The Ninth Circuit has issued a significant Second Amendment ruling in Baird v. Bonta, filed January 2, 2026, striking down California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations over 200,000.
- The panel made it clear:
• Open carry is deeply rooted in American history
• States can’t ban it just because they prefer concealed carry
• California failed its burden — again
Gun owner Mark Baird had previously filed a civil rights lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing the ban was unconstitutional. A federal district court denied Baird’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, without providing an analysis of Baird’s likelihood of succeeding on the merits.
THE EPOCH TIMES
The Ninth Circuit then vacated the ruling and sent the case back to the district court to properly consider Baird’s likelihood of success. Instead, the district court failed to comply with the Ninth Circuit’s direction and granted summary judgment in favor of the state.
On Jan. 2, the panel reversed the district court’s ruling.
The Decision
In a 2-1 ruling, the court held that California’s urban open-carry ban violates the Second Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge VanDyke wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Lee. Judge N.R. Smith dissented.
Key Holdings
The court found that open carry has been protected since the Founding era and through Reconstruction. Applying the Bruen framework, the majority concluded this is a “straightforward” case requiring no complex analogical analysis because the historical record clearly shows open carry was never banned during the relevant periods.
The ruling affects California Penal Code sections 25850 and 26350, which criminalize openly carrying firearms (loaded or unloaded) in public. These provisions effectively ban open carry for approximately 95% of California’s population living in the 28 counties exceeding 200,000 residents.
What the Court Affirmed
The panel upheld California’s licensing scheme for rural counties with populations under 200,000, finding Baird waived his as-applied challenge and that the facial challenge fails under Bruen‘s indication that shall-issue licensing regimes can be constitutional.
The Concurrence
Judge Lee’s concurrence, joined by Judge VanDyke, criticized California’s open-carry license application form as misleading. The 17-page document is titled for concealed carry weapons and mentions “concealed” or “CCW” 67 times without ever using the phrase “open carry.”
The Dissent
Judge Smith argued the majority misreads Bruen, which held states cannot ban “public carry altogether” but permits restricting one manner of carry while allowing another. Since California permits concealed carry statewide, Smith contended the open-carry restrictions are constitutional. He noted this creates a circuit split with the Second Circuit’s recent Frey v. City of New York decision upholding similar restrictions.
Local Impact
Siskiyou County is among the 30 California counties with populations under 200,000 where open-carry licenses are theoretically available. The plaintiff, Mark Baird, is a Siskiyou County resident who alleged local authorities told him no open-carry licenses would be issued despite the statutory framework.
What Happens Next
The case returns to the Eastern District of California with instructions to enter judgment for Baird on the urban open-carry ban challenge. California will likely seek en banc review or petition the Supreme Court, particularly given the circuit split with the Second Circuit.
note: 30 counties have populations below 200,000 (where open carry licenses are theoretically available)
28 counties have populations above 200,000 (where open carry is completely banned)
Below: FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
| FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK BAIRD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant – Appellee. | No. 24-565 |
