Ninth Circuit Strikes California Open-Carry Ban
-
Ninth Circuit Strikes California Open-Carry Ban
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's urban open-carry ban Friday, ruling the state cannot prohibit permits in counties with populations over 200,000—covering 95% of Californians.
Why it matters: This creates a direct circuit split with the Second Circuit and puts California's "ban one mode, allow another" approach to carry laws on shaky ground nationwide.
The 2-1 decision in Baird v. Bonta applies the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen standard, which requires gun restrictions to match historical traditions from the founding era. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote that open carry "predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791" and remains legal in over 30 states today.
California argued it could ban open carry since concealed carry permits are available statewide. The majority rejected this logic entirely.
"Bruen does not permit a state to ban one mode of carry simply because another is allowed," the court wrote. "Concealed and open carry are not fungible under the Nation's historical tradition."
Between the lines: California's own conduct undermines its rural licensing claims. Judge Lee's concurrence highlighted that the state admits "no record of even one open-carry license being issued" in smaller counties, despite claiming a functioning permit system exists there.
The case started in 2019 when Mark Baird of Siskiyou County (population 42,000) couldn't obtain an open-carry permit despite living in a county supposedly covered by the "shall-issue" rural licensing scheme.
What they're saying: The decision exposes how California has handled carry permits:
- State's admission: No open-carry licenses issued despite claiming a working system
- Plaintiff Baird: "Do we have enumerated rights or don't we? This has less to do with the gun than it does the liberty"
- Judge Lee's concurrence: California uses "subterfuge" with a 17-page concealed-carry form that "nowhere mentions open carry"
- Dissenting Judge Smith: States should be able to "eliminate one mode so long as it does not ban public carry altogether"
The ruling creates tension with the Second Circuit's 2025 Frey v. City of New York decision, which upheld New York's open-carry ban because concealed carry remained available.
What's next: California Attorney General Rob Bonta says his office is "considering its options." The case could go to the full Ninth Circuit en banc or create enough of a circuit split for Supreme Court review.
For now, open carry remains illegal while enforcement continues. The court directed the lower court to enter judgment for Baird on the urban ban specifically, but didn't reach the rural licensing scheme due to procedural issues.
The decision emphasized that California's legislature—not courts—must decide how to craft any replacement permitting system for urban counties.
The bottom line: California can no longer categorically refuse open-carry permits in its major population centers, but the practical impact depends on how local sheriffs and police chiefs respond to permit applications.
Go deeper:
Read the original article in The Handbook | By Steve Duskett
Join the Discussion
With this ruling potentially opening up open carry in most of California, are you more likely to open carry or stick with concealed carry if you're in one of those affected counties—and what's driving that choice for you?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login