Monday, January 5, 2026
Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Ban on Open-Carrying of Weapons in Large Counties Is Invalid
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California’s ban on the open-carrying of firearms in counties with populations greater than 200,000 violates the Second Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared Friday.
The statutory ban, Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote, is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, a New York statute authorizing issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon only upon a showing of “proper cause” was held to be violative of the Second Amendment.
He said:
“[W]e conclude that California’s de jure ban on open carry in counties with a population above 200,000 is inconsistent with the right to bear arms as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
There was a concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee and a partial dissent by Senior Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith.
Summary Judgment
Friday’s opinion partially affirms and reverses a summary judgment in favor of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a challenge to open-carrying restrictions brought by Mark Baird, a resident of Siskiyou County. VanDyke wrote:
“We agree with Baud that California’s ban on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200.000 fails under Bruen, and we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue. With respect to Baird’s as-applied and facial challenges to California’s licensing requirements hi comities with populations of less than 200.000. we conclude that Baud waived his as-applied challenge by not contesting the district court’s dismissal in his opening brief and that Baird’s facial challenge fails on the merits on the record of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Baird’s challenges to the licensing scheme in counties with populations of less than 200.000.”
VanDyke noted that approximately 95 percent of the state’s population dwell in counties with more than 200,000 residents.
Case Stands Out
In finding the ban in counties with more than 200,000 invalid, VanDyke said:
“Although this court has recently confronted a panoply of Second Amendment cases, this case stands out in that it unquestionably involves a historical practice—open carry— that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. This case does not necessarily involve any new technology…or any alleged social changes….The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, applying the Supreme Court’s methodology in Bruen, this is a ‘straightforward’ case that does not require a court to embark on the more difficult analogical journey under the ‘nuanced approach.’”
VanDyke wrote that a “correct understanding of Bruen and of our historical tradition of firearm regulation leads inevitably to the conclusion we reach today.”
Concurring Opinion
Lee, joined by VanDyke, asserted:
“…California tries to hide the fact that citizens hi those counties have a right to open carry their weapon under the law. Our constitutional rights, however, should not hinge on a Where’s Waldo quiz.
“California routinely sues private companies for engaging in similar deceptive conduct.”
Smith said in his dissent:
“Bruen held that the history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether.’…My colleagues defy Bruen and hold that California may not restrict open carry while preserving Califomians’ ability to concealed carry. Although mv colleagues can disagree with the breadth of Bruen’s holding, we ‘are never free to defy’ the Supreme Court.”
The case is Baird v. Bonta, 24-565.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company