In a landmark ruling that could reshape firearm law enforcement in the nation’s most populous state, a federal appeals court has declared California’s ban on openly carrying guns in most public places unconstitutional. The decision, issued on January 2, 2026, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, found that the prohibition infringes on the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the U.S. Constitution.
The panel’s 2-1 decision overturned a portion of a lower court ruling and marked one of the latest in a string of judicial challenges to California’s strict firearm regulations. Under state law, residents of counties with populations above 200,000 are prohibited from openly carrying firearms in public a ban that affects roughly 95 percent of California’s population.
The Court’s Majority Opinion and Legal Reasoning
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by former President Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, VanDyke wrote that any modern firearm restriction must be consistent with the
nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation in order to survive constitutional scrutiny.
In applying that standard, the Ninth Circuit majority concluded that California’s open-carry ban fails to align with historical practices that limited firearm restrictions. The court emphasized that openly carrying firearms in public has deep roots in American history and was long permitted throughout the United States, including in California before 2012.
VanDyke noted that more than 30 states currently allow open carry in some form and highlighted that California itself once allowed residents to openly carry holstered firearms for self-defense without penalty. Based on this historical record, the court held that open carry is part of a “longstanding tradition” protected by the Second Amendment.
The majority also emphasized that while states can impose reasonable firearm regulations, they must be grounded in historical analogues recognized under
Bruen. The court found no sufficient historical basis for California’s categorical ban on open carry in large-population counties.
What the Ruling Means for Gun Rights and Public Safety
The appellate court’s ruling strikes a significant blow to California’s extensive framework of gun control laws. For years, the state has been known for some of the toughest firearm regulations in the country, enacted with the stated goal of reducing gun violence and enhancing public safety. These laws include strict background checks, waiting periods, and limitations on where firearms can be carried or stored.
However, in light of the Supreme Court’s
Bruen decision, many gun-control measures are being reevaluated under a historical-tradition test that critics argue dramatically limits government authority to regulate firearms. The California open-carry ban joins other state restrictions that have faced successful constitutional challenges in recent years, demonstrating the growing influence of
Bruen on federal court decisions.
Supporters of gun rights have celebrated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling as a victory for constitutional liberties. They argue that law-abiding Californians should be free to openly carry firearms for self-defense and that the state’s ban was overly broad and arbitrary. Proponents also suggest the decision could spur legal efforts to challenge other restrictive gun laws in California and beyond.
Partial Upholding of Licensing Requirements
While the court struck down the broad ban on open carry, it upheld California’s existing licensing regime for less populated counties where individuals may apply for permits to openly carry firearms. The panel determined that the state’s licensing framework, including requirements that applicants demonstrate good cause and meet specific conditions, remains valid for residents of smaller counties.
This portion of the ruling means that in some parts of California typically rural areas with populations below 200,000 open carry may continue under state-issued permits. However, residents of major metropolitan counties such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange County will potentially see significant changes to how open carry laws are enforced.
Dissenting Opinion and Continued Debate
Senior Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush, dissented from the majority’s conclusion. In his opinion, Smith argued that all of California’s firearm restrictions including the open-carry ban are compatible with Supreme Court precedent. He asserted that the majority misapplied the historical tradition test and suggested that the state’s restrictions should be upheld.
Smith’s dissent reflects the ongoing debate within the judiciary over the
Bruen standard, particularly how courts should interpret and apply the historical analysis in modern contexts. As more Second Amendment cases make their way through federal courts, differences in judicial interpretation are likely to persist.
Next Steps and Potential Supreme Court Review
At this time, California officials have not indicated whether they will seek further review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The state Attorney General’s office, which defended the ban, did not immediately comment on the ruling.
Given the national significance of gun-rights litigation and the prominence of the
Bruen framework, there is a possibility that opponents of the ruling could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. If accepted, such a case could further clarify the scope of Second Amendment protections and the viability of firearm regulations across the country.
Broader Implications for Gun Law Challenges Nationwide
The Ninth Circuit’s decision comes amid a broader wave of legal challenges to gun control laws across the United States. Since the Supreme Court’s
Bruen decision, courts have increasingly scrutinized modern firearm restrictions and, in several cases,
struck down aspects of state and local gun policies as inconsistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation.
As jurisdictions nationwide grapple with balancing public safety and constitutional rights, this ruling underscores the
evolving legal landscape of firearms law in America. Observers expect that similar challenges will continue to arise, shaping how gun rights and public safety considerations are balanced in the decades ahead.
Explore the latest legal career opportunities tied to constitutional law, appellate litigation, and public policy. Visit
LawCrossing to find high-quality legal jobs, expert career resources, and exclusive openings tailored to today’s evolving legal landscape.
