Victory for Second Amendment rights rang out on Jan. 3, 2026, as a federal appeals court declared California’s ban on openly carrying firearms unconstitutional.
In a landmark 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the state’s prohibition on open carry in counties with over 200,000 residents, impacting 95% of CA’s population, as The Guardian reports.
California has long enforced some of the nation’s toughest gun-control measures, dating back to the Mulford Act of 1967. That law emerged partly as a response to armed demonstrations by the Black Panther Party at the state capitol. Over time, restrictions tightened, shaping the state’s current policies.
Until 2012, CA allowed open carry of unloaded, holstered handguns for personal protection. That year, the state outlawed the practice, further clamping down on firearm freedoms. This set the stage for a significant legal challenge years later.
In 2019, gun owner Mark Baird contested the open carry ban, targeting the restriction in counties with populations exceeding 200,000. A lower court dismissed his case in 2023, upholding the state’s rules. But Baird persisted, taking his fight to a higher level.
On Jan. 3, 2026, the Ninth Circuit delivered a pivotal decision, ruling 2-1 that the ban in larger counties violates the Second Amendment. This decision partially reversed the earlier dismissal of Baird’s challenge. It marked a significant win for advocates of firearm rights.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by President Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion, joined by another Trump appointee. He argued the state’s law clashed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision demanded gun laws match historical traditions.
Judge VanDyke emphasized the deep roots of open carry in American history. “The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote. This grounding in precedent should remind overzealous regulators that rights aren’t theirs to erase.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented on the ruling. “Got this case half right,” he remarked about his colleagues’ decision. Yet, isn’t half a victory still a loss for those who prioritize constitutional fidelity over state overreach?
While the court favored Baird on the larger-county ban, it upheld CA’s licensing rules for open carry in smaller counties under 200,000 residents. These allow local authorities to grant permits. Baird’s broader challenge to these requirements didn’t succeed in this round.
VanDyke also pointed out that over 30 states permit open carry without such stringent barriers. He critiqued the Mulford Act’s origins, suggesting historical bias tainted CA’s modern stance. This raises questions about whether past fears should dictate current freedoms.
The 2022 Bruen ruling by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has sparked nationwide challenges to firearm restrictions. In March 2026, the court will tackle United States v. Hemani, probing if federal bans on gun ownership by marijuana users hold up. The legal landscape keeps evolving.
Neither Baird’s legal team nor spokespeople for CA Attorney General Rob Bonta offered comments on the ruling. Their silence leaves the public guessing about next steps. Will the state appeal, or accept this blow to its restrictive framework?
In September 2024, a Ninth Circuit panel sustained a CA law barring concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms into “sensitive places” like bars and parks. This shows the judiciary’s mixed signals on gun rights. Consistency in upholding the Second Amendment remains a work in progress.
This ruling is a clear signal to progressive policymakers: the Constitution isn’t a suggestion. With 95% of Californians affected by the overturned ban, the impact is massive. Americans deserve to exercise their rights without state interference dressed up as public safety.
