“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
A gun owner challenged a state law prohibiting open carry of guns in large counties.
What happened in this case?
Gun owner Mark Baird filed a federal court challenge to a California state law that bans the open carry of firearms in large urban counties. The district court found in favor of the state, but a panel including two Trump judges, Lawrence VanDyke and Kenneth Lee, reversed and struck down the open carry law in Baird v. Bonta in January 2026. George W. Bush Judge Randy Smith dissented.
How did Trump judges Van Dyke and Lee rule?
Judge VanDyke wrote an opinion, joined by Judge Lee, reversing that ruled that reversed the lower court. They ruled that based on the historical test established by the Supreme Court in the Bruen case, they explained, there was no support for the California law as permissible under the Second Amendment
What did Judge Smith say in dissent?
In disagreeing with the majority, Judge Smith wrote that as long as a state permits at least one method of carry of weapons, it is free under the Second Amendment to prohibit other methods in order to promote safety. A”faithful application of Bruen,”he wrote, commands that the California law be upheld.
Why is the result harmful?
The Trump judges’ decision strikes down the state’s effort to promote firearms safety by limiting public carry of firearms in California, and may affect laws elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit as well, including Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.