‘Do we have enumerated rights or don’t we?’: California man expands on his open carry lawsuit

KCRA 3’s Denzen Cortez says a single Northern California resident has pushed open carry into the center of a major legal fight, and the outcome is already rattling the state’s gun laws.

Denzen frames it as a “landmark decision,” because a federal court has now ruled California cannot ban citizens from openly carrying guns in public, at least in the way the state has been doing it.

At the heart of Denzen’s report is Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County man who says the state’s rules didn’t just regulate open carry, they boxed it into a corner until it was basically impossible.

Baird’s question, as Denzen presents it, isn’t subtle or polite. He puts it like this: “Do we have enumerated rights or don’t we?”

That line matters because it shows what this case is really about. It’s not only about carry methods, or permit paperwork, or county population numbers. It’s about whether California can claim a right exists, while also building a system that never lets ordinary people use it.

Mark Baird’s Argument: “Allowed,” But With No Real Path

Denzen identifies Baird as a resident of Siskiyou County, and he explains that Baird sued Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state of California over how open carry is treated under state law.

Denzen says the lawsuit argued that California’s ban on open carry in large counties violates the Second Amendment.

Baird, speaking in Denzen’s report, explains why he believed he had a reason to apply in the first place. He says he tried to apply for an open carry permit in Siskiyou County because, according to him, the sheriff wanted all deputies to be armed at all times.

But Denzen points out the problem that made this case explode: Baird says there was never an application.

That’s the kind of detail that sounds small until you sit with it. If there is no application, there is no process. If there is no process, then the “right” exists only on paper, not in real life.

Denzen also notes a key dividing line in California law: counties with a population under 200,000 are technically allowed to have open carry.

But Baird’s complaint, as Denzen describes it, is that “allowed” didn’t mean accessible. Without a working process, Baird argues the state was effectively blocking open carry anyway.

Baird puts it more bluntly than any legal brief ever could. He tells Denzen that if you’re a lawful person with a weapon for peaceful self-defense, that should be “unremarkable.”

Then he escalates the point into something broader. Baird says when the state treats citizens as criminals unless they prove otherwise, it feels like “guilty until proven innocent,” and he argues that is not within lawful government authority.

Whether you agree with his tone or not, it’s clear what he’s saying: a right with no route to exercise it isn’t a right that people can rely on.

The Ruling And What It Does Not Do

Denzen says the federal court decision struck down the ban, and that it raises a major question for the future: can Californians be denied this right under the current legal framework?

But Denzen is careful not to portray this as some total “anything goes” moment. He explicitly says the ruling does not eliminate all gun restrictions.

According to Denzen, licensing rules in smaller counties still remain.

That’s important, because it keeps the story from turning into an all-or-nothing fantasy. The decision, as described in Denzen’s report, is not “no rules.” It’s about the rules California used to shut down open carry in large counties, and what happens when a federal court says those rules crossed a constitutional line.

Denzen also includes analysis from Chris Micheli, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, who explains the court’s reasoning in plain terms.

Micheli says the court recognized open carry has historically been regulated, but he adds that the U.S. Supreme Court has said certain types of regulations would be improper. In other words, the state can regulate, but not regulate so hard that the right becomes meaningless.

That’s the narrow beam this case forces California to walk. Regulation is allowed, but a disguised prohibition is not supposed to be.

And if you’ve watched California gun policy for any length of time, you know the state often tries to win through complexity. Layers of forms, layers of approvals, layers of “not banned, just burdened.”

Baird’s complaint, as Denzen tells it, is basically that California used that same strategy on open carry—only this time, the court wasn’t buying it.

A Long Legal Timeline: Reagan, Brown, And A New Collision With The Courts

Denzen gives viewers a quick history lesson to show this fight did not begin last week.

He says California’s restrictions go back to 1967, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan, a Republican, banned people from carrying loaded firearms.

Denzen then says a later ban came in 2012 under former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

The point Denzen seems to be making is that California’s restrictions have been building for decades, with both parties at different times contributing to the structure that exists today.

That background matters because it explains why some people in the state treat open carry as a fringe idea. California has had a long period where “public carry” has been narrowed, reshaped, and restricted.

But the fact that rules are old doesn’t automatically make them safe from constitutional review. Sometimes old laws survive because nobody had the money, patience, or courage to fight them all the way up the ladder.

Denzen’s report suggests Baird is that kind of stubborn. The type who doesn’t tap out just because the road gets expensive.

And you can hear it in Baird’s own words. When Denzen asks if he’s prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, Baird answers “yes,” and then vows: “I will never quit. I will never stop. I will never retreat.”

That isn’t the language of a man looking for a settlement and a victory lap. That sounds like someone ready to live inside a lawsuit for years, even if it eats his time and drains his patience.

The Supreme Court Question Hanging Over Everything

Denzen doesn’t claim the case is already at the U.S. Supreme Court. What he does show is that the decision is significant enough that people are openly talking about that possibility.

That’s where Micheli returns with a prediction.

Micheli says that considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court, with a 6–3 conservative majority, it wouldn’t surprise him if the decision were upheld.

He adds that if that happened, it would mean the prohibition would ultimately be struck down.

Now, predictions are not guarantees, and anyone who has followed courts knows surprises happen. Judges can narrow rulings, dodge questions, or decide cases on technical grounds that leave everyone mad for different reasons.

But Micheli’s point is still powerful: the direction of the Supreme Court could make California’s long-standing approach to public carry harder to defend, especially if the state is seen as blocking a constitutional right rather than regulating it.

And that brings us back to Baird’s “enumerated rights” line. It sticks because it’s a simple test regular people understand.

Either the right exists in practice, or it’s a museum piece you’re allowed to look at but never touch.

What This Could Mean On The Ground, Beyond The Courtroom

Denzen’s report doesn’t pretend this is only a political story. It’s a real-life story about how laws work when a person tries to follow them.

Baird is not described as someone who carried illegally and then tried to justify it later. He is shown as someone claiming he tried to do it the legal way, and he ran into a wall that wasn’t written in bold ink, but still functioned like a ban.

In my opinion, that’s why these cases hit harder than abstract debates. People can argue forever about “reasonable regulation,” but when a system has no application, no process, and no clear path, it starts to look less like regulation and more like refusal.

And refusal is a dangerous thing for government to normalize, because it teaches citizens the wrong lesson. It teaches that rights are granted by convenience, not protected by principle.

At the same time, Denzen is right to signal that this isn’t a free-for-all. Even if bans fall, licensing systems and local rules still exist, and California will almost certainly try to rebuild its framework in a new shape that can survive review.

That’s the cycle: restriction, lawsuit, court ruling, new restriction, new lawsuit. California’s gun laws have lived in that loop for years, and Denzen’s reporting suggests this ruling could be the start of another major round.

For now, Denzen Cortez’s reporting makes one thing clear: Mark Baird’s case has forced the state to answer a question it usually avoids in plain language.

If open carry is technically allowed in some counties, but the state leaves people with no practical way to do it, then the fight isn’t really about carry style at all. It’s about whether “allowed” means anything when the door is locked.