9th Circuit Strikes Down California's Urban Open Carry Ban
-
9th Circuit Strikes Down California's Urban Open Carry Ban
This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney regarding firearms laws in your jurisdiction.
Why it matters: The 9th Circuit just told California they can't ban open carry for 95% of their population—and since Idaho falls under the same federal court, this strengthens carry rights across the entire western U.S.
The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Friday that California's ban on openly carrying firearms in counties over 200,000 people violates the Second Amendment. It's one of the biggest gun rights wins since the Supreme Court's Bruen decision in 2022.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke didn't mince words, writing that the ban "is inconsistent with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms." The court applied Bruen's historical test and found that open carry has been protected since the founding era.
The legal reality: California prohibited something that was never restricted at the founding, and 19th-century courts explicitly recognized open carry as constitutionally protected. The case, Baird v. Bonta, came from Mark Baird challenging sections 25850 and 26350 of California's Penal Code.
What Actually Changes
Don't expect immediate fireworks. The ruling takes effect when the 9th Circuit issues its mandate, but California will probably ask for a stay while they appeal.
Between the lines: The court struck down the geographic restriction, but California's licensing maze remains murky. Other restrictions—schools, government buildings—stay in place for now.
California AG Rob Bonta is "reviewing the opinion and considering all options." Governor Newsom's office went full drama queen, claiming the decision wants to "replace [military troops] with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West."
Apparently nobody told Gavin that the Wild West never had a gunslinger licensing program.
The Historical Smackdown
The legal reality: California didn't regulate public carry until 1967's Mulford Act—passed specifically to disarm Black Panthers who were legally carrying while patrolling their communities. That law banned loaded open carry but allowed unloaded carry.
California didn't ban unloaded open carry in urban areas until 2012, making it "the only state in the Ninth Circuit that has entirely banned open carry for the overwhelming majority of its citizens."
The dissenting judge, N. Randy Smith, argued that since California allows concealed carry statewide, they can eliminate one carry method as long as another exists. The majority wasn't buying it.
Small Counties Keep Their Licensing Games
The court upheld licensing requirements for counties under 200,000 residents. But Judge Lee called out California's deliberately confusing process—the application mentions "concealed" or "CCW" 67 times but never says "open carry."
Between the lines: They're making it as bureaucratic as possible while technically following the law.
What this means for you: Idaho shooters should pay attention because we're in the same federal circuit. Precedents here directly affect how Second Amendment cases get decided in Idaho courts.
This ruling strengthens the constitutional framework for open carry rights across the entire western U.S. It also reinforces Bruen's emphasis on historical analysis, which helps future Second Amendment challenges in Idaho and neighboring states.
The bottom line: California just got reminded that constitutional rights aren't subject to population density. The 9th Circuit—historically no friend to gun rights—told them that banning the oldest form of lawful carry doesn't fly under the Second Amendment.
What's next: California can ask for a full 9th Circuit rehearing or petition the Supreme Court. Given that the Court just agreed to hear another 9th Circuit gun case (Wolford v. Lopez on "sensitive places"), broader Second Amendment questions are coming.
For now, California gun owners follow current law until the mandate issues and stays get resolved. The full 75-page decision is worth reading if you're into legal beatdowns.
See Also
Read the original article in The Handbook | By Steve Duskett
Join the Discussion
What are your thoughts on this topic? Share your experiences or questions below.
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