 9th Circuit panel in September 2024 affirmed a California law preventing individuals with concealed-carry permits from carrying firearms in various designated "sensitive places," such as bars, parks, zoos, stadiums, and museums.