Article Info
Ninth Circuit Strikes California Open-Carry Ban
Photo: Unknown authorUnknown author (Public Domain)
| Scope | |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | 9th Circuit / California |
| Impact | state |
| Key Entities | |
| Lead plaintiff from Siskiyou County challenging California's open-carry ban | Mark Baird |
| California Attorney General considering appeal options | Rob Bonta |
| Author of majority opinion striking down the ban | Judge VanDyke |
| Concurring judge who noted state's use of 'subterfuge' in permitting process | Judge Lee |
| Dissenting judge arguing states can eliminate one carry mode | Judge Smith |
| Legal Issues | |
| |
| What It Means | |
| |
| Timeline | |
| Friday (recent) | Ninth Circuit issued 2-1 decision in Baird v. Bonta striking down California's urban open-carry ban |
| 2025 | Second Circuit upheld New York's open-carry ban in Frey v. City of New York, creating circuit split |
| Related Laws | |
| |
Ninth Circuit Strikes California Open-Carry Ban
Federal court rules state can't ban permits in 95% of California counties
From The Boise Gun Club Handbook
Federal court rules state can't ban permits in 95% of California counties
California's decade-long shell game with carry rights just got called out by its own federal circuit.
Friday's 2-1 decision in Baird v. Bonta struck down the state's urban open-carry ban — the rule blocking permits in counties with populations over 200,000. That covers 95% of Californians who've been locked out of open carry entirely.
The legal question: The Ninth Circuit applied the Supreme Court's Bruen standard directly. Open carry "predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791" and remains legal in over 30 states. California argued that since concealed permits are theoretically available, they could ban open carry outright. The court didn't buy it.
"Concealed and open carry are not fungible under the Nation's historical tradition." — Ninth Circuit majority ruling
Judge VanDyke wrote for the majority: "Bruen does not permit a state to ban one mode of carry simply because another is allowed." Judge Smith dissented, arguing states should be able to "eliminate one mode so long as it does not ban public carry altogether."
The system was designed to fail. California admits "no record of even one open-carry license being issued" anywhere in the state. Not one. Plaintiff Mark Baird from Siskiyou County couldn't get a permit despite living in a county that supposedly allows them. Judge Lee's concurrence called it "subterfuge" — a 17-page application form that "nowhere mentions open carry."
Baird put it plainly: "Do we have enumerated rights or don't we? This has less to do with the gun than it does the liberty."
Circuit split incoming: This ruling conflicts directly with the Second Circuit's 2025 Frey v. City of New York decision, which upheld New York's open-carry ban. That's a live circuit split over whether states can eliminate one carry method while allowing another — exactly the kind of conflict that draws Supreme Court review.
California AG Rob Bonta says his office is "considering its options," which means either an en banc appeal to the full Ninth Circuit or letting the split ripen for SCOTUS.
What to watch: California can no longer categorically refuse open-carry permits in major population centers, but practical impact depends entirely on how local sheriffs and police chiefs handle actual applications. Open carry remains illegal during enforcement, and it's California's legislature — not the courts — that has to build any replacement permitting system.
Go deeper:
- Phils Custom Handloads(Swartz Creek, MI)
- Gls Guns(Sumner, IA)
- J & L Gunsmithing(Chesapeake, VA)
- Oliver Firearms(Spartanburg, SC)
Loading comments...