For a state that’s practically turned gun restrictions into an art form, California may soon be forced to face the music. Fresh off a legal spanking over its unconstitutional “one-gun-a-month” law, the Golden State is once again on the hot seat—this time for its near-total ban on open carry.
On June 24, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a case that challenges California’s quirky and extremely limiting rules about who gets to carry a firearm in public—and where. If you’re hoping for a “shall not be infringed” win for the Second Amendment, this could be a big one.
Let’s back up a step. Just last week, the same federal appeals court ruled that California’s law limiting citizens to buying just one firearm every 30 days was a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Now, with that decision still echoing, a three-judge panel is taking a long, hard look at another rule: the one that says only residents of counties with fewer than 200,000 people can even apply for a permit to open carry.
To put it plainly, that restriction leaves about 95% of Californians flat out of luck. If you live in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego—basically anywhere that has more people than deer—you can’t even apply. You’re not just banned from carrying in your city; you’re banned from carrying anywhere in the entire state.
That setup didn’t sit well with U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by President Trump. During the hearing, he pointed out the absurdity of the law: someone living in San Francisco can’t get a license to open carry in San Francisco or in a smaller, rural county like Nevada County, even if that smaller county technically allows it.
“So, if you live in San Francisco, you are banned from open carry anywhere in the state,” VanDyke said. You could almost hear the sound of common sense knocking, asking to be let back in.
And the nonsense doesn’t end there. Even if you manage to live in a qualifying rural county and get the elusive open carry permit, you’re still stuck inside your county line. You can’t legally carry in other rural counties—or any cities—so much for traveling safely in your own state.
Another judge on the panel, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith (a George W. Bush appointee), wasn’t buying the state’s historical arguments either. According to the state’s legal team, the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision gives them leeway to restrict one form of public carry as long as another is theoretically available.
But Judge Smith pushed back, noting that during the country’s founding era, open carry wasn’t banned just because concealed carry was allowed. In fact, it was the opposite—concealed carry was the one frowned upon, and open carry was considered the norm for self-defense.
“There were no public judicial decisions, no legal commentators, no state statutes during that time saying it was okay to ban open carry just because concealed carry was on the table,” Smith pointed out. “None of the regulations banned open carry by allowing concealed carry.”
He’s right. The historical record doesn’t favor California’s argument, and that could be a serious problem for Attorney General Rob Bonta and his crew. The logic coming from the bench seemed pretty clear: You can’t claim to offer the public a way to exercise their rights when that path is blocked by red tape and population thresholds.
The state tried to lean on Bruen, suggesting the Court left room to ban open carry as long as concealed carry is an option. But even that’s misleading. In California, getting a concealed carry permit is a legal obstacle course, not a legitimate alternative.
Judge Smith cut right to the chase: “They say the only manner of public carry that effectuates the right of self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and is therefore the public carry protected by the amendment, is open carry.”
That’s the ballgame, folks.
Arguments will continue in the coming weeks, and the 9th Circuit panel is expected to issue a decision later this summer. If the judges stay consistent with their recent ruling on the one-gun-a-month law, California may find itself forced to recognize that the Second Amendment means what it says—and applies to everyone, not just people who live next to a cow pasture.
