U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Open Carry Ban

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last week delivered a significant win for the Second Amendment, siding with a California man who challenged the state’s long-standing ban on openly carrying firearms. The case was brought by Siskiyou County resident Mark Baird, who argued that California’s restrictions on open carry violate both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

At issue was a 2012 state law that bans the open carry of a loaded firearm in counties with populations exceeding 200,000—effectively covering roughly 95 percent of Californians. While residents of rural counties like Siskiyou are theoretically allowed to apply for an open-carry permit, Baird alleged that the system is a sham. After repeatedly attempting to apply, he was allegedly told by local licensing authorities that no such permits would be issued under any circumstances.

Baird filed suit in 2019 after exhausting those efforts. A lower court dismissed his claims, prompting an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where he asked the court to restore to “the citizens of California… the right to carry a handgun open and exposed on one’s person for self-defense.”

The Ninth Circuit majority ruled in Baird’s favor, grounding its decision in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying that framework, the panel concluded that California’s open-carry ban cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. “Open carry,” the court wrote, “was unquestionably part of our Nation’s history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, emphasized that California’s prohibition lacks any meaningful historical analogue. “For the first 162 years of its history,” Lee wrote, “open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California.” From statehood in 1850 until the Mulford Act of 1967, public carry—whether open or concealed—was largely unregulated. When California did begin restricting public carry, the court noted, the motivations were deeply troubling.

The Mulford Act, signed into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, was enacted in direct response to the Black Panther Party’s practice of openly carrying firearms while monitoring police activity in African American neighborhoods. Prior to that, California lawmakers considered a carry ban in 1856 that was narrowly aimed at disarming “Mexicans.” In other words, the court found that California’s deviation from its historical tradition of open carry was rooted not in public safety, but in race-based and politically motivated fears. Today, 46 states allow some form of open carry. California remains a clear outlier—a status that dates back to the Mulford Act rather than any Founding-era tradition.

In dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith argued that California’s ban is constitutional because the state allows concealed carry permits. Smith, appointed to the bench in 2007 by President George W. Bush, maintained that the existence of one method of carry satisfies the Second Amendment. The majority rejected that logic, noting that Bruen does not permit states to eliminate historically protected forms of carry simply because another option exists—especially when that option is itself heavily regulated. Judges Lee and VanDyke, both appointed by President Trump, sided with Baird. VanDyke, in particular, is well known for his deep familiarity with firearms law and Second Amendment history.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is expected to seek further review, either through an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit or an appeal to the Supreme Court. If the ruling stands, it would represent another major post-Bruen setback for California’s gun-control regime—and further confirmation that states cannot rely on modern policy preferences or historically tainted laws to justify sweeping restrictions on a constitutional right.

At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we’ll continue tracking these cases as courts slowly—but decisively—begin forcing anti-gun states back into constitutional compliance.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube Channel @2ifbyseatactical and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.