{"id":488706,"date":"2026-01-03T05:08:10","date_gmt":"2026-01-03T05:08:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/488706\/"},"modified":"2026-01-03T05:08:10","modified_gmt":"2026-01-03T05:08:10","slug":"californias-ban-on-open-carry-of-firearms-is-ruled-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/488706\/","title":{"rendered":"California\u2019s ban on open carry of firearms is ruled unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

California\u2019s ban on the open carry of firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional, a San Francisco-based federal appeals court ruled Friday. <\/p>\n

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the ban, which applied to counties with populations greater than 200,000, violates residents\u2019 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Under those regulations, 95% of the state\u2019s population was subject to the ban. <\/p>\n

The 2-1 opinion was supported by two appointees of President Trump, U.S. Circuit Judges Lawrence VanDyke<\/a> and Kenneth Kiyul Lee. U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, dissented.<\/p>\n

VanDyke, writing for the majority, stated that California\u2019s urban ban on open-carry permits does not stand under the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark gun rights ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen. That 2022 decision made it much easier to carry a gun in public by striking down laws that required people to show a special need for self-defense.<\/p>\n

It also established a test for determining whether a state\u2019s gun regulations violate the Constitution by requiring that restrictions are consistent with \u201cthe historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/p>\n

VanDyke wrote in his opinion that California\u2019s open-carry ban fails this test.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation\u2019s history and tradition,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIt was clearly protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

He further noted that California\u2019s rationale for the restriction \u2014 that open carry has the potential to create panic, chaos and an unsafe environment \u2014 are challenges that have existed and been alternatively dealt with since the nation\u2019s founding.<\/p>\n

He wrote that open carry has been the \u201cdefault lawful means\u201d to carry a firearm for most of American history and that more than 30 states, including those with significant urban populations, currently allow the open carry of firearms.<\/p>\n

Smith, writing in dissent, argued that because California upholds the right to bear arms through its concealed-carry permits, it can restrict open-carry permits.<\/p>\n

\u201cA state may not prohibit the public carriage of firearms by eliminating both open and concealed carry, but a state can lawfully eliminate one manner of carry to protect and ensure the safety of its citizens, as long as they are able to carry in another manner,\u201d Smith wrote.<\/p>\n

The case resulted from a challenge brought by Siskiyou County resident Mark Baird, who contested both the state\u2019s open-carry ban and the licensing requirements for open-carry permits in rural counties. <\/p>\n

While the appeals court ruled the open-carry ban unconstitutional, it upheld the state\u2019s open-carry permit process. Baird\u2019s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.<\/p>\n

A representative for the California attorney general\u2019s office said Friday that the office is \u201ccommitted to defending California\u2019s commonsense gun laws\u201d and \u201creviewing the opinion and considering all options.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"California\u2019s ban on the open carry of firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional, a San…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":488707,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[78111,220493,11661,19431,1582,276,42439,5208,118113,2961,224,5337,220492,1245,118117,118109,220491,1269,290],"class_list":{"0":"post-488706","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-appeal-court","9":"tag-appointee","10":"tag-arm","11":"tag-ban","12":"tag-ca","13":"tag-california","14":"tag-firearm","15":"tag-friday","16":"tag-historical-tradition","17":"tag-la","18":"tag-los-angeles","19":"tag-losangeles","20":"tag-most-part","21":"tag-nation","22":"tag-open-carry","23":"tag-open-carry-ban","24":"tag-open-carry-permit","25":"tag-opinion","26":"tag-state"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115829440760769223","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/488706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=488706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/488706\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/488707"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=488706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=488706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=488706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}