A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most of the state is unconstitutional, marking a significant development in ongoing national litigation over the scope of the Second Amendment.
In a 2–1 decision, the panel struck down a California law that prohibits the open carry of firearms in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 — a restriction that applies to roughly 95 % of the state’s residents. The court concluded that the ban violates constitutional protections as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.
Writing for the majority, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law could not be reconciled with historical traditions of firearm regulation in the United States. Under current Supreme Court precedent, he wrote, modern gun restrictions must be consistent with regulations that were widely accepted at the time the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted. The panel found California failed to meet that standard.
A dissenting judge disagreed, arguing that because California permits the concealed carry of firearms with a license statewide, the state retains the authority to prohibit open carry. The dissent said the Constitution does not require states to allow every method of public carry if at least one lawful option remains available.
State Response And Next Legal Steps
Officials in the administration of Gavin Newsom sharply criticized the ruling. In a statement, the governor’s office said the open-carry restrictions were carefully designed to comply with constitutional requirements while protecting public safety. State officials indicated they are reviewing their legal options, including seeking rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or appealing the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Gun-rights advocates welcomed the decision. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the ruling a major affirmation of the right to bear arms in public. Legal analysts noted that because of the Ninth Circuit’s size and influence, the case could have implications far beyond California if it proceeds to further review.
California’s Gun Laws And Historical Context
California has long enforced some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation. The law at issue barred open carry in the state’s more populated counties while still allowing concealed carry with a permit. State lawmakers have argued that the framework strikes a balance between constitutional rights and public safety concerns, particularly in urban areas.
The appeals court decision, however, reflects a broader shift in how federal courts evaluate firearm regulations. That shift stems from the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which fundamentally changed the legal test for gun laws. Under Bruen, courts may no longer weigh public-safety benefits against gun restrictions. Instead, governments must demonstrate that modern laws are consistent with historical firearm regulations.
Part Of A National Legal Trend
The California ruling is one of many post-Bruen decisions challenging longstanding gun regulations across the country. Courts have increasingly scrutinized limits on public carry, permit requirements, and designations of “sensitive places” where firearms may be restricted.
Legal scholars say the Ninth Circuit decision highlights a growing divide among courts over whether states may prohibit one form of public carry — such as open carry — if another form remains available. As similar cases move through other federal circuits, the issue is widely expected to return to the Supreme Court for further clarification.
For now, the ruling underscores the continuing legal uncertainty surrounding gun policy in the United States, as courts, lawmakers, and advocacy groups navigate a rapidly evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment.
