The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated California’s urban ban on openly carrying holstered firearms, citing the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on historical tradition and the Second Amendment; the split 2–1 ruling, written by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, highlights that open carry was historically protected and notes the state only restricted it in 2012, and related legal fights over other gun rules and Glock-style bans continue to play out in federal court.
The appeals panel found that California’s restriction on openly carrying a holstered handgun in counties with populations above 200,000 is inconsistent with the standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The decision applies to the parts of the state covering roughly 95 percent of residents, and it pushes back against what the court described as an exceptional departure from historical norms. For conservatives who champion the Second Amendment, the ruling feels like a correction to state overreach.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote for the majority, leaning heavily on the Bruen test that looks to history when evaluating modern gun laws. He offered a blunt historical assessment in his opinion: “The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” VanDyke wrote. “It was clearly protected at the time of the founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
California once permitted holstered open carry for self-defense without criminal penalties, a practice that lasted until the state tightened rules in 2012. The majority opinion notes that change and frames it as an abrupt move into the minority of states with such strict urban open-carry bans. “That changed only when California enacted its urban open-carry ban barely over a decade ago in 2012,” he said. “In doing so, California joined a tiny minority of states to have adopted such severe restrictions on open carry.”
The appeals court reversed part of a 2023 ruling from a lower court that had previously dismissed a 2019 lawsuit filed by gun owner Mark Baird. That earlier decision had rejected Baird’s broader challenge while declining to strike down licensing schemes in smaller counties. The new ruling restores constitutional scrutiny to the large-county ban and leaves several related questions unresolved for lower-population jurisdictions.
NRA SUES CALIFORNIA OVER BAN ON GLOCK-STYLE FIREARMS: ‘VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT’
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association and a coalition of gun-rights groups have pressed separate challenges to state rules banning certain Glock-style firearms and conversion features that can enable fully automatic fire. Those lawsuits, brought in federal court, argue that California has gone too far in banning modern firearms technologies and common designs. The legal fight over arms regulation in California is therefore unfolding on multiple fronts at once.
The NRA was joined in its challenge by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Poway Weapons & Gear, and two individual members, creating a broad coalition aimed at rolling back state prohibitions. These plaintiffs argue the bans conflict with constitutional protections and with the approach laid out in recent Supreme Court precedent. Their coordinated strategy signals conservative legal activists are prioritizing high-profile tests of state gun limits.
CALIFORNIA’S CRACKDOWN ON ‘LESS-LETHAL’ WEAPONS SPARKS 2A LAWSUIT TARGETING NEWSOM ADMINISTRATION
The appeals court’s split decision underscores how federal judges are increasingly applying historical tradition analysis to modern gun laws, placing heavy weight on whether a regulation aligns with the nation’s founding-era practices. For Republicans and gun-rights advocates, that method is a guardrail against sweeping state bans that lack clear historical analogues. For state officials pushing stricter rules, the ruling will force them to justify policies under a tighter constitutional lens.
Practical effects are likely to play out slowly because litigation routinely heads to further appeals and stays can be requested while cases proceed. Local law enforcement and county officials now face a period of legal uncertainty as they consider whether to continue enforcing the old rule while higher courts weigh potential appeals. The decision, however, is a clear signal from a federal appeals court that broad prohibitions on open carry in populous areas demand rigorous constitutional justification.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES CALIFORNIA AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Absent a definitive reversal from an en banc court or the Supreme Court, the VanDyke opinion represents an important win for those who view the Second Amendment as a straightforward individual right. It also highlights how litigation strategies combining historical argument and modern constitutional claims are reshaping gun-rights law. Expect continued legal fights as plaintiffs and states test the contours of Bruen and push the issue toward higher courts.
Darnell Thompkins is a conservative opinion writer from Atlanta, GA, known for his insightful commentary on politics, culture, and community issues. With a passion for championing traditional values and personal responsibility, Darnell brings a thoughtful Southern perspective to the national conversation. His writing aims to inspire meaningful dialogue and advocate for policies that strengthen families and empower individuals.