A divided federal appeals panel ruled that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most counties conflicts with constitutional protections and lacks historical precedent.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court has overturned California’s long-standing restriction on the open carrying of firearms, concluding that the law violates the Second Amendment and cannot be justified under the historical standards required by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 2–1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a California gun owner who challenged the state’s open-carry ban, which applies to counties with populations exceeding 200,000 residents—jurisdictions that encompass roughly 95 percent of Californians. The panel determined that the restriction is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense and limited modern gun regulations to those grounded in the nation’s historical tradition.
The case originated with a civil rights lawsuit filed by gun owner Mark Baird against California Attorney General Rob Bonta after a federal district court declined to block enforcement of the law. On appeal, the majority found that California’s approach could not survive the framework established in Bruen.
Writing for the court, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the legality of open carry. He wrote that openly bearing arms was clearly protected both at the time of the nation’s founding and when the Fourteenth Amendment extended Second Amendment protections to the states. According to VanDyke, there is no record of laws from those periods that restricted open carry in a manner comparable to California’s ban.
“The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” VanDyke wrote, adding that California’s attempt to regulate firearms relies on methods not used during either the Founding era or Reconstruction. Under the Bruen standard, he concluded, the case was “straightforward.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Kenneth Lee sharply criticized the state’s implementation of its licensing framework. Lee noted that while California asserts residents in smaller counties can apply for open-carry permits, the state has acknowledged it has no record of a single such license being issued. He suggested that the process itself may be designed to deter applicants, describing the application as overly complex and unclear.
Lee said California appeared to have used indirect means to deny residents their constitutional rights, remarking that the state’s conduct should be held to a higher standard than deceptive practices used by private actors.
The ruling strikes down one of California’s most sweeping firearms restrictions and adds to a growing body of post-Bruen decisions requiring states to justify gun laws through concrete historical analogues. While the decision applies directly to the challenged statute, it is likely to have broader implications for firearm regulations across the Ninth Circuit, which includes several western states.
Original article
Comments