Trump-Appointed Judges Drive Ninth Circuit Ruling Striking Down California Open-Carry Ban
- Bill Postmus (Staff Writer)
- Jan 3
- 3 min read
By Bill Postmus Staff Writer
A divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered one of the most significant Second Amendment rulings in recent California history, striking down the state’s long-standing ban on open carry in most populated counties.
In a 2–1 decision in Baird v. Bonta, the court ruled that California’s near-total prohibition on openly carrying firearms violates the Second Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition framework.
What the Law Did
For decades, California prohibited open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents a population threshold that effectively covered most of the state. While concealed-carry permits technically existed, they were often difficult to obtain and left many law-abiding citizens without a practical way to exercise the right to bear arms in public.
The Ninth Circuit majority concluded that this regulatory structure crossed a constitutional line.
Who Decided the Case
Majority
Lawrence VanDyke (Trump appointee)Authored the majority opinion, holding that open carry is historically protected and that California’s ban fails constitutional scrutiny.
Kenneth Kiyul Lee (Trump appointee)Joined the majority and wrote a concurrence highlighting how California’s system promised rights on paper but denied them in practice.
Dissent
N. Randy Smith (George W. Bush appointee)Argued the state may regulate the manner of carry and that concealed-carry availability should satisfy the Second Amendment.
What Happens Next for California
Option 1: En Banc Review
Bonta can ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, meaning an 11-judge panel rather than the original three.
This is a route California frequently takes in high-profile gun cases. A larger panel could:
Reverse the ruling
Narrow its reach
Or allow it to stand, strengthening its precedential value
Historically, en banc review has been a friendlier forum for state regulators — but that advantage has narrowed as the court’s composition has changed.
Option 2: Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
The Attorney General could instead petition the U.S. Supreme Court directly.
That move carries greater risk. The Court’s current majority authored New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which sharply limited states’ ability to restrict firearm rights without historical support. A Supreme Court loss could lock this ruling in nationally.
For California, the strategic question is simple: does appealing risk making the law even worse for the state?
Why This Case Matters Legally
The Test Applied:Courts must now ask whether a gun restriction is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation — not whether lawmakers believe it promotes public safety.
What the Court Found:The Ninth Circuit held that open carry was common and accepted at the founding and that California’s sweeping ban had no historical analogue.
Why This Is Bigger Than California:Other states with aggressive public-carry restrictions could now face similar challenges, especially in federal courts applying Bruen strictly.
Why This Matters
For California voters, lawmakers, and litigators, the message is unmistakable: the courts are now enforcing the outer limits of gun regulation — and those limits are tightening.
Additional Credible News Coverage
Associated Press:https://apnews.com
Reuters (Legal & Gun Policy Analysis):https://www.reuters.com
The Wall Street Journal:https://www.wsj.com
Los Angeles Times:https://www.latimes.com
Each outlet has noted that Baird v. Bonta is part of a growing post-Bruen trend in which courts — not legislatures — are driving gun policy outcomes.
Comments