A judicial panel from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that California's statute prohibiting the open carry of firearms in counties with populations above 200,000 violates the Second Amendment. The decision, issued on Friday by two of the three judges on the panel, holds that the state's approach to limiting open carry to less populous counties is unconstitutional.
The judges emphasized that California’s legal framework constitutes a near-total prohibition on open carrying in metropolitan areas, where approximately 95% of the state's inhabitants reside. This ban, they concluded, fails to align with constitutional protections guaranteeing the right to bear arms.
Contrary to the majority, the dissenting judge maintained that the state possesses the authority to restrict open carry in densely populated regions, highlighting that concealed carry permits remain permissible throughout California. This dissent underscored ongoing legal debates about the extent of state power in regulating firearms.
The litigation originated from Mark Baird, a resident of Siskiyou County, who initiated a lawsuit calling for the reinstatement of historical open carry practices. This legal effort surfaced amid broader national and state-level discourse concerning gun control measures. California has notably passed a series of restrictions aimed at regulating firearm possession and usage.
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, characterized the ruling as profoundly important. He indicated that state officials would likely petition the entire appeals court for a rehearing, particularly in light of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded individual gun rights. The implications of such high-profile rulings could significantly impact future regulatory approaches toward firearm possession.
The office of Governor Gavin Newsom responded via social media affirming that the state's legislation was intentionally calibrated to comply with constitutional provisions while maintaining public safety. The statement criticized the ruling by drawing attention to recent efforts to remove military-grade weaponry from city streets and expressed concern that the decision might lead to a resurgence of open carrying reminiscent of less regulated, historically anarchic periods.