A federal appeals court has struck down California’s ban on openly carrying firearms across most of the state, ruling that the prohibition violates Second Amendment protections. The decision, delivered by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 vote, affects counties with populations over 200,000 – approximately 95% of California’s residents.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, writing for the majority, stated that California’s ban conflicts with the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling established that gun regulations must align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” to be considered constitutional.

“The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” VanDyke wrote. “It was clearly protected at the time of the founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The judge noted that California permitted residents to openly carry holstered handguns for self-defense without penalty until 2012, when the state implemented its urban open-carry ban. “In doing so, California joined a tiny minority of states to have adopted such severe restrictions on open carry,” VanDyke added.

The court’s decision overturns part of a 2023 ruling by a lower court that had dismissed a lawsuit filed in 2019 by gun owner Mark Baird. However, the appeals court rejected Baird’s challenge to open-carry licensing requirements in smaller counties.

This ruling represents the latest setback for California’s stringent gun control measures, which rank among the most restrictive in the nation. The state has consistently positioned itself at the forefront of gun regulation, enacting numerous laws aimed at limiting firearm access and usage.

California’s approach to gun control has faced increasing legal challenges since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which significantly altered how courts evaluate gun laws. Rather than considering a law’s public safety benefits, the Bruen standard requires gun regulations to have analogues in historical traditions.

The decision adds to a growing list of gun control defeats for California. In October, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on Glock-style firearms with features known as “switches” that allow conversion to fully automatic weapons. The NRA was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Poway Weapons & Gear, and two NRA members in that legal action.

California has been particularly aggressive in implementing gun restrictions following mass shootings, with state officials arguing that such measures are necessary for public safety. Governor Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta have championed these efforts, frequently positioning California as a model for other states seeking to reduce gun violence.

Gun rights advocates, however, contend that such restrictions primarily burden law-abiding citizens while doing little to prevent criminal use of firearms. They argue that the Second Amendment protections should not be subject to geographic restrictions within states.

The ruling does not immediately change California law, as the state will likely appeal the decision. The case could potentially reach the Supreme Court, which has shown increased willingness to hear Second Amendment cases in recent years.

If ultimately upheld, the decision would fundamentally alter public carry laws in California’s urban areas, potentially allowing residents to visibly carry firearms in public spaces where such activity has been prohibited for over a decade. The ruling represents a significant victory for gun rights advocates and highlights the ongoing tension between state-level gun control efforts and expanding federal interpretations of Second Amendment protections.