Right To Bear Joins Amicus Brief Defending Open Carry Rights in California Challenge

A federal appeals court is being asked to decide whether California can ban open carry entirely, stripping law-abiding gun owners of a constitutionally protected method of self-defense, simply because concealed carry permits technically still exist. Right To Bear (RTB) believes that argument is wrong, and that it threatens the Second Amendment rights of gun owners both within and far beyond California's borders.

RTB has joined an amicus brief filed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in Baird v. Bonta, asking the full court to affirm that California's open carry prohibition must be evaluated under the text-and-history framework the Supreme Court requires. Alongside the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), RTB is again standing up for the law-abiding gun owners, families, and self-defense-minded Americans whose constitutional rights are directly at stake.

What Is This Case About?

Mark Baird, the plaintiff in this case, is challenging California's sweeping prohibition on openly carrying firearms in public.

California is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to public carry, and its open carry ban eliminates an entire method of self-defense that millions of Americans exercise lawfully every day in most of the country.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit previously ruled in Baird's favor, finding that California's open carry ban needed to be evaluated under the Supreme Court's text-and-history framework established in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. That framework requires the government to prove that a firearms restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, not simply assert that the restriction serves public safety goals.

Rather than accept that ruling, California sought and obtained rehearing before the full en banc Ninth Circuit. One judge on the prior panel wrote separately to argue that the open carry question does not even need historical analysis, that because California allows concealed carry permits, the open carry question is simply off the table.

That is the argument RTB and NAGR are asking the en banc court to reject.

See Also: California Gun Laws (2026)

What an Amicus Brief Actually Is

An amicus curiae brief, which translates from Latin as "friend of the court," is a legal document filed by a party that is not directly involved in a lawsuit but has a relevant interest in its outcome. Courts are not required to accept them, but at the appellate level and before the full en banc Ninth Circuit, they are common and often influential.

An amicus brief does not introduce new evidence. It offers legal arguments, historical context, policy analysis, and perspectives the court might not otherwise have.

When organizations like RTB and NAGR file together, they are telling the court that real gun owners with real stakes in the outcome are paying attention, and that the decision will have consequences far beyond the two parties in the courtroom.

In a case like this one, where the ruling will set precedent across every state in the Ninth Circuit, that message matters.

See Also: What Is an Amicus Brief and Why It Matters for Gun Owners

Why Right To Bear Joined This Brief

The argument that one method of carry can be banned whenever another method remains available is the kind of judicial shortcut that quietly hollows out constitutional rights.

RTB joined this amicus brief for reasons that go directly to the heart of our mission.

First, our members carry firearms for self-defense every day. Open carry and concealed carry are not interchangeable. Open carry provides a deterrent effect that concealed carry cannot.

A visible firearm signals to a potential attacker that their intended victim is armed, and attacks that never happen are the best possible outcome. Concealed carry, by design, provides no such deterrent. For some of our members, those with physical limitations affecting their draw speed, those carrying long guns, or those whose circumstances make open carry the tactically superior choice, the ability to carry openly is not a preference. It is a meaningful difference in their ability to defend themselves.

Second, the claim that California's concealed carry rights are robust enough to compensate for the open carry ban does not hold up to scrutiny.

California's Senate Bill 2 created an extensive list of locations where even permit holders cannot carry concealed, including bars and restaurants, parks, playgrounds, libraries, stadiums, museums, zoos, and more. Telling gun owners that concealed carry is an adequate substitute while simultaneously restricting concealed carry across enormous swaths of daily life is not a serious argument. It is a policy designed to eliminate public carry in all but name.

Third, the analytical shortcut being proposed here, that one recognized carry right forecloses analysis of another, has no basis in Supreme Court precedent and would have dangerous implications if adopted.

Under that logic, a state could point to the availability of rifles and ban handguns, or point to handguns and restrict long guns. The Supreme Court rejected exactly this kind of argument in Heller, and it cannot be smuggled back in through Bruen. Every arms-bearing question is entitled to the same text-and-history analysis the Supreme Court requires, and courts cannot pick and choose which ones receive it.

Who Joined This Brief

RTB filed this amicus brief alongside one of our trusted partners in Second Amendment litigation.

The National Association for Gun Rights: NAGR is a nonprofit membership organization with millions of members nationwide whose sole mission is defending Americans' right to keep and bear arms. NAGR has brought and participated in numerous legal actions before federal courts, including the Supreme Court, in defense of Second Amendment rights.

Together, we are telling the en banc Ninth Circuit that real gun owners across the country are watching this case, and that the decision will shape Second Amendment rights for millions of people who never set foot in California.

What the Historical Record Actually Shows

The Supreme Court's text-and-history framework is not a technicality. It is the method the Court has required judges to use precisely because it forces them to look at what the right actually meant when it was enshrined in the Constitution, rather than balancing competing policy preferences. When that analysis is applied here, the historical record does not support California's position.

The pre-ratification and ratification-era evidence shows a handful of regulations prohibiting carrying arms in a manner designed to terrorize the public, the equivalent of today's brandishing laws. There is no established historical tradition of banning open carry while allowing concealed carry, or of permitting states to trade one method of carry for the other.

The antebellum southern cases that come closest to supporting that position reflect a regional and era-specific suspicion of concealed carry, not a national consensus that governments may eliminate one method of carry as long as another is tolerated.

The historical tradition runs the other way. Open carry was the default. Concealed carry was what courts and legislatures of the founding era viewed with suspicion.

To say it plainly, California is drawing upon the days of the Wild West, Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, shoot outs in the tavern, and the historical foundation of spaghetti westerns to try and effectively ban a style of carry.

While some within and outside the larger gun community may agree that concealed carry is preferable, none would argue that means open carry should be outlawed. The days of lawlessness in the West are long past, and California has no right to create their own lawlessness with uninspired and outdated historical context.

What Leadership Is Saying

"The Second Amendment is not a buffet where governments get to pick which rights to honor and which to take away," said Right To Bear. "Open carry and concealed carry are different tools for different circumstances, and telling a gun owner that one is enough because the other still technically exists is not a constitutional argument. It is a workaround. We are proud to stand with NAGR in asking the Ninth Circuit to apply the analysis the Supreme Court actually requires and to recognize that the right to bear arms means something real."

Stay Informed and Stay Protected

Baird v. Bonta is now before the full en banc Ninth Circuit, and its outcome will set precedent affecting gun owners across every state within the circuit. RTB will continue to follow it closely and to participate in the legal process on behalf of our members wherever we are able.

If you want an organization in your corner that does not just issue statements, one that actually shows up in court, sign up for a Right To Bear membership today. Membership starts at just $19 a month and includes a 24/7 attorney hotline, criminal and civil defense coverage, firearm replacement, and the kind of legal advocacy on display in this case.

We were founded on the belief that no law-abiding American should face the legal system alone. That belief is what brought us to the Ninth Circuit on behalf of every gun owner whose right to carry openly is on the line.

Join the movement today and protect yourself while standing up for the Second Amendment nationwide.