The short answer: no—but the ruling raises serious questions that gun owners should not ignore.
In a recent episode of Bearing Arms Cam & Company, Cam Edwards sat down with Kostas Moros of the Second Amendment Foundation to break down a major Ninth Circuit decision in Baird v. Bonta. The case struck down California’s ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people—roughly 95% of the state.
But buried in the legal weeds is a bigger issue: Can a state effectively kill the right to carry by making concealed carry prohibitively expensive, while also banning open carry?
That’s the real fight.
What the Ninth Circuit Actually Did
The three-judge panel ruled that California’s urban open-carry ban is unconstitutional. That matters because the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
California tried to argue that since it allows concealed carry permits, it can ban open carry altogether. The Ninth Circuit rejected that logic.
Historically, the court noted, open carry—not concealed carry—was the protected norm at the time of the Founding and the 19th century. States could regulate concealed carry, but outright bans on open carry had no real historical support.
That’s why the panel struck down the urban ban.
So, Why Are People Saying Concealed Carry Is “Not a Right”?
Because the decision exposes an uncomfortable truth: California treats concealed carry as a privilege, not a right.
Even after Bruen ended “may-issue” permitting, counties found a workaround—price people out.
Kostas Moros laid out the numbers:
- Santa Clara County: nearly $2,000 total to get a concealed carry permit
- San Francisco: closer to $1,000
- Other counties: hundreds less—for the same right
These costs include:
- Massive application fees
- Mandatory training
- Live-scan fingerprinting
- Psychological exams (often $400+), even though state law does not require them
The result? A so-called “shall issue” system that only works if you have four figures to spare.
Fees as a Modern Gun Ban
Here’s the key constitutional problem: You can’t tax a fundamental right out of existence.
Even if counties claim these fees reflect their “actual costs,” Moros explained why that argument fails. The government chose to pile on extra requirements. Under Bruen, that burden falls on the state—not the citizen.
Imagine charging $2,000 to vote. Or to speak at a city council meeting.
The Constitution doesn’t allow that trick for the Second Amendment either.
The Hypocrisy Is Hard to Miss
California officials routinely argue that voter ID laws or modest election safeguards are unconstitutional because they burden low-income citizens.
But when it comes to gun rights?
- High fees
- Long delays
- Invasive evaluations
- Unequal treatment by county
Suddenly, the same concerns about equity disappear.
Even the NAACP warned Santa Clara County that these fees would disproportionately harm minority communities. The county’s response? “We’ll monitor it.”
That tells you everything.
Will This Decision Stick?
Probably not—at least not in its current form.
The Ninth Circuit has a long history of rehearing and reversing pro-Second Amendment rulings through its en banc process. Moros himself expects this decision to face that fate.
Still, the ruling matters.
Good opinions—even short-lived ones—become persuasive authority. Other judges read them. Other cases cite them. The historical record presented here reinforces future challenges nationwide.
The Bigger Picture
This case isn’t really about open vs. concealed carry.
It’s about whether states can nullify the right to bear arms by:
- Banning one form of carry, and
- Making the other financially unreachable
The Ninth Circuit just signaled that this shell game won’t hold up forever.
Gun owners should be paying attention—not just in California, but everywhere. Because if a right only exists for those who can afford it, it isn’t a right at all.
Ninth Circuit Rules California’s Open-Carry Ban Unconstitutional
