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

The right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by the Second Amendment. Yet, California law prohibits residents of other states from carrying firearms when visiting the state, either openly or concealed. Despite California having a concealed carry permit system in place, non-residents are prohibited from applying. This is clearly unconstitutional under binding Supreme Court precedent, the Firearms Policy Coalition wrote in April.

Tuesday, a Federal Judge ruled that California’s Non-Resident Carry Ban is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs, Firearms Policy Coalition, argued in the brief that individuals do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.

The judge agreed.

The Firearms Policy Coalition reports:

Federal District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued an order granting final summary judgment to Firearms Policy Coalition and its co-plaintiffs, three individual members of the organization who reside outside of California, in Hoffman v. Bonta, FPC’s Second Amendment challenge to the State’s ban on firearm carry by non-residents.

“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 win makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “Unlike Louisiana, which recently repealed their unconstitutional residency requirement following an FPC legal challenge, California’s commitment to tyranny forced us to take this case to a final judgment. FPC will continue to eliminate unconstitutional residency requirements and other bans so that people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.”

This FPC victory and others like it are especially important because the only way that most people can lawfully carry within 1,000 feet of schools is to possess a valid carry license issued by the exact state in which the person is carrying.

Today’s Hoffman judgment adds to FPC’s win column against the Golden State, including the first-ever trial judgment against a ban on so-called “assault weapons” as well as the recent Ninth Circuit victoryaffirming a trial court ruling that struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun purchase ban.

Constitutional lawyer Eugene Volokh explains:

Hoffman v. Bonta, decided by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo (S.D. Cal.):

The sole issue in this case is whether the Constitution requires California to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed carry weapons (CCW) license. Plaintiffs, who are not California residents, complain that they are prohibited from carrying a firearm for self-defense when they visit California. For standard two-year licenses, California imposes a residency requirement. An applicant who has his or her principal place of business or employment within the local permitting jurisdiction may receive a 90-day license. Unlike some states, California does not have a reciprocity policy for CCW licenses.

The State argues … that … the Second Amendment does not mandate that a traveler be allowed to use another state’s license to carry in California. In effect, they argue that nonresidents do not qualify as “the people.” The Supreme Court has not interpreted “the people” so narrowly. See Hel

Volokh adds:

Opening the application process to nonresidents does not limit California’s ability to regulate who receives a CCW license based on other measured parameters. 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….

Nothing in this order should be construed to mandate that California provide the exact same requirements for a CCW license for residents and nonresidents—the historical record may well contravene such a proposition. [Spitzer Decl. ¶ 69 (identifying an 1899 Wyoming measure that imposed a fee forty times higher on nonresidents for a gun license).] Overburdening nonresidents in the application process may violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, but parity is not necessarily required….

The opinion in Hoffman v. Bonta can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/hoffman. The Hoffman case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this case.