Federal Court rules California must allow Non-Residents to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits

On July 1, 2025, in the Southern District of California, Federal District Judge, the Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo has ruled the State of California must modify their law to allow non-residents to apply for concealed carry permits. The logic is clear. At the time of the founding their was no requirement banning non-residents from carrying weapons for self-defense. Judge Bencivido stated:

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.

This correspondent believes the issues in this case are much broader, but this correspondent is not the District Judge.

The State of California contended that bans on licenses for carry were common for non-residents. For example, from the Defendants brief:

 Nineteenth century law further reflects this historical principle. In 1880, the City of Brooklyn promulgated a law providing that “[a]ny person twenty one years of age and over . . . who has occasion to carry a pistol for his protection, may apply to the officer in command of the station house of the precinct where he resides, and such officer, if satisfied that the applicant is a proper and law abiding person” shall recommend that the Commissioner of Police issue him a permit.

It appears to this correspondent the time frame of the laws in question are much too late to be considered relevant. Judge Bencivido has issued an order granting partial summary judgement in part to the plaintiffs. From the order:

V. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to their facial challenge pursuant to the Second/Fourteenth Amendment and denies the request for relief pursuant to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction consistent with this order within 30 days.

In August of 2024, Federal District Judge Garnett ruled California must issue concealed carry permits to non-residents in some cases. Judge Garnett’s District Court is in the Central District of California. The cases have considerable similarities. This does not mean they will come to the same conclusions. This case, in the Southern District of California has broader implications, in the opinion of this correspondent. In 30 days we should see the proposed order if both parties are willing to agree to one.  The Trump administration’s active protection of rights which the Second Amendment covers is bound to have an effect on the proposed order.

States banning carry by non-residents is coming under increasing scrutiny. In Massachusetts, the State Supreme court dodged the issue.  On May 2 of 2025, Attorney General Bondi sent a letter to Pennsylvannia reminding them of their requirement to issue permits to nonresidents. From the letter:

 I write with concern that county sheriffs in Pennsylvania are administering the Commonwealth’s Uniform Firearms Act in a manner that denies the right to bear arms to out-of state residents. This practice is unlawful under Pennsylvania law. It also raises serious concerns under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms in public, as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which prohibits discriminating against out-of state citizens by denying them the exercise of fundamental rights.

Analysis: State laws which prevent law abiding people of the United States from exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment are obviously unconstitutional. The requirement of a permit in order to exercise these right has not yet come before the Supreme Court. It is difficult to see how a fundamental, enumerated right can legitimately be infringed upon by requiring numerous fees, background checks, and waiting periods. It is plausible all of these infringements will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The current court cases are incremental steps in that direction.

©2025 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch