In a significant ruling for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court in the United States has declared California's long-standing prohibition on openly carrying firearms in most public places to be unconstitutional. The decision, handed down on January 2nd, directly challenges one of the nation's strictest gun control regimes and could have ripple effects for legal debates beyond U.S. borders.
A Landmark Decision Based on Historical Tradition
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favour of a gun owner who challenged the state law. The majority opinion, written by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, found that California's ban on open carry in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 people violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Judge VanDyke, appointed by former President Donald Trump, anchored the decision in the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case established that modern firearm regulations must be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." VanDyke argued that open carry is a practice with deep historical roots, stating it "unquestionably involves a historical practice... that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791."
The judge noted that over 30 U.S. states generally permit open carry and that California itself allowed the holstered, open carry of handguns for self-defense until it enacted a ban in 2012.
Impact and Dissenting Voices
The court's decision has immediate consequences for the vast majority of Californians. Approximately 95% of the state's population resides in counties large enough to be affected by the now-invalidated ban. The ruling partially reversed a 2023 decision by a lower-court judge who had rejected the original 2019 challenge brought by gun owner Mark Baird.
However, the appeals court did not side entirely with the plaintiff. It upheld California's licensing requirements for open carry in smaller counties (those with fewer than 200,000 residents), where permits may still be issued.
A dissenting opinion came from Senior Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush. He argued his colleagues "got this case half right" and believed all of California's restrictions complied with the Supreme Court's Bruen precedent.
Legal Fallout and Next Steps
The office of California's Democratic Attorney General, Rob Bonta, who defended the ban, stated it is "considering its options" in response to the ruling. A spokesperson reaffirmed a commitment to "defending California’s common sense gun laws."
This case is part of a wave of legal challenges across the United States testing modern firearm restrictions against the new historical standard set by the Supreme Court's conservative majority. In a related but separate decision, a different 9th Circuit panel upheld a California law in September 2024 that bars people with concealed-carry permits from bringing firearms into "sensitive places" like parks, museums, and stadiums.
The ongoing judicial scrutiny highlights the intense and evolving legal battle over the scope of the Second Amendment, a debate watched closely by policymakers and legal experts internationally, including in Canada where firearm regulations are frequently compared and contrasted.
