Law California ban on openly carrying guns is unconstitutional, court rules

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
By Nate Raymond
January 2, 2026 9:34 PM UTC

1767393786496.png
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke appears in a video released by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as part of his dissent from a ruling upholding California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, in California, U.S., in this screengrab taken from a handout video released on March 20, 2025. 9th U.S....

Jan 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that California's ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state was unconstitutional.

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided, 2-1 with a gun owner in ruling that the state's prohibition against open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people violated U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

About 95% of the population in California, which has had some of the nation's strictest gun-control laws, live in counties of that size.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said the Democratic-led state's law could not stand under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 landmark gun rights ruling.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, was issued by the court's 6-3 conservative super-majority and established a new legal test for firearms restrictions. The test said they must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

VanDyke, whose opinion on Friday was joined by another Trump appointee, said the latest case "unquestionably involves a historical practice — open carry — that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791."

He noted that more than 30 states generally allow open carry. California itself allowed citizens to carry handguns openly and holstered for self-defense without penalty until 2012, he said.

"The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition," VanDyke said.

The ruling partially reversed a 2023 decision by a lower-court judge who had rejected a 2019 challenge to the law by gun owner Mark Baird.

While the appeals court largely sided with Baird, it rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, which may issue open-carry permits.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, who was appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush, dissented, saying his colleagues "got this case half right" as all of California's restrictions complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Baird's lawyer had no immediate comment. Spokespeople for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office defended the state's ban, did not respond to a request for comment.

The 2022 Supreme Court ruling has prompted court cases nationwide challenging modern firearm restrictions, including in California.

A 9th Circuit panel in September 2024 upheld a California law that prohibits people with concealed-carry permits from carrying firearms at several categories of "sensitive places" like bars, parks, zoos, stadiums and museums.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Cynthia Osterman

Source (Archive)
 

Attachments

While the appeals court largely sided with Baird, it rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, which may issue open-carry permits.
As based as disarming leftist hive dwellers might be, how do you justify population density being the basis of a citizen's civil rights?
 
I'd really prefer we eliminate the circumstances that would motivate someone to open carry to begin with, but it's never really bothered me. I like knowing someone is armed vs. it being a surprise if or when shit goes down.

As based as disarming leftist hive dwellers might be, how do you justify population density being the basis of a citizen's civil rights?
Not sure, but my line of reasoning would be less populated areas have fewer civic resources to deal with crime.

A population of less than 200,000 people in a California county is basically wilderness.
 
The only time seeing someone open carry should worry you is when it is a nigger that looks like a stereotypical nigger.
 
And now they are going to go back to the drawing board to cook up yet another law ala New York and their gun laws.
 
Not sure, but my line of reasoning would be less populated areas have fewer civic resources to deal with crime.

A population of less than 200,000 people in a California county is basically wilderness.
Cities don't have those supernatural magical resources either.

The police in any American jurisdiction have no legal obligation to protect you from someone trying to harm or kill you.

There was a legal case in NYC a few years ago that upheld this.

The school cop at the parkland shooting getting fired or whatever for hiding is the exception, not the rule.

Left-wing people have this very weird point of view based on nothing but their own fantasies that the police in a city have the ability to stop a crime from happening against them.

The only thing that stops force is greater force.
 
Left-wing people have this very weird point of view based on nothing but their own fantasies that the police in a city have the ability to stop a crime from happening against them.
Left-wing faggots don't want wypipo to have either the practical ability or the legal permissions necessary to defend themselves from subhuman violent niggers, because "reparations." Assholes.

just watch: In less than a month, NYC is going to be in constant flames and knee-deep in garbage, white corpses, and nigger shit
 
I'd really prefer we eliminate the circumstances that would motivate someone to open carry to begin with, but it's never really bothered me. I like knowing someone is armed vs. it being a surprise if or when shit goes down.
We need to eliminate the desire and will to protect loved ones! Did your wife’s boyfriend give you permission to post this?

Shall not be infringed.
 
how do you justify population density being the basis of a citizen's civil rights?
my line of reasoning would be less populated areas have fewer civic resources to deal with crime
There is no sacred principle at play here. Remember, words don't have meaning to them, they're just a tool to get what they want.

200,000 is the magical size because someone plugged it into a map and it covered 95% of the state. Like when DC & Chicongo couldn't ban guns any more, and begrudgingly issued permits, but mandated training and prohibited training facilities from within 1000 ft of schools, libraries, etc which just happened to make the entire city off limits.
 
California would be far more lax on gun laws if not for the bay area homos who insist that people who own guns are crazy.
If you go to southern California despite the dems best attempts to stop it San Bernardino county is saying fuck you along with the rural counties too.
 
There is no sacred principle at play here. Remember, words don't have meaning to them, they're just a tool to get what they want.

200,000 is the magical size because someone plugged it into a map and it covered 95% of the state. Like when DC & Chicongo couldn't ban guns any more, and begrudgingly issued permits, but mandated training and prohibited training facilities from within 1000 ft of schools, libraries, etc which just happened to make the entire city off limits.
I forgot rational decision-making is not behind this.

Maybe we should just put me in charge for a while. I guarantee you it will be something you've never experienced before.

Well, at least in the United States.
 
This doesn't really matter. The courts have ruled a lot of anti-gun laws to be un-Constitutional, and you know what the states do? Just ignore them and ban it anyways. Storage requirements are illegal, but still enforced in half the nation, amongst many others. The laws only matter if someone enforces them, and there is no enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS decisions.
 
The leftie legislatures will write another obviously unconstitutional law immediately, begin enforcing it immediately, and then drag the court case out for as long as they can until they, again and of course, lose. The revolving door of unconstitutional gun control laws will continue until states are punished by the feds every time they write one. In an ideal world the politicians that write obviously unconstitutional laws would be personally punished, but that won't ever happen because politicians can't be held accountable for anything ever.
 
Back
Top Bottom