*Breaking News* Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Open-Carry Ban—for Now

Usually, our breaking-news alerts are open to everyone, but detailed analysis is for paid subscribers. Since it’s a holiday weekend, there’s no paywall this time.

The Ruling: Let’s Take a Closer Look

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional, marking one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions to come out of the court in years. The ruling was authored by Judge Lawrence VanDyke and joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, with Judge N. Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In Baird v. Bonta, the panel found that California’s ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people violates the Second Amendment, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since these counties include about 95% of Californians, the ruling, at least in theory, would significantly limit the state’s power to ban public carry. The panel agreed with other parts of the judgment but reversed the decision on the ‘urban’ open-carry ban and sent the case back with instructions to rule in Baird’s favor on that issue.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, known for strongly enforcing Governor Gavin Newsom’s gun-control policies, is expected to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the case. This would set up the next, and more predictable, stage of the process. Newsom and Bonta legislate and litigate against Second Amendment rights whenever possible.

A Rare Moment of Clear Legal Reasoning

The decision stands out not just for its result, but for its reasoning. Instead of creating new tests or automatically accepting lawmakers’ public safety arguments, the panel followed the Supreme Court’s Bruen directive as written. The main question was simple: Does California’s ban fit with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?

The majority decided that California’s ban does not fit with historical tradition. At the time of the Founding and for much of American history, open carry was both legal and common. Some places regulated how people could carry firearms, but broad bans on open carry in most populated areas were rare. The court said California did not provide enough historical examples to support its current law. This conclusion might be uncomfortable for some policymakers, but it is not extreme; it simply follows the Supreme Court’s instructions. If history is the standard, then it must be taken seriously, even if modern officials disagree with the outcome.

Why Allowing Concealed Carry Wasn’t Sufficient

California claimed that allowing concealed-carry permits made the law acceptable. The panel disagreed. According to Bruen, a state cannot prohibit a historically protected means of carrying arms simply because it permits another. The Second Amendment protects the right to ‘bear’ arms, not just a list of options chosen by the government.

The court pointed out that open carry was not a fringe practice; it was a common way to exercise this right. Replacing it with concealed carry, which often requires strict licensing, does not fix the constitutional problem caused by banning open carry in most of the state. This issue is important beyond this case because it makes clear that states cannot weaken constitutional rights by only allowing the version they prefer.

A Reality Check on Full Court Review

Still, despite its unequivocal legal reasoning, this ruling is likely to be short-lived. Kostas Moros, a respected Second Amendment attorney affiliated with the Second Amendment Foundation, noted in a commentary string on X that considering the ruling in depth can feel pointless. If the Ninth Circuit, as a full court, intervened to prevent Hawaii’s complex gun-purchasing restrictions from being overturned in Yukutake, it is hard to see the court allowing a decision that would allow open carry in California to remain in place.

This view is not just being cynical; it is based on past patterns. In major Second Amendment cases, positive panel decisions are often followed by full-court reviews that reverse them and restore the old rules. The Ninth Circuit rarely allows gun-rights wins, even well-argued ones, to change policy in states like California. There is little reason to think Baird v. Bonta will be any different.

So, Does It Matter?

For now, Californians should not expect open-carry laws to change. A full-court en banc reversal is likely, and the state’s rules will probably remain the same. Still, even a short-lived ruling matters. Every time a panel follows Bruen and is later overruled, the gap between the Supreme Court’s rules and how lower courts apply them becomes more obvious and harder to ignore.

This tension cannot last forever. Either the Supreme Court’s rules will be fully applied, or the Court will have to step in again to make clear that its decisions must be followed. It is unclear how long this imbalance will continue, but each case like Baird v. Bonta brings us closer to an answer.

Since this ruling is new, expect more analysis from respected Second Amendment legal experts soon. In particular, watch for commentary from the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the gold standard as far as I’m concerned, for analyzing Second Amendment cases. I am a “generalist” and very notably not an attorney - but try to get you information when it matters!

For the Legal Beagles

Here is a link to today’s ruling: