A federal court just shot down California’s sweeping ban on openly carrying firearms, marking a major win for Second Amendment defenders across the Golden State, the Hill reported. 

On Friday, January 3, 2026, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the state’s prohibition on open carry in most counties violates the constitutional right to bear arms, clashing with historical firearm traditions as defined by recent Supreme Court guidance.

For law-abiding gun owners, especially in densely populated counties with over 200,000 residents—where this ban applied—this decision lifts a heavy legal burden that restricted their fundamental rights, potentially reducing the risk of unfair prosecution for simply exercising their freedoms.

A Long Fight for Gun Rights Restored

This legal battle didn’t start yesterday; it traces back to 2019 when Mark Baird challenged the state’s restrictive policy in court.

His case gained serious traction after the Supreme Court’s 2022 expansion of Second Amendment protections, which has since fueled rulings against various gun control measures nationwide.

California’s law, covering the vast majority of its population, essentially turned open carry into a privilege for the few in rural areas, while urban and suburban folks were left defenseless against overreach.

Judicial Split on Constitutional Interpretation

The 9th Circuit’s majority opinion, penned by U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke and joined by Judge Kenneth Lee, both Trump appointees, didn’t mince words on the state’s failure to align with historical norms.

“In our Nation’s history and tradition, open carry was widely recognized as being central to the Second Amendment right,” VanDyke wrote, slamming the ban as anything but a minor inconvenience to constitutional protections.

Well, Judge VanDyke, if open carry was indeed a cornerstone of American liberty, then California’s been playing fast and loose with the Bill of Rights for far too long—time for some accountability on these progressive policies.

Dissent Raises Eyebrows on State Power

Not everyone on the panel agreed, with dissenting Judge N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, arguing that states should have leeway to restrict one form of carry if another option remains.

“A state may not prohibit the public carriage of firearms by eliminating both open and concealed carry, but a state can lawfully eliminate one manner of carry to protect and ensure the safety of its citizens, as long as they can carry in another manner,” Smith countered.

With all due respect to Judge Smith, prioritizing state control over a core right feels like a slippery slope—shouldn’t citizens, not bureaucrats, define how they protect themselves without jumping through endless hoops?

What’s Next for California Gun Laws?

Interestingly, the court left intact the licensing rules for open carry in smaller counties with populations under 200,000, noting Baird didn’t fully pursue arguments on that front.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is gearing up to clarify its Second Amendment test in upcoming cases, including a review of another 9th Circuit ruling on a Hawaii gun law, which could further reshape the landscape.

For now, this ruling is a wake-up call for California lawmakers: the Constitution isn’t a suggestion, and gun owners—taxpayers, parents, and retirees alike—won’t sit quietly while their rights are sidelined by overzealous regulation.