The Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment rulings in June 2026, both expanding gun rights. On June 25, Wolford v. Lopez struck down Hawaii's rule barring licensed gun carriers from entering businesses without advance property-owner permission—a decision that also applies to similar laws in California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey.
A week before Wolford, all nine justices ruled in U.S. v. Hemani that prosecuting a casual marijuana user for gun possession violates the Second Amendment. The government failed to show a historical tradition of disarming people based solely on drug use; the federal ban stands, but prosecutors must now demonstrate a closer link to dangerous behavior. In California, the full Ninth Circuit heard arguments on the open-carry ban (Baird v. Bonta) on June 3 and on the ammunition background check law (Rhode v. Bonta) on March 25, with both decisions pending.
Why it matters
Every gun law in America now lives or dies on a history test, and the Supreme Court just decided two more chapters.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
95%
California residents affected by open-carry ban
The prohibition applied to all counties over 200,000 people; challenge now before the full Ninth Circuit en banc
450+
Bruen-related court decisions since 2022
Double the Second Amendment cases filed in Heller's first year
88%
Gun laws upheld post-Bruen
Most regulations survive the history test despite initial fears
9-0
Hemani Supreme Court vote
Unanimous ruling limiting the federal drug-user gun ban to prosecutions with a historical grounding
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?
Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.
17 events
Latest: June 18th, 2026 · 3 months ago
Showing 8 of 17
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
June 2026
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 in Hemani, Limiting Drug-User Gun Ban
LatestSupreme Court
Justice Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous Court that prosecuting Ali Hemani, a regular marijuana user, for gun possession violated the Second Amendment. The government could not show a historical tradition of disarming people based solely on drug use; the federal ban remains in place, but prosecutors must now tie the restriction to dangerousness.
Ninth Circuit En Banc Hears Baird v. Bonta
Legal
The full Ninth Circuit heard argument on California's urban open-carry ban. California argued it can criminalize open carry as long as concealed carry remains available; gun rights advocates argued both carry methods are independently protected under the Second Amendment.
April 2026
Ninth Circuit Vacates Baird Panel Opinion, Orders En Banc Review
Legal
The full Ninth Circuit vacated the January 2 panel decision that struck down California's open-carry ban and ordered the case reheard by the full court.
March 2026
Ninth Circuit En Banc Hears Rhode v. Bonta
Legal
The full Ninth Circuit heard argument on California's requirement that gun owners pass a background check before each ammunition purchase. The DOJ and 26 states filed briefs supporting the challengers.
Supreme Court Hears Hemani
Supreme Court
Oral arguments on whether drug users can possess firearms. Challenges federal prohibition for unlawful substance users.
January 2026
Supreme Court Hears Wolford
Supreme Court
Oral arguments on Hawaii's sensitive places law. Tests how broadly states can ban guns from public locations.
Bonta Issues Statement on Open Carry
Public Statement
Attorney General called open carry dangerous, saying it 'terrorizes children' and 'instills fear throughout our communities' in statement supporting en banc petition.
California Files En Banc Petition
Legal
Attorney General Bonta petitioned full Ninth Circuit to vacate panel decision and grant en banc rehearing. Mandate stayed pending decision.
DOJ Backs Gun Owners in Ammunition Case
Legal
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division filed en banc brief supporting gun owners challenging California's ammunition background check system in Rhode v. Bonta.
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Urban Open-Carry Ban
Court Decision
VanDyke wrote majority opinion finding California's ban on open carry in populated counties unconstitutional. Creates circuit split.
June 2024
Supreme Court Refines Bruen in Rahimi
Supreme Court
Court clarified historical test, allowing analogical reasoning rather than exact matches. Upheld domestic violence gun ban.
2023
District Court Dismisses Baird Case
Legal
Lower court rejected Baird's challenge. He appealed to Ninth Circuit.
June 2022
Supreme Court Decides Bruen
Supreme Court
6-3 ruling struck down New York's concealed-carry law. Established historical tradition test for gun regulations.
2019
Baird Files Lawsuit
Legal
Mark Baird sued California, challenging open-carry restrictions. Mountain States Legal Foundation represented him.
October 2011
California Bans Unloaded Open Carry
Legislation
Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 144, prohibiting open carry of unloaded handguns statewide. Took effect January 1, 2012.
June 2008
Heller Decision
Supreme Court
Supreme Court ruled Second Amendment protects individual gun rights. Opened modern era of constitutional challenges.
July 1967
Reagan Signs Mulford Act
Legislation
California banned loaded open carry after Black Panthers armed patrol. Governor Ronald Reagan backed the restriction.
California requests en banc rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit. With 16 of 29 active judges appointed by Democrats, the court votes to reverse the panel decision—just as it did with California's large-capacity magazine ban. The full court adopts Judge Smith's dissent: states can eliminate one carry method as long as the other remains available. Since California now issues concealed-carry permits post-Bruen, the open-carry ban survives. Gun rights groups petition the Supreme Court, but the Court denies review, leaving the circuit split unresolved.
2
Supreme Court Takes Case, Rules States Must Allow One Method
Possible
Discussed by: Bloomberg Law analysis of Supreme Court's Second Amendment docket
The Ninth Circuit declines en banc review, and California petitions the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split. The Court grants cert and rules 6-3 that states can ban either open or concealed carry—but not both. The decision sides with the Second Circuit's approach and Judge Smith's dissent. California's ban stands because the state issues concealed-carry permits. But states must make one carry method reasonably available, preventing total prohibitions. The ruling gives states flexibility while preserving public-carry rights.
3
Supreme Court Rules Both Methods Protected, Broad Gun Rights Victory
Possible
Discussed by: Gun rights organizations and Duke Center for Firearms Law
The Supreme Court takes the case and rules 5-4 or 6-3 that both open and concealed carry are independently protected by the Second Amendment. The Court holds that states cannot force citizens to choose one method over the other—historical evidence shows both were widely practiced at the founding. The decision strikes down not just California's open-carry ban but also New York's and other states' concealed-carry restrictions. States scramble to rewrite gun laws. Gun safety advocates warn of increased public carry and gun violence.
4
Case Settles or Becomes Moot Before Supreme Court Review
Unlikely
Discussed by: Historical precedent from previous gun cases
California changes its law to allow limited open carry in urban areas with permit requirements similar to concealed carry, making the case moot. Or the state offers Baird a settlement to prevent Supreme Court review of the circuit split. The fundamental question—whether states can ban one carry method while allowing the other—remains unresolved, continuing to divide circuits until another case forces the issue.
5
Ninth Circuit En Banc Upholds California Ammunition Background Checks
Possible
Resolves by Q2 2027
Discussed by: Giffords Law Center and gun law scholars tracking Ninth Circuit en banc voting patterns
With 16 of 29 active judges appointed by Democrats, the en banc Ninth Circuit reverses the July 2025 panel ruling and upholds California's per-purchase ammunition background check. The court holds that requiring a check before each sale falls within the historical tradition of regulating access to deadly materials. California's system stays in place; gun rights groups petition the Supreme Court.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
1967
The Mulford Act (1967)
After the Black Panthers conducted armed patrols in Oakland, California banned loaded open carry. Republican Don Mulford authored the bill. Governor Ronald Reagan—who supported gun rights generally—signed it, saying he saw 'no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.' The NRA backed the restriction. Thirty armed Black Panthers had occupied the state Capitol in May 1967, frightening lawmakers into swift action.
Then
California prohibited loaded open carry statewide, disarming the Black Panthers' copwatching patrols.
Now
Became the foundation for California's incremental restrictions, culminating in the 2011-2012 total open-carry ban.
Why this matters now
The Ninth Circuit's ruling directly challenges laws descending from the Mulford Act, raising questions about whether racial motivations undermine historical justifications.
2 of 3
2008
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, striking down D.C.'s handgun ban. Justice Scalia's majority opinion anchored gun rights in self-defense but noted the right isn't unlimited. For 14 years, lower courts applied a two-step test: Does the Second Amendment cover this conduct? If yes, apply heightened scrutiny balancing government interests against individual rights.
Then
D.C.'s handgun ban fell, but many state and local restrictions survived interest-balancing tests.
Now
Opened modern Second Amendment litigation but left regulations largely intact through balancing frameworks.
Why this matters now
Bruen explicitly rejected Heller-era balancing tests, replacing them with pure historical analysis and dramatically shifting the landscape.
3 of 3
2016-2017
Peruta v. San Diego County (2016-2017)
A Ninth Circuit panel initially ruled California must allow either open or concealed carry. But the full court reversed en banc, finding no Second Amendment right to concealed carry since open carry remained theoretically available. Gun rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied review. The en banc decision allowed California to maintain its dual ban by threading a logical needle: concealed carry isn't protected because open carry exists; open carry can be banned because it's dangerous.
Then
California's dual ban survived despite the logical tension, preserving strict carry restrictions.
Now
Bruen obliterated Peruta's reasoning by rejecting interest-balancing and demanding historical support for each restriction.
Why this matters now
Baird v. Bonta revisits the same circuit with a new test, showing how Bruen upended precedents that once protected state gun laws.
