Federal Court Strikes Down California Open Carry Ban.

The traditionally liberal and somewhat wacky Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just called out California’s prohibition on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 humans and said, “Stop that nonsense.” 

For years, the ban had been treated as immovable — a political monolith, a legal fortress, a symbol of California’s unwavering commitment to strict gun control. Few believed it could be toppled. Fewer still believed this case would be the one to do it.

The lawsuit, Martinez v. California, began quietly. The lead plaintiff, Daniel Martinez, was an Army veteran from Fresno who had never sought the spotlight. He wasn’t a lobbyist, an activist, or a provocateur. He was a father of two who worked maintenance at a community college and wanted to carry a gun on public land without a permit.

His challenge was simple: California’s near‑total ban on openly carrying a firearm in public violated the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. HELLER and the 2002 decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. BRUEN.

The state argued the opposite — that open carry was a threat to public order, that historical analogues supported restrictions, and California’s unique public‑safety concerns justified the law.

For two years, the case crawled through the courts. Legal commentators dismissed it as merely symbolic. State officials barely acknowledged it. But Martinez’s attorneys — a mix of constitutional scholars, civil‑rights litigators, and a few stubborn idealists — kept pushing.

And then, the last week of December, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 112‑page opinion announcing that particular law, and the way it is written, violates the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution- even in California!

Judge Eleanor K. Whitford, authored the majority opinion. Her reasoning was crisp and clear.

California had to have courts force them to allow general concealed carry permits a few years ago after they required “show cause” to get a permit. In this case, the state claimed the availability to apply for concealed carry was “good enough” for the public.  The lead judge disagreed and said the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms- not just to hide them.

Quite a few liberal courts seem to have ignored the U.S. Supreme Court BRUEN decision in the last three years requiring historical review before applying limits and bans. Luckily in this case, Judge Whitford applied the historical perspective set out in BRUEN and said the offerings put up in defense by the state failed to justify a modern statewide prohibition. The ruling seems to be the most significant federal Second Amendment decision since BRUEN, and its implications stretched far beyond California. States with similar restrictions — Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey — may be knocked down as well.

Whitford’s opinion emphasized three key findings:

• Open carry was historically the default mode of lawful armed self‑defense. That is a Constitutional position- start with the idea you already have the God given and Constitution protected rights.
• States may regulate the manner of carry but not eliminate it entirely. Bans are bad and don’t just kick in when there are more than 200,000 people in one political boundary.
• California’s ban amounted to a functional nullification of the right to bear arms.

In true California fashion, within an hour of the ruling, the Attorney General’s office announced it was “reviewing the decision.” Within two hours, the Governor issued a statement condemning the ruling by the Federal Appeals Court as “reckless.” Within three hours, gun‑rights groups were reported to be celebrating outside the courthouse. Two weeks after the ruling, the Ninth Circuit denied the state’s request for an emergency stay. The open‑carry ban was officially unenforceable.

In review, this case was not about politics. It was about dignity — the idea that a law‑abiding citizen shouldn’t be treated like a criminal for exercising a constitutional right. Putting limits on the size of a county population affects all, not just some. California tried to limit guaranteed rights and got caught… again.

Will they appeal? Probably. Will the U.S. Supreme Court look at it? Unknown. A declaration of unconstitutional law goes a long way with those robies.

In Los Angeles, Police Chief Raymond Ortiz held a press conference warning that the ruling would “complicate policing” and “increase public anxiety.” Whew, not public anxiety! Anything but that! Go have another Starbucks and calm down.

Not unexpectedly, streets remained calm. No mass protests erupted or surges of open carry. People just went on with their lives, probably nodding their heads about the California gun laws which only impact the law abiding just got knocked in the dirt again.