{"id":34485,"date":"2025-07-03T05:27:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-03T05:27:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/34485\/"},"modified":"2025-07-03T05:27:12","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T05:27:12","slug":"judge-rules-non-california-residents-can-apply-for-ccw-licenses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/34485\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge rules non-California residents can apply for CCW licenses"},"content":{"rendered":"

A federal judge in San Diego has struck down two California laws that effectively banned most non-California residents from carrying guns in the state<\/a>, ruling the laws violated the Second and 14th Amendments and that non-state residents should be able to apply for concealed-carry licenses in California just the same as state residents.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo made the ruling late Tuesday in a lawsuit filed last year by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three people who live in Idaho, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs had argued that despite being licensed to carry concealed weapons in their home states, California\u2019s laws unconstitutionally prevented them from even applying for a California concealed-carry weapons license, known as a CCW, for when they visit the Golden State.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe provisions barring nonresidents from applying for CCW licenses violate the Constitution,\u201d Bencivengo wrote in a 12-page order<\/a> granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

The ruling essentially resolves the case without proceeding to trial because the \u201cplaintiffs have succeeded on the merits,\u201d Bencivengo wrote, adding that \u201cno reasonable factual dispute\u201d remains.<\/p>\n

The judge also ruled the plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and gave them 30 days to meet with attorneys for the state and then submit a proposal for what exactly that injunction should look like. The injunction would likely bar California from enforcing residency requirements for CCW applications and allow non-California residents who are not otherwise prohibited from owning guns to apply for a CCW.<\/p>\n

Given Bencivengo\u2019s ruling that the laws are unconstitutional, the state and CCW licensing agencies, such as the San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Office, could immediately begin allowing non-state residents to apply even before the injunction is issued.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California\u2019s border,\u201d Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. \u201cJust as people are free to speak or worship in states they don\u2019t reside in, this win makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

Attorney General Rob Bonta\u2019s office, which is responsible for defending challenges to state laws, could appeal the decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cCalifornia is committed to defending our commonsense firearm safety laws,\u201d his office said in a statement Wednesday. \u201cWe are reviewing the opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bencivengo\u2019s ruling follows a similar judgment handed down earlier this year by a federal judge in Los Angeles. That ruling went into effect in April<\/a> and allowed non-California residents to apply for a CCW in California if they are members of any of the four firearms-rights groups that were plaintiffs in that case \u2014 the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California or The Second Amendment Foundation.<\/p>\n

Bencivengo\u2019s ruling should apply more broadly to all non-California residents who are not otherwise prohibited from owning guns.<\/p>\n

Tuesday\u2019s ruling hinged on historical precedent, as most Second Amendment litigation has<\/a> since the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.<\/p>\n

According to that decision, courts assessing the legality of modern gun regulations must ensure those laws are consistent with the \u201cSecond Amendment\u2019s plain text\u201d and with \u201cthe nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge found that California did not present evidence of any historically analogous laws, finding that the laws the state did cite were not similar enough.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe State cannot point to a single law from the Founding or framing tradition that wholesale blocked nonresidents from participating in a general firearms licensing scheme,\u201d Bencivengo wrote.<\/p>\n

Originally Published: July 2, 2025 at 5:39 PM PDT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A federal judge in San Diego has struck down two California laws that effectively banned most non-California residents…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":34486,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,1582,276,356,1370,728,50,3549,3550,7264,7289,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-34485","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-courts","12":"tag-latest-headlines","13":"tag-local-news","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-san-diego","16":"tag-san-diego-county","17":"tag-sandiego","18":"tag-top-stories-sdut","19":"tag-united-states","20":"tag-united-states-of-america","21":"tag-unitedstates","22":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","23":"tag-us","24":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114787650391513713","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34485\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}