A recent ruling by a US appeals court determined that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most areas of the state is unconstitutional. The decision, issued on a Friday, saw a 2-1 majority from the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals favor a gun owner’s challenge against the state’s prohibition. This ruling is significant as nearly 95% of California’s population resides in counties with over 200,000 residents, where the ban applied.
Court Rationale Behind the Decision
The panel found that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by Donald Trump, emphasized that the state law contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This ruling established a new standard for assessing firearm restrictions, necessitating that such laws are consistent with the nation’s historical regulation of firearms.
Historical Context of Open Carry
Judge VanDyke noted that open carry has deep roots in American history, predating the Bill of Rights’ ratification in 1791. He pointed out that California’s first public carry ban came with the Mulford Act of 1967, a reaction in part to the armed protests led by the Black Panther Party at the state capitol. Judge VanDyke criticized this historical ban as stemming from “racial animus,” shaping the state’s contemporary attitudes towards open carry.
- California previously allowed open carry of unloaded handguns until 2012.
- Currently, over 30 states permit open carry in various forms.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling partially overturned a previous decision by a lower court, which had dismissed a 2019 challenge posed by gun owner Mark Baird. While the appellate court broadly supported Baird’s case, it also upheld California’s licensing regulations applicable in smaller counties, where open-carry permits can still be issued.
Dissenting Opinion and Broader Implications
Senior Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that California’s restrictions align with the Supreme Court’s interpretations and thus should remain intact. The court’s recent ruling has broader implications, potentially influencing firearm legislation across the country.
This ruling aligns with a growing trend following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, which has seen legal challenges to firearm regulations nationwide. Upcoming cases, such as United States v. Hemani in March 2024, could further reshape the landscape of gun rights and regulations, particularly concerning users of marijuana and firearm ownership.
As California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office has yet to provide a comment regarding this recent ruling, the future of gun-carry legislation in the state remains uncertain amidst evolving legal interpretations.
