Intro
As an individual, you possess the inherent and fundamental right to protect yourself and your loved ones. As an American, this right is protected under the Second Amendment. But what if your state decided to treat you like a second-class citizen simply because you decided openly carrying a firearm was the best means of self-defense? Well, if you live in California, this is reality.
California has no shame about passing unconstitutional and anti-Second Amendment laws. Since 1967, California has banned the open carry of firearms without a license in nearly all circumstances, and the penalty for violations includes jail time. This is a direct violation of the Second Amendment and the 2022 precedent set by New York State Pistol and Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen. (A case in which MSLF’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed a supporting amicus brief.) Bruen requires courts to look first to the text of the Second Amendment and then to history to determine whether the Framers of the Constitution considered the restriction in question consistent with your right to keep and bear arms. That should be rare indeed. In Bruen, the Court reminded the country that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, compared to other constitutional protections, and cannot be treated as such.
Case Summary
Baird v. Bonta challenges California’s ban on open carrying a firearm. The lower court ruled that California’s ban was justified based on a historical analysis. This analysis led the court to reject the constitutional claim in the case. However, the case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be determined whether the lower court’s ruling was justified or if it was flawed.
California must now prove there is a historical tradition for their ban on open carrying. Unfortunately, some courts remain anti-Second Amendment and openly resist the Bruen decision. Despite this, judges must apply the Constitution impartially, without allowing personal views to cloud their decisions. In Baird, the lower court made extensive excuses to avoid properly applying Bruen. Some of the court’s reasoning included the claim that courts are ill-equipped to conduct historical analysis on the Second Amendment and that historical facts often conflict with each other. There have even been instances where judges have openly criticized Bruen, stating they are compelled to follow it despite disagreeing with the ruling.
Americans should be able to rely on the courts to remain unbiased when their right to self-defense is at stake, ensuring a thorough examination of historical analysis before infringing upon a fundamental right. Yet in this case, the lower court made efforts to sidestep the law, demonstrating resistance to a binding precedent.
MSLF’s amicus brief highlights three key points: First, courts regularly apply history in interpreting the Constitution, from the Federalist Papers to Blackstone and the ratification debates. Second, if historical precedents conflict, the plaintiff challenging the restriction should win. Under Bruen, the government must rebut the presumption that it “shall not infringe” the right to keep and bear arms. If the government fails to meet this burden, the court should rule in favor of the Constitution. Lastly, we argue that appellate courts like the Ninth Circuit should apply special scrutiny when lower courts publicly criticize Bruen. While it’s possible to apply Bruen without agreeing with it, such public doubts can raise significant concerns. In this case, we believe the lower court’s rejection of the right to open carry was based on an incorrect historical analysis.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s at Stake?
California has long established its reputation as an anti-Second Amendment state. Unfortunately for Americans, California serves as ground zero for a national trend, with other states attempting to replicate these restrictive laws. This case is no exception, with states like New York and Illinois already adopting similar measures.
For the plaintiffs, the stakes are clear: will they continue to endure California’s restrictive open carry laws, which infringe upon their right to self-defense simply because of their weapon of choice?
For the rest of us as Americans, the stakes are whether similar restrictions will spread to our own states. Mountain States is fighting back now, before this case has the chance to influence the rest of the country. Peaceable American gun owners are not second-class citizens. The Second Amendment is no less important than any other constitutional right. The Ninth Circuit must recognize that the lower court’s decision was a mistake, and rule in favor of the Constitution and the rights of American citizens.
Case Timeline
- April 24, 2024: The Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Mark Baird and urged the court to follow the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework and apply the Constitution’s text and history faithfully.
- January 2, 2026: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms in the state’s more populous counties violate the Second Amendment.