Federal court sides with State of Jefferson leader in legal challenge of California’s restriction on open carry

“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms,” wrote Judge Lawrence VanDyke, in a recent opinion. The federal judge’s ruling sides with Siskiyou-based plaintiff Mark Baird in a successful appeal, the most recent legal move in his ongoing case against the state of California over its gun laws. 

Judge VanDyke, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, is seated on the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court in San Francisco. The court’s 2-1 ruling, filed Jan. 2, partially affirms Baird’s legal claim that state law restricting open carrying is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

The ruling supports Baird’s challenge of California’s “urban open carry ban” — that’s how Judge VanDyke refers to legislation that forbids open carry of weapons in counties with a population of more than 200,000 people. It’s something which affects gun owners in the majority of California, but does not apply to Baird’s home county of Siskiyou, population 43,000. 

The legal argument for the appellate court’s ruling was built on a 2022 federal Supreme Court decision known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The landmark ruling struck down a New York law that required gun owners to establish a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to obtain a concealed carry license. According to six of the nine Supreme Court judges who issued the ruling, this requirement violated the Constitution by “preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” 

The specific issue of open carry, of course, is not addressed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, as referenced in a dissenting opinion from one judge in the Jan. 2 appellate court ruling. “California may lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect its citizens,” dissenting Judge N. R. Smith stated, “so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense. Because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.” 

A spokesperson for the California Attorney General’s office told Shasta Scout by email today that Attorney General Rob Bonta is “committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws” and is “reviewing the opinion and considering all options.” 

Baird, whose appeal was opened in the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 1, 2024, is a spokesperson for the State of Jefferson (SOJ), a long-standing movement that has sought to establish a new Pacific state carved out of parts of northern California and Southern Oregon. Like similar movements in the region, SOJ’s state-building has been motivated in part by the increasing political tensions between the Democratic supermajority of California’s political machine — and urban voters — and the conservative-leaning populace of the state’s hinterland. 

California’s restrictive gun laws have long inflamed many of the state’s high profile conservatives, including federal Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and San Francisco-based lawyer, who previously served as a delegate at the National Republican Convention. At the end of 2025, Dhillon announced the DOJ’s establishment of a new team of prosecutors, with the mission “to advance a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,” according to the department’s website. 

Baird could not be reached for comment today but discussed the lawsuit on a July 6 episode of the North State podcast Jefferson State of Mine with hosts Terry Rapoza and Win Carpenter, two Shasta County locals associated with the SOJ movement. Quoting the language of the Second Amendment that lays out the constitutional provisions for militias, Baird opined on the importance of open carry to such movements asking, “what good is a militia going to do with pocket pistols?”

“You need to carry to do whatever job it is you need to do, whether that is fight tyranny, to fight foreign invasion, or to defend yourself, your family, your community, your state or your nation,” he continued, adding that doing so might require carrying a weapon that is not concealable.

California’s perceived assault on Second Amendment rights has also been a catalyzing issue for the North State’s Cottonwood Militia, which has acted as an auxiliary to law enforcement during policing of racial justice protesters in 2020 and in response to recent demonstrations, where militia members have assembled as a self-described “peace-keeping” force. If the appellate court’s ruling leads to changes in state law, militia members could begin to visibly display firearms during their surveillance of public events, such as No Kings Protests. 

The open display of firearms in the 60’s by a very different group of armed political activists — the Black Panther Party — is what prompted the passage of California’s Mulford Act in 1967, imposing certain restrictions on open carry in the state. Judge VanDyke referenced this history in his ruling, referring to the Mulford Act as “tainted with racial animus,” “xenophobic,” and “explicitly racist.” 

While the Panthers decision to arm themselves against the government was driven by the structural disenfranchisement of Black Americans by racist policing. In contrast, the Cottonwood Militia has expressed a willingness to work with law enforcement to combat alleged threats from “antifa” and provide aid in immigration enforcement. 

On Jan. 2, the same day the appellate court issued its ruling on Baird’s suit, the Second Amendment Foundation announced that it had filed an amicus brief in support of another legal challenge to California gun laws. That case, which is also under appeal, challenges California’s requirement to background checks before approving a purchase of ammunition, as well as the state’s ban against residents of other states being allowed to buy ammunition in California.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.