The California open carry lawsuit, Baird v. Bonta, is pending before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a three-judge panel briefly struck down the state’s urban open-carry ban in January 2026 and the full court agreed in April 2026 to rehear the case en banc. The panel opinion has been vacated, which means it carries no legal force. California’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms remain fully in effect everywhere in the state, and no county has begun issuing open-carry licenses.1Justia. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
What California’s Open Carry Ban Still Prohibits
Two state statutes do the heavy lifting. Penal Code Section 25850 makes it a crime to carry a loaded firearm in public. Penal Code Section 26350, added by Assembly Bill 144 in 2012, makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in incorporated cities and certain unincorporated areas.2Justia. Cal. Penal Code § 26350 Together, they amount to an open-carry ban across the state’s urban areas.3Giffords Law Center. Open Carry in California
Sections 26150 and 26155 carve out a narrow exception. In counties with populations under 200,000, a sheriff or police chief may issue a license to carry a loaded, exposed handgun. On paper, that opens a door in rural counties. In practice, California has no record of ever issuing a single open-carry license under this scheme.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
The 200,000-population threshold is also why the lawsuit matters so much geographically. The counties above that line hold roughly 95 percent of California’s residents, which is the share of the state’s population the panel’s now-vacated ruling would have reached.1Justia. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
Who Brought the Lawsuit
Mark Baird, a resident of rural Siskiyou County, filed suit in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Richard Gallardo, who also lives in a county below the 200,000-population line and had been unable to obtain an open-carry license, joined as co-plaintiff.5U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 23-15016
Baird’s case has two prongs. The first is a straight Second Amendment challenge to the urban open-carry ban. The second attacks the rural licensing scheme as a sham. In a sworn declaration, Baird said he applied multiple times for an open-carry license in Siskiyou County and was told each time that no such licenses would be issued. The sheriff’s office provided forms and an online portal only for concealed-carry permits, and the state Department of Justice’s standard application contained no option for open carry. Even the fingerprinting forms, Baird said, were pre-populated with “STANDARD CCW.”6C.D. Michel & Associates. Declaration of Mark Baird
What the Ninth Circuit Panel Ruled in January 2026
A three-judge panel heard argument in June 2025 and issued its opinion on January 2, 2026. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote the majority, joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee. Senior Judge N. Randy Smith concurred in part and dissented in part.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
Applying the historical-tradition test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority called the case “straightforward.” The court found that the historical record “makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” protected at both the Founding and at the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no record of any Founding-era law restricting open carry, and the panel concluded California had failed to identify a “distinctly similar” historical regulation to justify its modern ban.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
The panel rejected California’s argument that letting people carry concealed is enough. Under the majority’s reading of Bruen, a state cannot ban one mode of carry simply because another remains available. The court also rejected several nineteenth-century laws the state offered as historical analogues, characterizing them as racist or xenophobic and unsuitable for the comparison.7JURIST. US Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s Urban Open Carry Ban
On the urban ban, the panel reversed the district court and ordered judgment for Baird, finding the restriction on open carry in counties above 200,000 residents unconstitutional and not severable. On the rural licensing scheme, however, the panel affirmed. It held Baird had waived his as-applied challenge by not pressing it in his opening brief, and that his facial challenge failed because the statute’s shall-issue structure is generally constitutional under Bruen.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
Judge Lee’s concurrence went further on administration. He argued California had used “subterfuge” to deny Second Amendment rights, pointing to the fact that no open-carry license had ever issued under the rural scheme. Constitutional rights, he wrote, “should not hinge on a ‘Where’s Waldo’ quiz.”8Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Ninth Circuit Rules on Open Carry
Judge Smith dissented from the urban-ban holding. He wrote that open carry is not protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text and that Bruen only forbids a complete ban on public carry. Because California still allows concealed carry, in Smith’s view, restricting open carry is permissible.8Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Ninth Circuit Rules on Open Carry
Why That Ruling No Longer Applies
The panel decision never took effect. On January 16, 2026, Attorney General Rob Bonta petitioned for rehearing en banc. In a public statement, Bonta said, “This is beyond concerning; it is deeply wrong,” and argued that “allowing the open carry of firearms in densely populated counties creates unnecessary anxiety, terrorizes children, and instills fear throughout our communities.”9Office of the Attorney General, State of California. Attorney General Bonta: Open Carry Fosters Fear, Not Safety
The same day, the California Department of Justice issued an information bulletin to law enforcement statewide. Because the court had not issued its mandate, the bulletin said, the opinion was not yet in force, and agencies were to keep enforcing existing open-carry restrictions.10California Department of Justice. Information Bulletin No. 2026-DLE-04
On April 15, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s petition and ordered the case reheard en banc. That order vacated the January 2 panel opinion. California’s urban open-carry ban stays in effect while the en banc court considers the case.1Justia. Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565
What’s Next
Briefing has drawn in national gun-policy groups. In May 2026, the Brady Center, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief supporting the state, arguing that California’s restrictions regulate the manner of public carry rather than banning it outright.11Giffords Law Center. Amicus Brief, Baird v. Bonta En Banc The last docket activity in the case occurred on May 11, 2026.12CourtListener. Baird v. Bonta Docket Baird has said he is prepared to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.13KCRA. NorCal Man Expands on California Open Carry Lawsuit
Until the en banc court rules, nothing changes on the ground. Open carry remains prohibited in California’s urban counties, loaded carry remains prohibited in public under Section 25850, and no open-carry licenses are being issued in rural counties.
How This Fits With Other Open Carry Rulings
The vacated Baird panel ruling put the Ninth Circuit on a collision course with the Second Circuit. In Frey v. City of New York, decided in September 2025, a unanimous Second Circuit panel held that New York’s ban on open carry is consistent with the Second Amendment, reasoning that historical traditions let a state restrict one mode of public carry so long as the other remains available.14Justia. Frey v. City of New York, No. 23-365 That is the position Judge Smith took in dissent and the opposite of what the Baird majority concluded. Whether the en banc Ninth Circuit sides with its vacated panel or with the Second Circuit will shape whether the Supreme Court steps in to resolve the split.
One boundary worth flagging: this case is only about open carry. It does not affect California’s concealed-carry licensing, its restrictions on where firearms can be brought, or its rules on magazines and specific firearm types. Those issues are moving through separate cases.