Joe Whitcomb
In Baird v. Bonta, plaintiffs Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo challenged California's restrictive open-carry laws, arguing that these regulations violated their Second Amendment rights. California’s Penal Code prohibits individuals from openly carrying a handgun in public without a license, and obtaining such a license is almost impossible for most residents. The plaintiffs sought to block enforcement of these laws, contending that the regulations imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to carry firearms for self-defense outside their homes.
Baird and Gallardo reside in counties with populations under 200,000, where California law theoretically allows residents to apply for an open-carry license. However, in practice, obtaining such a license is extremely difficult due to the state’s strict restrictions and the absence of a clear, accessible path for obtaining a permit. As a result, Baird and Gallardo were unable to legally carry a handgun in public, leaving them vulnerable despite their desire to exercise their Second Amendment rights for self-defense.
Their lawsuit sought a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the enforcement of sections 25850 and 26350 of the California Penal Code, which impose criminal penalties for unlicensed open carry. They argued that these laws violated their constitutional right to bear arms and were inconsistent with historical precedents from the time when the Second Amendment was ratified.
The District Court's Denial
The case initially went before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Baird and Gallardo requested a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily stopped the enforcement of California’s open-carry restrictions while the court considered the full merits of the case. However, the district court denied the motion.
The district court’s decision did not address whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. Instead, it focused on the balance of harms and the public interest, concluding that public safety considerations outweighed the plaintiffs’ right to carry firearms in public. The court reasoned that granting the injunction could increase risks to public safety, and it declined to fully assess whether California’s open-carry law was constitutional under the Second Amendment.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal and Legal Arguments
Following the district court’s denial, Baird and Gallardo appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their appeal argued that the lower court had erred by failing to apply the proper legal standard for evaluating a preliminary injunction in cases involving constitutional claims.
The plaintiffs’ central argument was that their right to openly carry firearms for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment. They asserted that California’s restrictions on open carry lacked historical support, as there were no analogous laws in effect when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, or when the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against the states in 1868. The plaintiffs contended that California’s laws amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on their fundamental right to bear arms.
In their appeal, Baird and Gallardo also argued that the district court had improperly ignored the first factor in the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction: the likelihood of success on the merits. They emphasized that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that any restriction on the right to carry firearms must be consistent with historical regulations that were in place when the Second Amendment was adopted. Since California had not demonstrated that its open-carry restrictions were consistent with such historical precedents, the plaintiffs argued that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the district court had abused its discretion by failing to properly evaluate the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits. The appellate court emphasized that the likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, particularly in cases involving constitutional claims. The court stated that the district court had incorrectly focused on public safety and the balance of harms without first determining whether the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their Second Amendment claim.
The Ninth Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which clarified that the right to carry firearms for self-defense extends beyond the home and that any government restriction on this right must be supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court noted that California had not provided any historical analogues to justify its open-carry ban. Specifically, the state failed to demonstrate that there were laws from the founding era that imposed similar restrictions on the public carry of firearms.
The court’s decision reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit instructed the district court to conduct a proper analysis of whether California’s open-carry ban is consistent with the Second Amendment, as interpreted by Bruen. It also ordered the district court to expedite the review process, given that the plaintiffs had already been waiting for over four years since they first sought the preliminary injunction.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case, ordering a proper analysis of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and the issuance of a decision on the preliminary injunction.