A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has provoked extensive discussion by overturning California’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms in its more populous counties. The case, Baird v. Bonta, involved a 2–1 decision that declared the state’s urban open-carry ban incompatible with the Second Amendment, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s majority based their judgment on historical analysis, determining that open carry is woven into the nation’s historical framework and tradition, and concluded that California’s prohibition, which impacts regions housing approximately 95% of the state’s population, could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The comprehensive decision can be found here.
Now remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff Mark Baird, the ruling reflects the ongoing implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which underscored the importance of historical precedent in Second Amendment cases. However, the panel did not provide carte blanche for open-carry supporters. It upheld certain licensing practices in less populous counties, thereby preserving a nuanced restriction via California’s “shall-issue” licensing framework. This system allows individuals to receive permits with a general self-defense claim, adhering to guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court’s precedents.
Judge Kenneth K. Lee, with concurrence from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, noted with skepticism the state’s purported commitment to its open-carry license process, which has notoriously failed to result in a single issuance. Their concurrence highlighted concerns about misleading messaging surrounding the licensing system. Meanwhile, Judge N. Randy Smith provided a partial dissent, expressing that the constitutional text should not necessarily extend cover to open carry due to the permissible concealed carry alternatives available, supporting California’s existing restrictions.
The court’s decision, which applies specific scrutiny to California State Penal Codes, including provisions that criminalize carrying firearms in public (Codes § 25850, § 26350), marks a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for firearms. As noted in the dissent and concurrence, it raises broader questions about the balance between public safety considerations and constitutional rights in increasingly urbanized settings. More legal challenges and debates seem likely as the state navigates this evolving judicial interpretation.