In Baird v. Bonta, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled on January 2, 2026, that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in counties with more than 200,000 residents violates the Second Amendment.1United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta The decision reversed a district court’s summary judgment for the state and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff Mark Baird. It does not legalize open carry today. California’s open carry statutes remain enforceable while the state pursues further review, and anyone openly carrying a firearm in the state still faces arrest.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided
The panel found that the Second Amendment’s text covers the right to “bear” arms, which historically meant carrying weapons in public for self-defense. Because the text protects that conduct, California had the burden of showing its ban fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The panel concluded the state did not meet that burden, writing that there is “no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation.”1United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta
The ruling is narrower than it may sound. The court struck down the ban only in counties with populations above 200,000, where no licensing path for open carry existed at all. In smaller counties, sheriffs and police chiefs can issue open carry permits, and the panel upheld that system. It treated the rural scheme as a “shall-issue” regime consistent with the framework the Supreme Court set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, where a general desire for self-defense is enough to qualify for a permit.1United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta
In practical terms, the decision targets the geographic gap: residents of the state’s largest counties, where roughly 95 percent of Californians live, had no legal avenue to openly carry at all.
Can You Openly Carry in California Right Now?
No. The January 2026 ruling does not change anything on the ground yet. Under federal appellate procedure, a decision does not take effect until the court issues its mandate, which typically comes no earlier than 21 days after publication and can be delayed when further review is sought.
The California Attorney General’s office issued guidance to law enforcement and prosecutors confirming that the state’s open carry restrictions “remain in effect and should continue to be followed” until further action by the court.2California Attorney General. California’s Firearm Open Carry Laws Currently Remain in Effect Someone who openly carries a firearm in a public place in California today still faces arrest and prosecution under existing statutes. The panel opinion creates a legal argument for defendants, not an immediate legal right for carriers.
The California Statutes at Stake
Two Penal Code sections do most of the work.
Section 26350 makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed, unloaded handgun on your person or in a vehicle in a public place within incorporated cities and certain unincorporated areas. A standard violation carries up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Carrying the handgun together with compatible ammunition, when not in lawful possession of the gun, raises the maximum to one year.3California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 26350
Section 25850 covers loaded firearms, prohibiting anyone from carrying a loaded gun on their person or in a vehicle in the same types of public areas. Police officers may inspect any firearm carried in public to determine whether it is loaded, and refusal creates probable cause for arrest. Penalties escalate for people with prior felony convictions and for certain prior offenses that trigger a mandatory three-month minimum.4California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 25850
California defines “loaded” more broadly than many people assume. A firearm counts as loaded not only when a cartridge is in the chamber or magazine, but also when unexpended ammunition capable of being fired from that gun is in the same person’s immediate possession. Carrying a handgun with a box of matching ammunition in a backpack can meet that definition.
Why the Court Ruled This Way
Everything in Baird flows from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen. That case replaced the older interest-balancing approach to Second Amendment challenges with a two-step test. First, a court asks whether the amendment’s text covers the conduct. If it does, the government must prove its regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”5Justia. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen Modern public safety arguments no longer factor in. The relevant historical periods are 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, and 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.
California put forward several categories of historical analogues: surety laws that let officials demand a bond from someone whose armed presence caused alarm; 19th-century frontier town ordinances requiring visitors to surrender guns at the town limits; and longstanding “sensitive places” restrictions in courthouses, legislatures, and polling places. The panel rejected each as too different from a statewide ban. Surety laws were reactive and triggered only by specific alarming conduct. Frontier ordinances were narrow municipal rules from a limited time and place. Sensitive-place restrictions, which Bruen itself approved, target specific locations and cannot justify a near-statewide prohibition on carrying in public at all.
What Happens Next
On January 16, 2026, California filed a petition asking the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc and vacate the panel’s decision.6California Attorney General. Baird v. Bonta Petition for Rehearing En Banc En banc review in the Ninth Circuit does not involve every active judge. The chief judge and ten randomly selected judges form an eleven-member panel, and a majority of active judges must vote to grant rehearing.
Federal rules say en banc review “is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered” unless it is needed to maintain uniformity among the circuit’s decisions or the case involves a question of exceptional importance. A Second Amendment ruling striking down a major gun law in the nation’s most populous state almost certainly meets that bar. If the full court takes the case, the panel opinion is vacated and briefing starts over.
Whichever side loses at the en banc stage, or if en banc review is denied and the mandate issues, a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. Years of additional litigation remain plausible before any concrete change in enforcement.
Who the Ruling Could Eventually Affect
A final ruling that holds up on appeal would bind every jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.7United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. What is the Ninth Circuit? Most of those states already allow some form of open carry, so the on-the-ground impact would land mainly in California and Hawaii. The reasoning carries further, though, because other circuits working through post-Bruen challenges will look at how the Ninth Circuit weighed the historical evidence.
Even if open carry eventually becomes legal in California’s larger counties, where you can carry would remain contested. California’s SB 2 designates a long list of “sensitive places” where even permitted carriers cannot bring firearms, including parks, playgrounds, stadiums, bars, and libraries. Several of those location-based restrictions are subject to their own preliminary injunctions in separate Ninth Circuit litigation. If the open carry ban falls, the sensitive-places framework becomes the next question about where that right can actually be exercised.