Federal Judge Rules California’s Non-Resident Carry Ban Unconstitutional

[1srelluc]

California's refusal to issue non-residents concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, judge rules

California should allow non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses in the state, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

www.courthousenews.com

SAN DIEGO (CN) — A California law that prohibits non-residents of the state from applying for a concealed carry gun permit violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment, a San Diego federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

“Opening the application process to nonresidents does not limit California’s ability to regulate who receives a (concealed carry weapons) license based on other measured parameters,” wrote U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, a Barack Obama appointee, in her order. “Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court agrees with its sister court in the Central District that the challenged statutory framework’s exclusion of nonresidents violates the Second Amendment.”

The plaintiffs in the case, all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a guns rights organization, and all concealed carry permit holders in their states of residence, including Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico, filed their suit challenging California law last year when they wanted to visit the state and bring their guns for self-defense.

When they learned that California doesn’t have reciprocity laws allowing concealed carry permit holders from other states to legally tote their guns while visiting, and that only residents of the state can apply for concealed carry permits, they filed suit against state Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Diego federal court.

Bonta argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t mandate that a traveler be allowed to use another state’s concealed carry license in California. In order to bolster their argument, the state provided historical analogies of restrictive concealed carry laws enacted during the Reconstruction era of the 19th century. The state also provided examples of concealed carry restrictions enacted in nine colonies or states in the 1700s and 1800s that required licensing requirements as a prerequisite for carrying or owning weapons.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held New York’s concealed carry laws were unconstitutional and that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right, all local governments must justify their own gun regulations by showing they’re consistent with gun regulations in the country’s past.

When pressed to provide a regulation from the country’s past that limits nonresidents of a state from owning a gun or a concealed carry permit, the state came up with a California law from the early 1900s that appears to impose residency requirements on licenses and a law that prevents Native Americans from having a license.

Not only do the laws the state provided ignore the “expanded conception of rights-bearing peoples,” they also don’t date from when the Second Amendment was ratified, Bencivengo said. The state also ignores a 19th century city of Sacramento law that exempt “travelers” from a firearms licensing requirement that applied to residents, she added.

“In effect, they argue that nonresidents do not qualify as ‘the people.’ The Supreme Court has not interpreted ‘the people’ so narrowly,” Bencivengo wrote, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. “Indeed, it is beyond debate that the individual plaintiffs are ‘people’ living in the United States.”

The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the law while the parties meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction within 30 days, she added.

“This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States,” wrote Brandon Combs, Firearms Policy Coalition’s president, in a press release.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and California’s Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

That's nice and all but IMHO all CC requirements are unconstitutional....A citizen should be able to protect themselves wherever they go.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Winning!!!

This is an old topic - glad it finally made it into the courts.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

California's refusal to issue non-residents concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, judge rules

California should allow non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses in the state, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

www.courthousenews.com

SAN DIEGO (CN) — A California law that prohibits non-residents of the state from applying for a concealed carry gun permit violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment, a San Diego federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

“Opening the application process to nonresidents does not limit California’s ability to regulate who receives a (concealed carry weapons) license based on other measured parameters,” wrote U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, a Barack Obama appointee, in her order. “Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court agrees with its sister court in the Central District that the challenged statutory framework’s exclusion of nonresidents violates the Second Amendment.”

The plaintiffs in the case, all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a guns rights organization, and all concealed carry permit holders in their states of residence, including Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico, filed their suit challenging California law last year when they wanted to visit the state and bring their guns for self-defense.

When they learned that California doesn’t have reciprocity laws allowing concealed carry permit holders from other states to legally tote their guns while visiting, and that only residents of the state can apply for concealed carry permits, they filed suit against state Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Diego federal court.

Bonta argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t mandate that a traveler be allowed to use another state’s concealed carry license in California. In order to bolster their argument, the state provided historical analogies of restrictive concealed carry laws enacted during the Reconstruction era of the 19th century. The state also provided examples of concealed carry restrictions enacted in nine colonies or states in the 1700s and 1800s that required licensing requirements as a prerequisite for carrying or owning weapons.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held New York’s concealed carry laws were unconstitutional and that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right, all local governments must justify their own gun regulations by showing they’re consistent with gun regulations in the country’s past.

When pressed to provide a regulation from the country’s past that limits nonresidents of a state from owning a gun or a concealed carry permit, the state came up with a California law from the early 1900s that appears to impose residency requirements on licenses and a law that prevents Native Americans from having a license.

Not only do the laws the state provided ignore the “expanded conception of rights-bearing peoples,” they also don’t date from when the Second Amendment was ratified, Bencivengo said. The state also ignores a 19th century city of Sacramento law that exempt “travelers” from a firearms licensing requirement that applied to residents, she added.

“In effect, they argue that nonresidents do not qualify as ‘the people.’ The Supreme Court has not interpreted ‘the people’ so narrowly,” Bencivengo wrote, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. “Indeed, it is beyond debate that the individual plaintiffs are ‘people’ living in the United States.”

The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the law while the parties meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction within 30 days, she added.

“This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States,” wrote Brandon Combs, Firearms Policy Coalition’s president, in a press release.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and California’s Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

That's nice and all but IMHO all CC requirements are unconstitutional....A citizen should be able to protect themselves wherever they go.

The SCOTUS ruling last Friday CASA v Trump, limiting a federal district court ruling to only the named plaintiff(s) and not applying nationwide even though a particular active is determined to be unconstitutional could have a negative effect on the Bruen case which was brough in New York state but was applied to the entire United States regarding the unconstitutionality of discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits because it violates the 2nd Amendment's right to keep & bear arms.

The way these laws normally work is that once a law has been determined to be unconstitutional, it applies nationwide right? But apparently not anymore.

Unintended consequences, but I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The SCOTUS ruling last Friday CASA v Trump, limiting a federal district court ruling to only the named plaintiff(s) and not applying nationwide even though a particular active is determined to be unconstitutional could have a negative effect on the Bruen case which was brough in New York state but was applied to the entire United States...

No.
Supreme court decisions carry across the entire US.
District and circuit decisions do not.

 

[1srelluc]

Winning!!!

This is an old topic - glad it finally made it into the courts.

Yeah, they all age no end from when they go to court to when a judgement is made....This one was like two years.

Meh, CA will just put so many odious requirements on it that it will be a moot point anyway.

IMHO the big prize, and what pro-2A .orgs should be spending their time on, is Constitutional Carry throughout the land as it's not a state's rights issue but a constitutional one.

 

[1srelluc]

The SCOTUS ruling last Friday CASA v Trump, limiting a federal district court ruling to only the named plaintiff(s) and not applying nationwide even though a particular active is determined to be unconstitutional could have a negative effect on the Bruen case which was brough in New York state but was applied to the entire United States regarding the unconstitutionality of discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits because it violates the 2nd Amendment's right to keep & bear arms.

The way these laws normally work is that once a law has been determined to be unconstitutional, it applies nationwide right? But apparently not anymore.

Unintended consequences, but I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

The ruling was for CA, not the US.

 

[JGalt]

California's refusal to issue non-residents concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, judge rules

California should allow non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses in the state, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

www.courthousenews.com

SAN DIEGO (CN) — A California law that prohibits non-residents of the state from applying for a concealed carry gun permit violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment, a San Diego federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

“Opening the application process to nonresidents does not limit California’s ability to regulate who receives a (concealed carry weapons) license based on other measured parameters,” wrote U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, a Barack Obama appointee, in her order. “Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court agrees with its sister court in the Central District that the challenged statutory framework’s exclusion of nonresidents violates the Second Amendment.”

The plaintiffs in the case, all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a guns rights organization, and all concealed carry permit holders in their states of residence, including Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico, filed their suit challenging California law last year when they wanted to visit the state and bring their guns for self-defense.

When they learned that California doesn’t have reciprocity laws allowing concealed carry permit holders from other states to legally tote their guns while visiting, and that only residents of the state can apply for concealed carry permits, they filed suit against state Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Diego federal court.

Bonta argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t mandate that a traveler be allowed to use another state’s concealed carry license in California. In order to bolster their argument, the state provided historical analogies of restrictive concealed carry laws enacted during the Reconstruction era of the 19th century. The state also provided examples of concealed carry restrictions enacted in nine colonies or states in the 1700s and 1800s that required licensing requirements as a prerequisite for carrying or owning weapons.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held New York’s concealed carry laws were unconstitutional and that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right, all local governments must justify their own gun regulations by showing they’re consistent with gun regulations in the country’s past.

When pressed to provide a regulation from the country’s past that limits nonresidents of a state from owning a gun or a concealed carry permit, the state came up with a California law from the early 1900s that appears to impose residency requirements on licenses and a law that prevents Native Americans from having a license.

Not only do the laws the state provided ignore the “expanded conception of rights-bearing peoples,” they also don’t date from when the Second Amendment was ratified, Bencivengo said. The state also ignores a 19th century city of Sacramento law that exempt “travelers” from a firearms licensing requirement that applied to residents, she added.

“In effect, they argue that nonresidents do not qualify as ‘the people.’ The Supreme Court has not interpreted ‘the people’ so narrowly,” Bencivengo wrote, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. “Indeed, it is beyond debate that the individual plaintiffs are ‘people’ living in the United States.”

The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the law while the parties meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction within 30 days, she added.

“This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States,” wrote Brandon Combs, Firearms Policy Coalition’s president, in a press release.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and California’s Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

That's nice and all but IMHO all CC requirements are unconstitutional....A citizen should be able to protect themselves wherever they go.

It's California. Nobody gives a shit about it or the people who live there. If you were a decent conservative living in that shithole and was being denied your right to defend yourself, you should have left long ago.

I know this is hard to swallow, but it's all part of being personally-responsible.

 

[marvin martian]

California's refusal to issue non-residents concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, judge rules

California should allow non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses in the state, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

www.courthousenews.com

SAN DIEGO (CN) — A California law that prohibits non-residents of the state from applying for a concealed carry gun permit violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment, a San Diego federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

“Opening the application process to nonresidents does not limit California’s ability to regulate who receives a (concealed carry weapons) license based on other measured parameters,” wrote U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, a Barack Obama appointee, in her order. “Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court agrees with its sister court in the Central District that the challenged statutory framework’s exclusion of nonresidents violates the Second Amendment.”

The plaintiffs in the case, all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a guns rights organization, and all concealed carry permit holders in their states of residence, including Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico, filed their suit challenging California law last year when they wanted to visit the state and bring their guns for self-defense.

When they learned that California doesn’t have reciprocity laws allowing concealed carry permit holders from other states to legally tote their guns while visiting, and that only residents of the state can apply for concealed carry permits, they filed suit against state Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Diego federal court.

Bonta argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t mandate that a traveler be allowed to use another state’s concealed carry license in California. In order to bolster their argument, the state provided historical analogies of restrictive concealed carry laws enacted during the Reconstruction era of the 19th century. The state also provided examples of concealed carry restrictions enacted in nine colonies or states in the 1700s and 1800s that required licensing requirements as a prerequisite for carrying or owning weapons.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held New York’s concealed carry laws were unconstitutional and that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right, all local governments must justify their own gun regulations by showing they’re consistent with gun regulations in the country’s past.

When pressed to provide a regulation from the country’s past that limits nonresidents of a state from owning a gun or a concealed carry permit, the state came up with a California law from the early 1900s that appears to impose residency requirements on licenses and a law that prevents Native Americans from having a license.

Not only do the laws the state provided ignore the “expanded conception of rights-bearing peoples,” they also don’t date from when the Second Amendment was ratified, Bencivengo said. The state also ignores a 19th century city of Sacramento law that exempt “travelers” from a firearms licensing requirement that applied to residents, she added.

“In effect, they argue that nonresidents do not qualify as ‘the people.’ The Supreme Court has not interpreted ‘the people’ so narrowly,” Bencivengo wrote, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. “Indeed, it is beyond debate that the individual plaintiffs are ‘people’ living in the United States.”

The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the law while the parties meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction within 30 days, she added.

“This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States,” wrote Brandon Combs, Firearms Policy Coalition’s president, in a press release.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and California’s Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

That's nice and all but IMHO all CC requirements are unconstitutional....A citizen should be able to protect themselves wherever they go.

I love that Democrats went back to the glory days of their KKK heyday (reconstruction) to defend their attempts to keep lawful people disarmed. It's so on brand for them.

 

[marvin martian]

Meh, CA will just put so many odious requirements on it that it will be a moot point anyway.

They've already done that for residents. When I lived there, as recently as 2020, you needed 16 hours of "training" including a range test, an in-person interview with a law enforcement officer, a $300 fee, a second in-person appointment to be fingerprinted and background checked, and a third in-person appointment to have your firearms "inspected" by another cop.

This has to be repeated every 2 years, by the way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They've already done that for residents. When I lived there, as recently as 2020, you needed 16 hours of "training" including a range test, an in-person interview with a law enforcement officer, a $300 fee, a second in-person appointment to be fingerprinted and background checked, and a third in-person appointment to have your firearms "inspected" by another cop.

This has to be repeated every 2 years, by the way.

Including the training?

 

[badbob85037]

In that shit hole state you have to register shotguns, handguns and rifles not once, not twice, but 3 times. Once with the city, another with the county, and with the shit hole, each time they get your money. Over half the firearms are ban there. I moved out of that shit hole in the 70's when they decided to take your 4th amendment, before they even started with the second. The only way I would enter that shit hole as part of a military to free the people of the shit hole's masters. Even then I would think twice because those clowns deserve it. Pelosi was caught stealing more than once and they re-elect her. Newsom, they had a chance to throw out that shit king and didn't. I can't wait for it to fall in the Pacific, and I get my beach front property here in Arizona I so much deserve. Yesterday they increased the tax for ammunition 400% on the background check you pay every time you buy it.
When the Terminator was shit king they passed a gun law that like all gun laws, will end all crime. At the same time he hit the airways bragging about the new law the shit hole was releasing thousands of felons from their prisons due to overcrowding.
When you couldn't water your lawn and their crops were dying in the fields from lack of water they were still dumping half their fresh water into San Francisco Bay. It was to save a fish not native to the area called the Smelt. They then paid some outfit to do a count on the Smelt in the Sacramento River. The count was one. That's one Smelt.
My home town was Vallejo right next to our reserve fleet, once over 300 war ships were there. It was where the ship building yard, Mare Island set with it's two giant dry docks. Bill Clinton closed that base and since that time Vallejo has remained jobless. The ships left in the reserve fleet ,as everything in the shit hole the shit king said they were polluting the water. Instead of sending them to Mare Island to have them scraped. The shit king had them painted and had them towed to Brownsville, Texas having them scraped there.
You can't make this crap up. California is, in all forms and in every way a total shit hole.