California Open Carry 2026: Baird v. Bonta Explained

On January 2, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling in Baird v. Bonta: California's ban on the open carry of firearms in urban areas violates the Second Amendment. The decision, if it stands, would invalidate the state's near-total prohibition on open carry that has been in place since 2012. But the ruling is far from final. Here is what the court decided, what it means, and where the case goes from here.

Background: California's Open Carry Laws

California banned the open carry of loaded firearms in incorporated areas in 1967, originally enacted in response to Black Panther Party members carrying loaded firearms at the state capitol. The loaded open carry ban was codified under PC 25850. In 2012, the state went further and banned the open carry of unloaded handguns (PC 26350) and unloaded long guns (PC 26400) in incorporated cities and counties with populations over 200,000.

The practical effect: roughly 95% of California's population lives in counties where all forms of open carry -- loaded or unloaded, handgun or long gun -- are prohibited. The only Californians who could legally open carry were those in the least populated rural counties, and even then only in unincorporated areas.

The Plaintiff: Charles Nichols and Mark Baird

The case was brought by Mark Baird, a law-abiding California resident who wished to openly carry a firearm for self-defense but was prohibited from doing so in his county. Baird argued that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and that "bear" historically meant to carry openly in public -- not just concealed. The case was filed in the Central District of California and initially dismissed. Baird appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit Ruling

The three-judge panel applied the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. The government bears the burden of showing that a modern law is supported by a "distinctly similar" historical analogue.

The panel's conclusions were direct:

• Open carry is protected conduct. The Second Amendment's text -- "the right to keep and bear arms" -- plainly covers the carrying of firearms. Historical sources from the Founding era through Reconstruction consistently distinguished between open carry (generally protected) and concealed carry (sometimes restricted).
• California's ban lacks historical support. The state argued that various historical laws restricted carrying in certain contexts (courthouses, elections, etc.), but the panel found no historical analogue for a categorical ban on open carry covering 95% of a state's population. The panel called this a "straightforward" case under Bruen.
• The ban is unconstitutional. Because California could not demonstrate a historical tradition supporting its near-total ban, the law violates the Second Amendment.

What This Does NOT Mean (Yet)

Despite headlines proclaiming "open carry is legal in California," the reality is more nuanced:

• The mandate has not issued. The Ninth Circuit's ruling does not take effect until the court issues its mandate, which is automatically stayed when a petition for rehearing is filed. Attorney General Bonta filed a petition for en banc rehearing (review by a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges) on January 16, 2026. Until the en banc petition is resolved, the existing laws remain in effect.
• Open carry is still illegal today. The California Attorney General issued a bulletin (2026-DLE-04) to all law enforcement agencies confirming that the open carry prohibitions under PC 26350 and PC 26400 remain enforceable until the mandate issues and any injunction takes effect.
• En banc rehearing is likely. The Ninth Circuit has a history of granting en banc review in Second Amendment cases. The full court may reach a different conclusion than the three-judge panel.

The Bruen Test Applied

The Bruen framework has two steps. First, does the regulated conduct fall within the Second Amendment's plain text? If yes, the government must justify its regulation by showing it is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The panel found step one easily satisfied: carrying a firearm openly is bearing arms. For step two, California presented several historical examples -- Founding-era laws restricting carry in specific sensitive places, Reconstruction-era surety laws, and territorial regulations. The panel rejected each as insufficient. Sensitive-place restrictions (courthouses, polling places) are narrow and location-specific, not population-wide bans. Surety laws required posting a bond if someone's carrying caused alarm, but did not prohibit carrying outright. Territorial regulations applied to territories, not states, and were not representative of a national tradition.

What Happens Next

The case is now in limbo pending the en banc petition. Here is the likely timeline:

• En banc petition pending -- The full Ninth Circuit will decide whether to rehear the case. This decision typically takes several months.
• If en banc is granted -- A panel of 11 Ninth Circuit judges will rehear the case. This could take 6-12 months and could reverse the panel decision.
• If en banc is denied -- The three-judge panel's ruling stands, the mandate issues, and California must comply. The state would likely seek Supreme Court review.
• Supreme Court -- Regardless of the en banc outcome, the losing side is likely to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the significance of the issue and the Bruen framework, the Court may take the case.

What California Gun Owners Should Do

Do not openly carry a firearm in California based on this ruling. The law has not changed yet. Open carry violations under PC 26350 are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in county jail and fines up to $1,000. Wait for the legal process to play out. If the ruling ultimately takes effect, California will likely enact new legislation attempting to restrict open carry through other means (sensitive places designations, permitting requirements, etc.).

In the meantime, if you want to carry a firearm in California for self-defense, the legal path remains a concealed carry permit (CCW) issued by your county sheriff or local police chief.