Ninth Circuit Rules California's Open-Carry Ban Unconstitutional

Overview of the Ruling

On January 2, 2026, a federal appellate court ruled that California's ban on openly carrying firearms is unconstitutional. This decision stems from an interpretation of the Second Amendment that looks to the nation's historical context regarding firearm regulation. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit concluded that openly carrying firearms is a practice deeply rooted in American history.

Historical Context

The judges referenced a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that mandates courts assess gun laws based on the country's “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As Judge Lawrence VanDyke articulated, “The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this nation's history and tradition.” This ruling effectively redefines how laws pertaining to firearms might be created, focusing heavily on their historical acceptability.

Implications for California

California's legislation prohibits open carry in counties with populations over 200,000, effectively barring access for about 95% of the state's residents. This law was originally enacted in response to a growing movement of gun owners seeking to openly display unloaded firearms as part of their daily lives. While residents in less populated areas can theoretically receive an open-carry license, the bureaucratic barriers have rendered this option nearly impractical.

The Legal Proceedings

The case originated when Mark Baird sought the right to openly carry his firearm in Siskiyou County, a rural region in Northern California. Although a lower court initially sided with the State of California, the Ninth Circuit panel found the lower court's ruling contradicted the Supreme Court's directives.

Judgment Breakdown

• Majority Opinion: Judges VanDyke and Kenneth K. Lee, both appointed by President Trump, highlighted that eliminating the ability to openly carry firearms violates the Second Amendment.
• Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting judge argued that while California permits concealed carry with a permit, there's a constitutional basis for the state's right to limit open carry.

Reactions from Lawmakers

California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the ruling, labeling the majority judges as “Republican activists” seeking to revert to a “Wild West” mentality regarding gun control. He expressed confidence that the decision would likely be overturned upon appeal.

Next Steps

The controversy surrounding this ruling has prompted the California Department of Justice to review their options moving forward. A representative stated, “We are committed to defending California's common-sense gun laws.” Additionally, experts like Kostas Moros of the Second Amendment Foundation, who praised the ruling, anticipate that an en banc rehearing may lead to a reversal.

Expert Opinions

Constitutional law expert Adam Winkler from UCLA described the ruling as an aggressive push to expand Second Amendment rights, indicating that the decision could challenge states' rights to regulate firearm carry methods. Winkler noted, however, that such a ruling might not significantly influence daily life in California, where openly carrying firearms is still uncommon.

“The Ninth Circuit ruling is emblematic of the complexities surrounding U.S. gun laws post-Supreme Court, necessitating a historical reference for each case. However, the practical implications for Californians may be minimal,” he stated.

Conclusion

This ruling marks a significant shift in the legal landscape concerning firearm legislation not only in California but potentially nationwide. With the implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision unfolding, the future of gun laws may hinge on evolving interpretations of the Second Amendment and its historical underpinnings.