BigStock.

A U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has issued a preliminary injunction requiring California to accept concealed carry permit applications from nonresidents. The decision marks a notable breakthrough in the neverending legal battles over the state’s restrictive concealed carry and other antigun policies.

The case, CRPA v. LASD, was spearheaded by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in partnership with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and individual plaintiffs. The ruling stems from a challenge to California’s refusal to issue permits to nonresidents and its excessive wait times and fees in Los Angeles County.

Strengthening the Right to Self-Defense

“This ruling reaffirms the principle that the right to self-defense doesn’t stop at state borders,” said Chuck Michel, CRPA president and general counsel. “California’s discriminatory refusal to issue permits to nonresidents was a clear violation of the Second Amendment, and we’re proud to stand alongside SAF and other partners to challenge it.”

The court’s injunction mandates California to accept carry permit applications from any U.S. resident who is a member of SAF, CRPA or affiliated organizations, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from firearm ownership. The order, issued on Jan. 23, will take effect in 90 days, which provides the State of California plenty of time to appeal the limited ruling.

“The judge ruled that as a SAF member, your right to carry a firearm for self-defense doesn’t stop at the California border just because you are a resident of another state. This is just one more benefit of being a SAF member,” says Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president.

SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack emphasized the broader implications.

“It’s common sense that your fundamental right to bear arms does not evaporate when you leave your home state. We’re committed to dragging states like California kicking and screaming into alignment with the demands of the Constitution,” Sack says.

A Milestone for the Pro-Gun Community

The lawsuit, filed in December 2023 with a motion for preliminary injunction in January 2024, underscores the value of multiple gun rights organizations working together to protect and expand Second Amendment rights. It also signifies the growing strength of the pro-Second Amendment community in combating unconstitutional restrictions nationwide.

“This is a step forward for restoring and protecting the right to bear arms in California,” Michel added. “The CRPA has long fought against California’s unconstitutional restrictions, and this decision ensures that peaceable gun owners from other states can now exercise their Second Amendment rights while in California.”

40 COMMENTS

  1. RE: “The court’s injunction mandates California to accept carry permit applications from any U.S. resident who is a member of SAF, CRPA or affiliated organizations, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from firearm ownership.”

    Applies only to members of an org? That’s mighty white of them.

    • The court order only applies to the members of an organization because that is the “entity” who filed and won the lawsuit. Thus, the relief only applies to the entity who sued and won.

      I am not defending nor agreeing with that state of affairs–I am simply explaining the situation.

    • Dear Debbie Dimwit,

      We’ve all tolerated your idiotic, ignorant, racist, ‘one-note’ BS (mostly; we DO mock your idiocy) but reading the comments tells me you’ve flat worn out your welcome at this site. You are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, laser focused on irrelevancy, and can’t understand the simplest concepts. Yes, I feel free to insult people (like yourself and that idiot, MajorLiar), because you’ve EARNED IT by your repeated, vapid idiocy – but at least I insult you articulately, with SOME understanding of the issues you are ineptly trying to mischaracterize.

      You don’t know d*ck about the “history of gun control” if you think it is “rooted in racism”. Had you said “classism”, it would still be inaccurate, but would come closer to reality – “gun control” is just the modern version of “weapon control” which has literally existed for CENTURIES. English peasants weren’t permitted to own longbows, because they represented a danger to the entitled “noble” class – who were EXACTLY the same race and ethnicity as the people imposing those restrictions. ALL weapon control is about POWER – get a f*cking grip and learn that simple truth.

      Oh, and, don’t go away mad, just . . . go away. Far away, and don’t bother to book a return ticket. Go expire in an excavation.

      • LampOfDiogenes,

        Building on your commentary, recall feudal Japan where the Ruling Class (ethnic Japanese) disarmed the working class (also ethnic Japanese).

        The feudal Japanese equivalent of “gun control” was not rooted in racism, either. It was rooted in the Ruling Class shoring-up their power so that they could maximize their ability to use, abuse, exploit, and consume the Working Class.

        The Ruling Class disarming the Working Class in order to shore-up their power over the Working Class has literally been happening for millennia–actually for all of human existence to be even more accurate.

      • Hey take it easy there fella. She did did us about sticking buttplugs in trigger holes.
        And believe you me for that I thank her.

    • mule…How? Ignore the Discrimination like white trash and go stand in line with other gutless wonders. Any more questions jackazz?

    • Missouri_Mule,

      You will have to excuse Debbie W.: she refuses to reason with people and instead resorts to the same Psychological manipulation dynamic that many people (typically Pr0gre$$ives) use.

      That Psychological manipulation dynamic:
      a) You are stupid, crazy, and or corrupt if you do not agree with her.
      b) The masses will despise you for being stupid, crazy, or corrupt.
      c) Your “tribe” (community) will thus banish/reject you and you will be all alone.

      Another way of saying it, she tries to use fear to bully you into compliance rather than facts and reasoning to win you over to truth and righteousness. Of course that is born out of laziness: it is much simpler to insult people and hope they comply rather than taking the time and energy to explain something and win someone over with truth and righteousness.

      • No problem! Debbie is just another one of those folks suffering from gender/political dysphoria. He, she it is mentally ill and can’t help it her himself.

    • It’s going to cost between $750 and $1,500 depending on the county you apply in.

      See my longer post – I consider this case idiocy.

      • My original (SoCal jurisdiction) one cost me a total of $1600 for everything, and 12 full months. The renewal was $650 and four months, and the Deputy told me upon final pickup I should be grateful their CCW Unit was “working so diligently”.

        I thought Shuttlesworth meant something, but it appears all issuing agencies ignore any SCOTUS decisions they don’t feel like following.

  2. Keeping in mind boys and girls that California politicians don’t really care what the courts rule and since there is no way to punish them due to qualified immunity for not abiding by that ruling. They have no fear of any consequences and will simple rewrite the law, pass it and require that it be taken to court once again to be overturned. 82 days

  3. This is a pyrrhic victory.

    A significant aspect of our United States system is the ability to readily travel between states and secure ourselves while we travel. That means we must be readily able to carry firearms for righteous purposes while we travel to different states. And “readily able to carry firearms” does not allow for states to require various permits and licenses before travelling.

    Anything short of nationwide permit/license reciprocity is absolutely counter to our national republic system.

    Of course requiring permits/licenses before we can possess and bear firearms is blatantly unconstitutional as well. That is a separate problem.

    • In this case it is a permit/license/membership which makes it hard to tell the difference between some Gun talking blowbags and a CA court.

      • Debbie W.,

        When you apply the label “Gun talking blowbags”, you are suggesting that such people have ineffective messaging/strategy–and that you have a different messaging/strategy which, in your opinion, will be effective.

        We all know what your messaging/strategy is. What evidence do you have which indicates that your messaging/strategy will be effective?

        Note: unless you have evidence to back your claims, you are a “blowbag” the same as everyone else.

  4. …what “uncommon_sense” said. Non-resident permits are nonsense. Any permit issued by Any state must be accepted by All states. Or, national ‘permiteless carry’ must become the law of the land.

    • Ultimately that is the goal yes. The annoying part is doing the work to get there step by step by whatever means are needed……or spilling blood I guess.

    • I do not like a system that would for example require California to accept a permit issued by Florida to a resident of Virginia. But California Should accept a permit issued by any US citizen’s current state of residence. Better of course would be to prohibit any state from requiring a permit at all to exercise any Right guaranteed by the Constitution. We are not allowed to charge a poll tax to exercise the right to vote, because it discriminates against the poor and was originally intended to stop many Black people from voting. Weapon carrying should be no different.

      • They had their chance and we can always apply that logic to drivers licenses. No fuck them and their restricted bullshit and same for my home state of NY.

  5. I’m glad the good guys won this. But “we” are trying to force freedom onto people who, it’s an open question, as to, do they really want freedom???

    Because freedom includes responsibility and consequences.

    And there are many people. Who really don’t want the responsibility at all. They just want to be taken care.

  6. Great. So an out-of-state resudent can apply, just like a California citizen. And just like a California citizen, he or she can wait a freaking year, ensure a ridiculous background check, find of bunch of people to vouch for him/her, pay hundreds of dollars, possibly find a psychologist to couch for him/her and THEN wait a year for approval. Fabulous!
    It’s a victory. But Bonta and his stooges are experts at violating the Constitution.
    What I’D like to see is a RICO investigation at the federal level of the California legislature, Governor and AG for conspiracy to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens who happen to live in California. It’s obvious that they’re doing it, even though the California Constitution acknowledges that the US Constitution is supreme.

  7. As a former California resident born and raised. I did not know that the Brown family, The Getty family, The Newsome family and the polosi family, all controlled california for over eighty years.

    I suppose the libertarians will be glad that they were drug runners. But who didn’t pay their business taxes. video 5 min long.

    h
    ttps://youtu.be/-MGbkDGOAC8?si=ND8PO7D-bkevPz7h

  8. @Dave,
    The truth, as you comment, is foul, dark, and disgusting to even contemplate.
    That people in authority in even the highest levels of our government are taking orders from
    some of the foulest of sources…and NOT US! And not following the laws we have carved out
    for ourselves for almost 250 years. Laws that worked, laws that mirrored those of every
    other civilized nation. Broken by fiat. Broken by crooks in white collars. Thieves who steal our
    very livelihoods. With zero fear of penalties.
    Orange needs be their new wardrobe. Or we should be able to vote them off of our island!
    The actions of President Trump to remove these weasels may just be saving them from American Vigilantism. Crime cries out for punishment…

    • 05 – I think most of them would look much better in black and white stripes and living in a tent city compound and eating bologna sandwiches. 😉
      As one previous commenter hinted at the conditions for acquiring a non-resident ‘permit’ will likely be VERY onerous. Does anyone know exactly what the process is? Not that I have any intention of ever going back there………………

  9. On January 5th of this year lawyers for a tiny Libertarian org in Texas sued Minnesota on behalf of two Texas truckers. The Texas truckers COULD apply for Minnesota permits, and already had Georgia and Florida permits trying for maximum reciprocity.

    Instead of suing to force Minnesota to allow Texas applicants, they’re trying to force MN to *honor* the TX permits these guys already have.

    Their best argument is at paragraph 41:

    >>It is too costly, time consuming, and burdensome for Plaintiff to obtain a firearm permit from all contiguous states. Plaintiff McCoy cannot afford the cost of firearm permit fees in every state.<>That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.<<

    Ok. So is that dicta?

    Might be. Doesn't matter. The rest of Bruen says carry is a basic civil right. If it's a basic civil right then of course lengthy wait times and exorbitant fees are no bueno. As my cousin from Brooklyn would say if I had one: "fuggeduboudit". Footnote 9 is Thomas being extra clear and writing something that's looks like it came from the Department of Redundancy Department.

    The Bruen decision also seriously bans subjective standards. The two lady lawyers who designed the Minnesota case noticed that MN law allows one bureaucrat to pick which other state carry permits they recognize – on a subjective basis. So they're trying to make that stick too.

    I suspect another reason to sue in MN is because they're more likely to rack up early wins at trial and appellate courts as opposed to a lefty circuit like the 9th or 4th.

    Those two have more legal smarts than the entire legal teams for CRPA, NRA, FPC, SAF, NSSF and so on put together.

    That's how Chuck Michel should have structured this argument. Agreeing that we have to chase permits all over the country is bullshit.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here