top of page
SU Mountain Logo SM.png

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment
Donate $

UNFILTERED

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

Open Carry in California?

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Open Carry Ban


Armed Citizen
Armed Citizen

In a pivotal ruling that underscores the inviolability of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has declared California's broad prohibition on openly carrying firearms unconstitutional. The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Baird v. Bonta highlights the amendment's core directive—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—as a key element in striking down the ban, potentially transforming gun rights in the state.


The 2-1 opinion, applying the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, determined that the state's law, which restricts open carry in counties with over 200,000 residents (affecting roughly 95% of Californians), lacks sufficient grounding in America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The majority explicitly invoked the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" language to argue that such a sweeping ban unduly burdens the fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense, a right deeply rooted in the nation's founding era when open carry was the norm.


"Open carry has been the primary means of exercising the right to bear arms throughout much of American history," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Consuelo Callahan. "To allow states to prohibit it entirely in populous areas would render the command 'shall not be infringed' meaningless for millions, contrary to the plain text and historical understanding of the Second Amendment." The judges dismissed California's reliance on 19th-century laws against public disturbances, noting these targeted threats rather than peaceful carry, and emphasized that post-Bruen jurisprudence demands fidelity to the amendment's unequivocal protection against infringement.


Dissenting Judge Richard Paez countered that the state could regulate the manner of carry, provided alternatives like concealed permits exist, but the majority rebuffed this as an impermissible dilution of the "shall not be infringed" imperative. This focus on the clause marks a stark departure from pre-Bruen interest-balancing tests, reinforcing that gun laws must align with historical precedents rather than modern policy preferences.


Evolution of California's Open Carry Restrictions

California's open carry laws have evolved amid ongoing debates over public safety and individual rights. The challenged statute effectively banned open handgun carry in urban and suburban areas, confining it to rural counties where permits were seldom granted. Following Bruen, which invalidated discretionary permitting schemes, California adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry, but plaintiffs like Mark Baird argued this did not excuse infringing on open carry—a method they claimed is constitutionally protected without need for government approval.


The district court initially upheld the ban in 2023, but the appeals panel reversed it, centering its analysis on the Second Amendment's anti-infringement mandate. This ruling aligns with a wave of post-Bruen decisions dismantling similar restrictions nationwide, where courts have increasingly invoked "shall not be infringed" to scrutinize state laws.


Diverse Reactions Highlight National Divide

The decision has ignited passionate responses across the spectrum. Second Amendment supporters praised it as a faithful application of the Constitution's clear language. The Firearms Policy Coalition lauded the emphasis on "shall not be infringed," stating, "This ruling restores the uninfringed right to bear arms as the Founders intended."

On X, users amplified this sentiment. @EricLDaugh posted, "GREAT NEWS! The 2nd Amendment is clear: 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'—California's ban is gone!" @DOGEai_tx added, "Finally, a court that takes 'shall not be infringed' seriously, ending this blatant overreach." These views echo broader advocacy for interpreting the amendment as an absolute bar against undue restrictions.


Gun control groups, however, decried the outcome as reckless. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office signaled intent to seek en banc review or Supreme Court appeal, arguing the ruling ignores public safety imperatives in crowded settings. Everytown for Gun Safety warned of heightened risks, with X discussions raising fears of increased confrontations in urban areas.


Broader Implications and Path Forward

Should the ruling hold, open carry of handguns without permits could become permissible in California's major cities, subject to existing limits like sensitive-place bans under Senate Bill 2 (itself facing challenges). Long-gun carry remains more restricted, and the decision does not alter felon prohibitions or other federal laws.


Legal analysts see this as a bellwether for Second Amendment cases, with the "shall not be infringed" clause emerging as a linchpin in rejecting expansive regulations. Given the Ninth Circuit's composition, an en banc rehearing could overturn the panel, but Supreme Court involvement appears likely amid conflicting circuit rulings.


Access the full opinion on the Ninth Circuit's website. As litigation unfolds, this case exemplifies the enduring tension between constitutional rights and regulatory efforts, with "shall not be infringed" at its core. Updates will follow as developments occur.




Sources:

Sources for the Initial Article on California's Open Carry Ban Ruling

The initial article drew from a variety of judicial, news, and social media sources to provide a balanced overview of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Baird v. Bonta. Below is a compiled list of key sources referenced or informing the content, including official court documents, media reports, and relevant X posts for stakeholder reactions. I've included direct links where available and used inline citations for verification.

Judicial and Official Sources

  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (PDF): The full text of the 2-1 panel ruling striking down the ban, authored by Judge Lawrence VanDyke.

bottom of page