A stunning and unexpected development just emerged in the long-running California open carry case Baird v. Bonta. After a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s ban on open carry violated the Second Amendment, most observers expected the state to seek an en banc rehearing. That part was predictable. What no one expected was that the plaintiffs who won the case also asked for en banc review.

The original ruling was a major victory for gun rights advocates. California has effectively banned open carry since the Mulford Act of 1967, later expanding the prohibition in 2012 to include even unloaded open carry. The Ninth Circuit panel found those bans unconstitutional, marking one of the rare Second Amendment wins in that circuit.

The plaintiffs’ unusual request stems from a concern that the court did not go far enough. While the panel struck down the ban on open carry, it did not rule that California’s permit requirement itself is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argue that requiring a permit to exercise a constitutional right is no different than requiring a license to speak or worship—something courts would never allow under the First Amendment.

Still, asking the Ninth Circuit to rehear a Second Amendment win en banc is widely viewed as risky. Historically, en banc review in the Ninth Circuit has erased—not strengthened—gun rights victories. With both sides now asking for rehearing, the court has even more incentive to take the case and potentially wipe out the win entirely.

Whether this strategy is a miscalculation or a long-term play aimed at the Supreme Court remains to be seen. What’s clear is that Baird v. Bonta has entered unpredictable territory, and the outcome could shape the future of open carry and permitting schemes far beyond California.