The new year opened with a major Second Amendment victory out of the Ninth Circuit. On January 2, 2026, a three-judge panel in Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026), declared California’s effective ban on open carry in counties with populations above 200,000 unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote the majority, joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee. This is the kind of ruling that matters far beyond California’s borders — and I’ll explain why.
What the Court Actually Held
The holding is clean and powerful. Applying the text-and-history framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Judge VanDyke found no historical support for California’s carry prohibition:
“There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation… Thus, we conclude that California’s de jure ban on open carry in counties with a population above 200,000 people is inconsistent with the right to bear arms as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That’s the Bruen test working exactly as Justice Thomas designed it. The government bears the burden of showing a historical tradition for its restriction — and California came up empty.
The factual backdrop is worth understanding. Mark Baird is a law-abiding resident of Siskiyou County who simply wants to exercise his constitutional right to openly carry a firearm. California’s scheme nominally exempted counties under 200,000 people — but those counties account for roughly five percent of the state’s population. Ninety-five percent of Californians live under an outright ban. And for the sliver technically eligible to apply for an open carry license? On the entire record before the court, not a single open carry license has ever been issued in California. Not one.
The Telemarketer Concurrence
Judge Kenneth K. Lee wrote separately to name what California was actually doing. His concurrence called it subterfuge:
“California insists that citizens in counties with populations fewer than 200,000 people can apply for an open carry license. Yet, California admits that it has no record of even one open carry license ever being issued… Our own state government must behave better than an unscrupulous telemarketer.”
That’s a federal appellate judge comparing the State of California’s administration of a fundamental constitutional right to bait-and-switch telemarketing. California constructed a licensing pathway and then apparently ensured no one could navigate it. The judges noticed.
The Mulford Act’s Racist Roots
Judge VanDyke’s opinion also confronts the origins of California’s open carry restrictions head-on. From statehood in 1850 through 1966 — 117 years — California imposed no restrictions on open carry. The Mulford Act of 1967 changed that, and VanDyke didn’t let the legislature’s motivation go unexamined:
“In 1967, California first criminalized the peaceful open carrying of a loaded handgun in the Mulford Act, legislation that was also tainted with racial animus… The catalyzing event occurred when 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California State House armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.”
The Mulford Act — sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford and signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967 — was a direct legislative reaction to Black Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights. That history matters. It undercuts any claim that California’s tradition of open carry restriction is anything other than a mid-20th-century political overreaction with an ugly racial motive.
Open Carry Is the National Norm — and Outliers Lose at SCOTUS
Here is where the strategic thinking in this opinion is particularly sharp. Judge VanDyke methodically documented that open carry is not some fringe practice — it’s the American default:
“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms. It remains the norm across the country. More than 30 states generally allow open carry to this day… Texas reauthorized open carry without a license in 2021. Kansas likewise transitioned back to allow open carry without a permit in 2015.”
My read is that VanDyke is building toward the Supreme Court deliberately. The justices have shown a consistent pattern of targeting outlier laws — New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts. When a state’s restriction stands alone against the overwhelming weight of national practice and American history, it becomes exactly the kind of nail SCOTUS reaches for the hammer to strike. California’s open carry ban fits that profile perfectly.
The Florida Footnote and the Brick-by-Brick Strategy
This is the part that too many people missed when they dismissed the Florida open carry ruling last fall. In McDaniels v. State, No. 1D2023-0533 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 10, 2025), the Florida First District Court of Appeal declared Florida’s open carry ban unconstitutional. Judge Stephanie Ray wrote that opinion, joined by Judges Lori Rowe and M. Kemmerly Thomas.
Judge VanDyke cited McDaniels in a footnote to support the Baird decision. A federal circuit court relied on a Florida state appellate ruling to knock out California’s ban.
That is how the Second Amendment movement wins. A Florida state court win becomes a Ninth Circuit footnote. That Ninth Circuit opinion becomes the foundation for the next challenge in a different circuit. Each brick reinforces the next. The trend becomes our friend.
We are also waiting on Wolford v. Lopez at the Supreme Court, argued January 20, 2026 — a direct challenge to Hawaii’s Act 52 and California’s carry restrictions in sensitive places. I expect we win that one big this term as well.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.