California’s decades-long restrictions on open carry were put under the microscope again as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a case challenging the state’s nearly blanket ban on the public open carry of firearms. The case could reshape gun laws not only in California but potentially set a precedent nationwide, depending on how it’s handled on appeal or even by the Supreme Court.
The challenge was brought by Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County resident, who claims he has a constitutional right to carry a firearm openly throughout California for self-defense. His legal team argues that California’s current system makes that nearly impossible for 95% of residents. Reporting from Edvard Pettersson of Courthouse News Service explains how this system works and why judges on the panel are divided.
A Patchwork System Few Can Navigate
California’s open carry restrictions are tied to a population threshold: counties with fewer than 200,000 people can theoretically issue open carry permits. But as Pettersson points out, this leaves out residents of all major cities and most suburban areas. Even those in qualifying rural counties can only carry within county lines. One judge called this framework “unrealistic,” suggesting it was open to legal challenge.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by President Trump, raised a hypothetical: a San Francisco resident is not only barred from open carrying in their own city, but they also cannot legally open carry in a rural county where a permit might be possible. “So, if you live in San Francisco, you are banned from open carry anywhere in the state,” he said, according to Pettersson’s report.
VanDyke Calls Out Licensing as Fictional
Judge VanDyke didn’t hold back. He compared the licensing structure to a fantasy, mocking the notion that someone could simply apply for an open carry permit and be good to go. He challenged the state attorney, asking who someone should sue if they want to carry in San Francisco, where no path to legal open carry exists.
In a fiery exchange captured in William’s breakdown on Copper Jacket TV, VanDyke said the system was like “suing the DMV for a license to shoot spacecraft into orbit” – because the law itself blocks the very activity the license is supposed to permit. The commentary by William makes it clear: even if the law is framed as a “licensing regime,” it’s effectively a ban.
A History-Based Legal Test: California Comes Up Short
The central issue the court has to evaluate is whether California’s restrictions align with the historical tradition of gun laws, using the Bruen test established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). This test demands that any restriction on Second Amendment rights be consistent with practices from the late 1700s to early 1800s.
Judge Randy Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush, noted that while states historically banned concealed carry, they almost never restricted open carry. “None of the regulations banned open carry by allowing concealed carry,” said Smith, according to Pettersson. That puts California on shaky legal ground if the historical record is taken seriously.
California’s Defense: One Option Is Enough
In response, state attorney Aaron Pennekamp argued that the Supreme Court’s reading of history gives states flexibility, as long as they allow at least one form of public carry. He claimed that California does permit public carry, through concealed carry licenses, and that’s enough to satisfy the Constitution.
But Judge Smith pushed back, again citing historical sources that showed open carry as the primary method used during America’s founding. “They say the only manner of public carry that effectuates the right of self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and is therefore the public carry protected by the amendment, is open carry,” he emphasized in Pettersson’s article.
The Case’s Origins: Mark Baird’s Argument
Mark Baird isn’t just arguing on principle – he’s fighting for his right to carry in real life. His attorney, Amy Bellantoni, laid it out bluntly: “There’s zero historical analog for banning open carry.” According to Pettersson, Bellantoni claimed open carry was “the preferred method of carrying weapons since the beginning of time and the dawn of ages.”
Baird’s lawsuit doesn’t focus on the theoretical – it directly challenges the criminal penalties Californians face for carrying a firearm in plain view. His team insists that this type of restriction was never part of America’s early legal framework, and that California is out of line with the Constitution.
A Familiar 2A Face on the Bench
Judge VanDyke isn’t new to Second Amendment battles. As William from Copper Jacket TV reminds viewers, VanDyke was the same judge who issued a powerful video dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the California magazine ban case. Gun rights supporters view him as a consistent defender of 2A rights. His aggressive questioning in Baird v. Bonta kept that streak alive.
However, William also warns not to get too optimistic. The panel includes two other judges, Smith and Lee, and both appeared skeptical of Baird’s arguments. Even though VanDyke may side with the plaintiff, William believes there’s a strong chance the other two judges will back the state.
Another Case Looming in the Background
Interestingly, the same three-judge panel also heard arguments in a separate case involving California’s ban on firearm advertisements aimed at minors. According to Pettersson, this First Amendment-related case challenges whether the state can block gun ads seen by those under 18. While the court had previously signaled the law might violate free speech protections, it’s still unclear how this new appeal will shake out.
Judge Smith expressed confusion over why the case was back, saying the state didn’t properly argue the legal severability of specific provisions earlier. It seemed like a procedural mess, casting doubt on California’s approach to defending both its gun and speech laws.
This Isn’t Just About Guns – It’s About Fairness
Here’s the part that gets me: this isn’t just a debate over whether open carry is smart or safe. It’s about whether the government should be allowed to offer a fake permission slip and call it freedom. You can’t apply for something that doesn’t exist and then be told your rights are being respected.
Even folks who don’t like open carry should care when laws are built like booby traps – designed to make you fail. If you can’t even get the permit, and you can’t legally carry without one, it’s a ban. Not a policy. Not a regulation. A ban in disguise.
Uncertainty Ahead, But the Fight’s Not Over
Even if this panel rules against Baird, there are still legal steps ahead. As William notes, Baird could request an en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. And given how Bruen changed the game in 2022, the high court may be more likely than ever to take up these kinds of cases.
That means this isn’t the final word – it’s just the next battle in a longer war over how Americans are allowed to carry arms in public. The outcome could determine whether states like California can keep locking down gun rights under the illusion of options.
A State Out of Step With the Constitution?
California often leads the country in passing aggressive gun control laws. But as this case shows, being first doesn’t always mean being right. If the historical record doesn’t support these restrictions, and the court follows the Bruen standard, California may have to walk back some of its tightest rules.
And maybe that’s a good thing. If constitutional rights mean anything, they have to apply to everyone, not just to people in rural counties or people with the right zip code.
One Case, Big Implications
The Baird v. Bonta case might not get national headlines like other high-profile lawsuits, but it’s quietly asking one of the most important legal questions in the gun debate: Can a state ban the most traditional form of carrying a gun in public?
Thanks to Edvard Pettersson’s legal reporting at Courthouse News Service and William’s breakdown on Copper Jacket TV, we’ve got a clear view of what’s at stake. Whether you’re for open carry or not, the real issue is whether the Second Amendment means something or nothing at all.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.