A seismic shift reverberated through California’s gun laws Friday as a federal appeals court dismantled the state’s longstanding ban on openly carrying firearms. The 2-1 decision, delivered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, marks a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates and a stinging rebuke to state regulations.
The court’s ruling directly cited the landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision, asserting that California’s prohibition on open carry violates constitutional rights. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by former President Trump, authored the majority opinion, delivering a forceful condemnation of the state’s restrictions.
VanDyke’s opinion didn’t mince words, highlighting that the ban effectively disarmed 95% of California’s population. The law specifically targeted counties with populations exceeding 200,000, encompassing the vast majority of the state’s residents.
The legal battle began in 2019 when Mark Baid initiated a lawsuit against the California Attorney General, challenging the open carry ban. Baid’s case ignited a protracted legal struggle, ultimately culminating in this pivotal ruling.
Judge VanDyke underscored the historical prevalence of open carry throughout American history. He detailed how, for much of the nation’s existence, openly carrying firearms was the standard practice for law-abiding citizens, and remains so in over thirty states today.
California itself once embraced this tradition. From its statehood in 1850 until 1967, the state imposed no regulations on the public carry of firearms, whether open or concealed. VanDyke’s opinion pointedly noted the questionable motivations behind California’s eventual deviation from this long-held practice.
“Open carry is central to the Second Amendment right,” VanDyke wrote, arguing that a ban on such a fundamental aspect of that right constitutes an unacceptable burden. The judge’s strong language signals a clear intent to protect the right to bear arms as historically understood.
This decision arrives amidst other recent Second Amendment cases in the Ninth Circuit. Last year, the same court upheld California’s ban on large-capacity magazines, a ruling that contrasted sharply with Friday’s outcome.
The contrast between these rulings underscores the internal divisions within the court. Notably, Judge VanDyke previously sparked controversy with a unique video dissent, showcasing his proficiency with various firearms – a move that drew ire from more liberal colleagues.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching, potentially reshaping the landscape of gun rights in California and setting a precedent for challenges to similar restrictions in other states. The state’s response, and any potential appeals, will be closely watched as this legal battle continues to unfold.
