Key Takeaways:
- A US appeals court has ruled that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional.
- The ruling was made by a panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided 2-1 with a gun owner in the case.
- The court found that the state’s prohibition against open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people violated the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
- 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.
- The appeals court rejected Baird’s related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents.
Introduction to the Ruling
The US appeals court’s decision on Friday has significant implications for gun owners in California, as it rules that the state’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional. The panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided 2-1 with a gun owner, Mark Baird, in ruling that the state’s prohibition against open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people violated the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This decision affects approximately 95% of the population in California, which has had some of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws.
The Court’s Reasoning
US Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, stated that the Democratic-led state’s law could not stand under the US Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark gun rights ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. This decision established a new legal test for firearms restrictions, requiring them to be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." VanDyke noted that open carry is a historical practice that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, and 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.
Historical Context
The historical record, as cited by VanDyke, makes it clear that open carry is part of the nation’s history and tradition. The fact that California allowed open carry until 2012 further supports this argument. VanDyke’s opinion, joined by another Trump appointee, emphasized that the state’s law could not withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling partially reversed a 2023 decision by a lower-court judge who had rejected Baird’s 2019 challenge to the law. However, the appeals court rejected Baird’s related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, which may issue open-carry permits.
Dissenting Opinion
Senior US Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, who was appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush, dissented from the majority opinion, stating that his colleagues "got this case half right" as all of California’s restrictions complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Smith’s dissent highlights the ongoing debate surrounding gun control laws and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The disagreement among the judges underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for further clarification on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Reaction and Implications
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the state’s ban, stated that his office is considering its options and is committed to defending California’s common sense gun laws. 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. The latest ruling is likely to have significant implications for gun owners in California and may lead to further challenges to the state’s gun control laws.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the US appeals court’s ruling that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state is unconstitutional has significant implications for gun owners in the state. The decision, which was based on the Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark gun rights ruling, highlights the ongoing debate surrounding gun control laws and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. As the case may be appealed further, it is likely to continue to be a topic of discussion and controversy in the coming months. The ruling also underscores the importance of considering the historical context and tradition of firearm regulation in the United States, and how this context informs the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Ultimately, the decision will have far-reaching consequences for gun owners in California and may lead to changes in the state’s gun control laws.