9th Circuit Blocks Open Carry Ban in Most California Counties

Table of Contents

Overview of the Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit made a significant decision on Friday, ruling against California’s ban on open carry of firearms in most counties. This decision has implications for gun owners across the state, particularly in areas with larger populations.

Key Details of the Decision

The San Francisco-based court declared the ban unconstitutional in counties with a population exceeding 200,000. These counties account for 95% of California's population. The ruling was based on the argument that the ban is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision came as part of a lawsuit filed by gun owner Mark Baird against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The 9th Circuit panel partially affirmed and partially reversed a 2023 ruling by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for Eastern California.

Legal Background and Standards Applied

The 9th Circuit panel, composed of judges N. Randy Smith, Kenneth K. Lee, and Lawrence VanDyke, applied the standard set forth in a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. They noted that open carry is part of the 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,” the judges wrote in their ruling. “There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation.”

California failed to present evidence of "a relevant historical tradition of firearm regulation with respect to California's urban open-carry ban," according to the ruling.

Implications for Different County Sizes

The judges found that the Bruen standard applies to counties with populations exceeding 200,000. However, they concluded that Baird, the plaintiff, waived his "as-applied challenge" by not contesting the district court's dismissal in regard to counties with fewer than 200,000 people.

They affirmed the district court's rejection of Baird's challenge to the open-carry licensing scheme in less populated counties, which may issue open-carry permits.

Diverging Opinions Within the Panel

One of the judges, Smith, partially concurred and partially dissented with the majority opinion. He argued that the restrictions on open carry in more populous counties are constitutional.

“My colleagues got this case half right,” Smith wrote. “The majority opinion correctly holds that California’s open carry licensing scheme is facially constitutional under Bruen. However, my colleagues misread Bruen to prohibit California’s other restrictions on open carry."

"We should have affirmed the district court," Smith said, referring to the entire lower court ruling.

Response from the State Attorney General

The Center Square reached out to the state Attorney General’s Office, which stated, "We are committed to defending California's commonsense gun laws. We are reviewing the opinion and considering all options."

Conclusion

This ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun laws and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this decision will likely be felt across the state, particularly in densely populated areas where the ban was previously in place. The outcome underscores the importance of historical context in legal interpretations and the role of judicial review in shaping public policy.