A potentially precedent-setting gun rights case returned to federal court last month, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s effective ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. I hadn’t been tracking this case until recently, but after diving into the details, it’s clear this isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a serious challenge to how California (and potentially other states) regulate open carry. While I don’t personally open carry, I believe it should be legal, and this case could end up shaping how far that right extends under the Second Amendment.
Background
Plaintiff Mark Baird originally filed the case in 2019, arguing that California’s law prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms in public violates the Second Amendment. The state does technically allow for open carry licenses in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, but the lawsuit contends that these are inaccessible in practice.
After Baird filed the lawsuit in April 2019, the case moved slowly. On December 8, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed part of the case. Baird appealed shortly after, filing with the Ninth Circuit on January 3, 2023. In April 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a rare procedural rebuke of Judge Mueller’s handling of the case and agreed to hear the appeal, which was argued before a three-judge panel on June 24, 2025 in Seattle.
The June 2025 Hearing
The Ninth Circuit hearing was held on June 24, 2025, in Seattle, Washington. While the case originated in California, the Ninth Circuit regularly holds hearings in different cities throughout its jurisdiction, including Seattle.
Attorney Amy Bellantoni, representing plaintiff Mark Baird, emphasized that the challenge is both facial and as-applied. A facial challenge argues that a law is unconstitutional on its face, while an as-applied challenge argues that it is unconstitutional in the way it’s applied to a specific person or situation. In this case, the argument is that the law itself is overly broad, and also that the way it’s enforced against Baird violates his rights—even in a rural county where open carry licenses are supposed to be available.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke was especially critical of the state’s claim that California’s laws constitute a “licensing regime” rather than a ban. He questioned that framing sharply, saying:
“It’s a mischaracterization … it’s like saying ‘you can’t drive a car in the wilderness, but don’t worry — you can apply for a license to ride a camel.’”
Later in the hearing, Deputy SG Aaron Pennekamp admitted:
“There isn’t any record evidence of any open carry licenses having been issued.”
This admission struck at the heart of the plaintiffs’ case—that the law may appear to allow open carry, but functionally acts as a statewide ban.
What Happens Next?
The court is expected to issue a written opinion by the end of August 2025.
If the panel sides with Baird, California could request what’s called an en banc review, where a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges (usually 11) would re-hear the case. This happens when a losing party argues that the panel’s decision conflicts with precedent or raises exceptionally important legal questions. Failing that, the state could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.
Could This Be a Major Gun Rights Case?
This case has the potential to be a major development in Second Amendment litigation—but that’s not guaranteed. If Baird wins and the Supreme Court gets involved, it could set a nationwide precedent for open carry rights. On the other hand, if the panel sides with California and the Supreme Court declines to review the case, its impact could remain limited to states in the Ninth Circuit.
Either way, Baird v. Bonta is shaping up to be a pivotal case worth watching.
