9th Circuit Panel Rules California Ban On Open Carry In Populous Counties Unconstitutional

A federal appeals panel has ruled that a California law prohibiting the open carry of firearms in more populated counties violates the U.S. Constitution. The decision was issued Friday by a two-judge majority on a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

What the Court Found

The majority concluded that California’s rule — which confines open carry to counties with fewer than 200,000 residents — is incompatible with the Second Amendment because it effectively bans open carry in urban areas where most Californians live. The panel wrote:

“California’s legal regime is a complete ban on open carry in urban areas — the areas of the state where 95% of the people live.”

Dissent And Legal Context

One judge on the panel dissented, arguing that the state may lawfully restrict open carry in more populated counties because California provides for concealed-carry permits statewide. The ruling comes in the wake of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped the legal test for evaluating gun restrictions and has been central to subsequent challenges to firearms laws.

Case Background

The lawsuit was brought by Mark Baird, a resident of Siskiyou County, who asked the courts to restore what he described as the historical practice of allowing open carry throughout the state. The case raises broader questions about how courts should apply the Supreme Court’s 2022 guidance when assessing state restrictions on carrying firearms in public.

Reactions And Next Steps

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said he expects state officials to seek an en banc rehearing before the full 9th Circuit. “It’s a very significant opinion,” Michel said, noting the role of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in the analysis.

The press office for Gov. Gavin Newsom defended the law in a social media statement, saying it had been carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment and arguing the rule protects public safety in cities. The state is likely to consider seeking rehearing or ultimately appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.

Implications

The ruling could lead to renewed litigation and political debate over the balance between gun rights recognized by recent Supreme Court precedent and state efforts to regulate firearms in densely populated areas. If appealed, the case may have wider consequences for how other states craft open-carry and public-safety regulations.