Ninth Circuit puts California’s ban on open carry guns in crosshairs


California’s law that prohibits open carry of handguns without a license is on thin legal standing.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a lower court to reconsider its ruling because the lower court had “abused its discretion” when it did not prevent the open-carry handgun law from being enforced while it is being challenged.

The Appeals Court instructed the lower court with language that will ultimately make it more difficult to uphold the ban.

The Ninth Circuit judges sent the ruling back to the district judge and provided instructions on how she should view the constitutional questions, giving the lower court judge side rails that make it more difficult for the state to prove its laws are constitutional.

The case involves two men — Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo — who want to exercise their right to openly carry handguns in California.

California says that in counties that have over 200,000 residents, open carry is prohibited without a license. Although Baird and Gallardo do live in counties smaller than 200,000, were not able to get open-carry permits from California.

The two men have been litigating the matter since 2019 and have asked the lower court on three different occasions to stop enforcing the law that criminalizes open carry.

The district judge, who is an Obama appointee, denied the men’s request for a preliminary injunction in 2020.

Baird and Gallardo took their case to the Ninth Circuit to get a reversal of that denial. A three-judge panel granted their wish on Thursday. The judges on the panel were two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee, who found that the district court judge had abused the legal standard when she denied the preliminary injunction.

“This appeal presents the question whether, in a case in which a plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation, a district court can deny a motion for a preliminary injunction without analyzing the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote in the ruling. “The answer to that question is clear: a district court may not do so.”

The panel gave the lower court judge instructions on how she must consider the law in her ruling. She will be required to determine if California’s sweeping open-carry ban is covered by the Second Amendment. She must also consider if the State of California can show that an open-carry ban was in place when the Second Amendment or the 14th Amendment was ratified.

The lower court judge must also determine if Baird and Gallardo are likely to win their appeal on the basic right to open carry.


  1. Why is there any legal law against the second amendment. It is a constitutional right to bear arms. Just like free speech. If people don’t like it move to another country like North Korea.

  2. Perfectly painted picture and example of the kangaroo court system using hand picked judges to bend laws in any direction they get paid to go.
    I guess they went to different law schools and used a different set of books in each to learn a different constitution?
    Oh thats right one of our constitutions is shot full af “racism” according to “Gumpy” Dunbar.
    Thats a play out of DOJ’s Garland and various attorney generals playbook to try and find a Demo district blue enough with a bought and paid for judge to get a phony “trumped up” charge to stick long enough for a conviction to stave off any competition to the DC crime syndicate occupying the white house.
    They have to fasttrack this one. 2024 selection is rapidly approaching.

  3. Open carry is Constitutional. Part of the “make no laws” bit.

    Why doesn’t California just hold a rally where they burn copies of the Constitution and get it over with?

  4. Just as an aside, Mark Baird may be making a run for the California State Senate soon & he has been active with the State of Jefferson (spitting California into at least 2 states) movement. Shasta County has become a positive note in an otherwise dismal California political environment. However his financial resources are limited reference carrying out this costly court action. He is asking for donations. They may be sent to PECAN, 14421 Old Oregon Trail, Suite B, Redding, Ca 96003. They are asking checks to be made out to PECAN and in the memo spot note 2nd Amendment to be sure it gets to Mr. Baird’s cause.

    Also, to hear more about this, listen to the second half of this podcast, where Mr. Baird is a featured speaker. The whole thing is only about an hour and you may find the entire broadcast interesting. Here is the link:


    Listening to these guys gives me hope.

  5. As a marine myself I am more and more disappointed in Col Dan, his support of Dem , Lisa with nothing in returned just makes me wonder, who is he looking out for, Us or himself. We already know about Lisa .

    • What does the State of California’s open carry ban, which is currently being litigated in the Federal court system, have to do with either of Alaska’s Senators in the Federal legislative branch?

  6. The second amendment will not be infringed upon. Period. California apparently doesn’t understand what the Constitution says!

  7. If we follow the illogic of the left wingers- who hate the US Constitution, we should be banned from engaging in free speech, unless we have a permit. We should not be able to practice our religion, unless we have a permit. Keeping and bearing arms is a liberty the constitution recognizes. Even if the left wingers don’t like it. No permit needed. The elected officials who have tried to make this activity illegal need to be removed from office. In a perfect world they would be fined, and jailed.

Comments are closed.