The California open carry lawsuit, Baird v. Bonta, is currently pending before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel struck down the state’s ban on openly carrying firearms in counties with more than 200,000 residents on January 2, 2026, but the full court vacated that decision on April 15, 2026, and agreed to rehear the case en banc. California’s open-carry restrictions remain fully in effect, and no county has begun issuing open-carry licenses.1Justia. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
What California’s Open Carry Laws Prohibit
Two statutes do most of the work. Penal Code Section 25850 makes it a crime to carry a loaded firearm in public. Penal Code Section 26350, added by Assembly Bill 144 in 2012, makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in incorporated cities and certain unincorporated areas.2Justia. Cal. Penal Code § 26350 Together they amount to a general ban on open carry across the state’s urban areas.3Giffords Law Center. Open Carry in California
A narrow exception in Sections 26150 and 26155 allows sheriffs and police chiefs in counties with populations under 200,000 to issue licenses for carrying a loaded, exposed handgun. On paper this is a shall-issue system for rural residents. In practice, the state had no record of ever issuing a single open-carry license under the scheme.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
Who Sued and Why
Mark Baird, a resident of rural Siskiyou County, filed suit in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Richard Gallardo, another resident of a county with fewer than 200,000 people who had been unable to obtain an open-carry license, joined as co-plaintiff.5U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 23-15016 The complaint challenges both the urban ban and the rural licensing scheme.
Baird’s sworn declaration accused California of running the rural system as a sham. He said he applied multiple times in Siskiyou County and was told each time that no licenses would be issued. The sheriff’s office offered forms and an online portal only for concealed-carry permits. The state Department of Justice’s standard application contained no option for open carry, and the fingerprinting forms came pre-populated with “STANDARD CCW.”6C.D. Michel & Associates. Declaration of Mark Baird
The district court granted summary judgment to the state in December 2023, concluding that California’s regulations were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Baird appealed.7Firearms Research Center. Appellee Response Brief, Baird v. Bonta
What the Ninth Circuit Panel Ruled
The panel heard oral argument on June 24, 2025, and issued its opinion on January 2, 2026. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee. Senior Judge N. Randy Smith concurred in part and dissented in part.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
Applying the historical-tradition test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority called the case “straightforward.” The court found that the historical record “makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” protected at both the Founding and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no record of any Founding-era law restricting open carry, and California failed to identify a “distinctly similar” historical regulation that could justify its modern ban.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
The panel rejected California’s argument that concealed carry and open carry are interchangeable, holding that Bruen does not permit a state to ban one mode of carry simply because the other remains available.8JURIST. US Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s Urban Open Carry Ban It found the ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents unconstitutional and not severable under California law. On the rural licensing scheme, however, the panel affirmed the district court, ruling that Baird had waived his as-applied challenge and that the statute’s shall-issue structure was facially constitutional under Bruen.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
In a concurrence, Judge Lee wrote that California had used “subterfuge” to deny Second Amendment rights, noting that no open-carry license had ever issued despite the state’s claimed shall-issue regime. He wrote that constitutional rights “should not hinge on a ‘Where’s Waldo’ quiz.” Judge Smith dissented from the urban-ban holding, arguing that Bruen established only that states cannot ban public carry entirely, and that California’s allowance of concealed carry makes its open-carry restriction permissible.9Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Ninth Circuit Rules on Open Carry
Why the Ruling Doesn’t Change What You Can Do Today
The panel opinion no longer carries legal force. On January 16, 2026, Attorney General Rob Bonta petitioned for rehearing en banc and issued a statement saying, “Allowing the open carry of firearms in densely populated counties creates unnecessary anxiety, terrorizes children, and instills fear throughout our communities.”10Office of the Attorney General, State of California. Attorney General Bonta: Open Carry Fosters Fear, Not Safety
The California Department of Justice also issued Information Bulletin No. 2026-DLE-04 that same day, advising law enforcement that the panel opinion had not taken effect because the court had not issued its mandate. Agencies were instructed to continue enforcing existing open-carry restrictions.11California Department of Justice. Information Bulletin No. 2026-DLE-04
On April 15, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing and vacated the January 2 panel opinion.1Justia. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565 Vacatur wipes the ruling off the books. Openly carrying a loaded or unloaded handgun in an incorporated city or covered unincorporated area remains a criminal offense under Sections 25850 and 26350, and rural sheriffs are not issuing open-carry licenses.
What Happens Next
The full Ninth Circuit will now rehear the case. Gun violence prevention groups including the Brady Center, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in May 2026 supporting California, arguing that its restrictions regulate the manner of public carry rather than banning it outright.12Giffords Law Center. Amicus Brief, Baird v. Bonta En Banc The most recent docket activity occurred on May 11, 2026.13CourtListener. Baird v. Bonta Docket
Whatever the en banc court decides, the case sits on top of a direct circuit split. In September 2025, a unanimous Second Circuit panel in Frey v. City of New York upheld New York’s open-carry ban, reasoning that historical traditions allow states to restrict one mode of public carry as long as the other remains available.14Justia. Frey v. City of New York, No. 23-365 That is the reasoning Judge Smith adopted in his Baird dissent and the opposite of what the vacated panel majority concluded. If the en banc Ninth Circuit sides with California, the split may narrow. If it does not, the Supreme Court is a likely next stop. Baird has said he is prepared to take the case there if necessary.15KCRA. NorCal Man Expands on California Open Carry Lawsuit