A federal appeals court has ruled that California’s long-standing restrictions on openly carrying firearms in most of the state violate the U.S. Constitution.
In a 2–1 decision, a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a gun owner who challenged California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations exceeding 200,000. The judges found that the restriction infringed on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Because roughly 95% of Californians live in counties of that size, the law applied to the vast majority of the state’s residents.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling, decided by a 6–3 conservative majority, established that gun regulations must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
VanDyke explained that the case centered on a form of firearm possession that has deep historical roots. He wrote that the dispute “unquestionably involves a historical practice — open carry — that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.” He also noted that more than 30 states generally allow open carry and that California itself permitted citizens to openly carry holstered handguns for self-defense until 2012.
According to VanDyke, “The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.” His opinion was joined by another judge appointed by former President Donald Trump.
The ruling partially overturned a 2023 lower-court decision that had rejected a 2019 lawsuit brought by gun owner Mark Baird. While the appeals court ruled in Baird’s favor regarding the population-based open-carry ban, it did not agree with all of his claims. The panel declined to strike down California’s licensing rules in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, where officials may issue open-carry permits.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush, dissented from the decision. He said the majority “got this case half right” and argued that California’s restrictions were fully consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling.
There was no immediate comment from Baird’s attorney. Representatives for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office defended the law, also did not respond to requests for comment.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision has triggered legal challenges to firearm regulations across the country, including several in California. In a separate case, a 9th Circuit panel in September 2024 upheld a different California law that bars people with concealed-carry permits from bringing firearms into designated “sensitive places,” such as bars, parks, zoos, stadiums, and museums.
COMMENTARY:
This ruling represents a major reaffirmation of the Second Amendment as a real, enforceable constitutional right rather than a privilege granted at the discretion of the state. For years, California has treated open carry not as a protected liberty, but as something to be discouraged into near extinction. By striking down a ban that affected roughly 95% of the population, the court restored balance between state power and individual rights.
At its core, this decision recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to ownership inside the home. The Constitution explicitly protects the right to “bear” arms, which historically meant to carry them in public. A right that exists only behind closed doors is not a right at all, and the court correctly acknowledged that reality.
Historically, open carry was not controversial at the founding of the United States. In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, citizens openly carried firearms as a normal part of daily life. Farmers, merchants, travelers, and militiamen routinely carried arms for self-defense, hunting, and community protection. There were no blanket bans on open carry at the founding, and certainly no population-based prohibitions like those imposed by modern California law.
In the late 18th century, firearms were seen as tools of personal responsibility and civic duty. The same citizens who were expected to serve in militias were expected to keep and carry their own arms. Open carry aligned with this expectation and was widely accepted across colonies and early states. The idea that the government could broadly forbid peaceful citizens from openly carrying arms would have been alien to the Founders.
Importantly, historical restrictions that did exist focused on misuse, not mere possession or carry. Laws punished individuals who used weapons to threaten, intimidate, or commit violence. Simply carrying a firearm openly, without malicious intent, was lawful and commonplace. This distinction matters because it shows that early American law regulated conduct, not rights.
The court’s reliance on historical tradition is exactly what the Supreme Court required in its 2022 decision. That ruling rejected modern interest-balancing tests that allowed governments to restrict gun rights based on policy preferences rather than constitutional limits. By grounding its analysis in history, the appeals court followed the proper legal framework and respected the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
This decision also pushes back against the idea that large populations justify fewer rights. Constitutional protections do not shrink as cities grow. Free speech does not disappear in crowded areas, nor does the right to worship, vote, or assemble. The same principle applies to the right to bear arms, regardless of whether someone lives in a rural county or a major metropolitan area.
For gun rights advocates, this ruling reinforces the idea that constitutional rights are not subject to shifting political winds. California’s lawmakers attempted to sidestep the Constitution by crafting a ban so broad it effectively erased open carry for most residents. The court’s decision makes clear that such tactics cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.
The ruling also acknowledges that many states continue to allow open carry today without descending into chaos. More than half the country recognizes that law-abiding citizens carrying firearms openly does not inherently threaten public safety. This reality undermines claims that open carry is incompatible with modern society.
From a broader perspective, the decision strengthens the principle that rights come before government permission. Requiring licenses, exceptions, or discretionary approvals for a historically protected activity turns a right into a regulated privilege. The court’s refusal to endorse that approach is a meaningful win for civil liberties.
This case also highlights an important truth: gun control laws often expand gradually, not all at once. What begins as a “reasonable” restriction can evolve into a near-total ban. By stopping this law now, the court prevented further erosion of Second Amendment protections.
For those who value constitutional consistency, the ruling restores coherence to gun law jurisprudence. A right explicitly enumerated in the Constitution deserves the same respect as any other. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and decisions like this help ensure it is treated as equal to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The historical record is clear that open carry existed before, during, and after 1791 without widespread prohibition. By acknowledging that reality, the court reaffirmed that modern laws must align with historical understanding, not rewrite it. This approach preserves the integrity of constitutional interpretation.
Ultimately, this decision is about more than firearms. It is about limits on government power and respect for individual liberty. When courts uphold constitutional rights based on history and text, they reinforce the rule of law and protect freedoms for future generations.
For gun rights supporters, this ruling is a significant step forward. It restores a long-recognized freedom, honors the nation’s founding principles, and sends a clear message that constitutional rights cannot be legislated away simply because they are politically unpopular.
ARTICLE:
Share this:
Discover more from Free News and Commentary Today
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
