A federal appeals court in the United States has delivered a significant blow to California's stringent firearm regulations, declaring the state's ban on openly carrying guns in public to be unconstitutional.
Court Sides with Gun Owner in Landmark Ruling
On Friday, a panel from the San Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favour of a legal challenge brought by a gun owner. The court found that California's prohibition against the open carry of firearms in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 people violates the US Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
This decision directly impacts the vast majority of Californians, as approximately 95% of the state's population resides in counties of that size. The ruling partially reverses a 2023 decision by a lower-court judge who had rejected the 2019 challenge initiated by gun owner Mark Baird.
Historical Tradition Cited in Legal Reasoning
Writing for the majority, US Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, stated the state's law could not withstand scrutiny under the US Supreme Court's pivotal 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen.
That Supreme Court decision established a new legal test, requiring modern firearm restrictions to be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Judge VanDyke, joined by another Trump appointee, argued that open carry is a historical practice that predates the 1791 ratification of the Bill of Rights.
He noted that California first banned public carry with the 1967 Mulford Act, a law partly enacted in reaction to armed patrols by the Black Panther Party. VanDyke cited this origin as an example of the "racial animus" underlying the state's current approach. The judge also pointed out that more than 30 US states generally permit open carry.
Dissent and Wider Legal Context
Senior US Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented from the majority opinion. He argued his colleagues "got this case half right," believing all of California's restrictions complied with the Supreme Court's precedent.
While the appeals court sided with the plaintiff on the main issue, it rejected a related challenge to California's licensing requirements in smaller counties, which may issue open-carry permits. A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office defended the ban, did not immediately comment.
This ruling is part of a wave of legal challenges to modern gun laws following the 2022 Bruen decision. In a separate but related development, a Ninth Circuit panel upheld a different California law in September 2024 that bars people with concealed-carry permits from taking firearms into "sensitive places" like parks and museums. The Supreme Court is also set to hear a major case in March concerning gun rights for marijuana users.
