With California gun owners under constant siege by Democrats passing more restrictive firearms laws on a regular basis, one organization is actively battling throughout the state to help ensure Californians’ right to keep and bear arms isn’t infringed.
Since the critical 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the California Rifle & Pistol Association has worked in every county in the state to ensure a concealed carry application and issuance process that complies with the standards set out in the Bruen ruling.
“In most cases, our efforts focus on unnecessary delays and outrageous fees, but recently CRPA and our allies filed an amicus brief in Matthews v. City of Los Angeles, supporting the challenge to the state’sban on out-of-state residents obtaining CCWs,” CRPA said in a recent news item. “The brief argues that there is no historical basis for requiring a CCW from another state when traveling. In fact, historical evidence suggests the opposite: Many laws specifically protected the right to self-defense regardless of one’s location.”
In the recently filed brief, plaintiffs argue that the case isn’t a difficult one, given Bruen’s requirement to prove a historical precedent.
“This case is simple,” the brief stated. “No historical tradition supports California’s modern requirement that peaceable nonresidents—who are already permitted to carry firearms in their home states—submit to a burdensome process to obtain a California license to carry (‘CCW permit’) if they wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights while visiting or passing through the state. On the contrary, laws historically exempted travelers from such local restrictions on their right to defend themselves while traveling. Americans of earlier eras knew that requiring citizens visiting another state to give up the right to bear arms was untenable.”
Concerning plaintiff Garry Matthews, the brief pointed out that Los Angeles County had a long history of issuing very few carry permits, even to residents.
“While Mr. Matthews was barred from receiving a permit de jure, he was also, like the other two Appellants, Messrs. Hunn and Hearns, barred from doing so de facto,” the brief stated. “Even if he had established residency in California, he still would not have gotten a CCW permit from Appellees. Before Bruen, LAPD did not issue CCW permits to almost anyone—whether residents or not. In fact, then-Chief Michel Moore had even moved to cancel the few remaining permits still in civilian hands. Before 2022, there were only four active CCW permits issued by LAPD in Los Angeles, despite the city having a large population of 3.8 million people.”
As the CRPA news release pointed out, the law creates an “impossible” situation for nonresidents wanting to comply with California’s regulations but not able to do so.
“Even if such a requirement were valid, California’s law creates an impossible situation,” CRPA stated. “Out-of-state residents are prohibited from even obtaining a CCW in California, leaving them in a state of legal limbo. This is a deliberate tactic by gun control advocates to undermine the Second Amendment and discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s only twenty seven words. It’s short and concise for a reason How many times do we have to go back to court and parse it out?
Judges gonna judge, Supreme Court judges going to judge extremely…
Huntmaster,
The government entities who are infringing on our inalienable right to effective self-defense are able to read, parse, and understand those 27 words in the Second Amendment just fine. The real problem is that said government entities flat-out refuse to conform themselves to it.
This is a problem of evil plain and simple and NOT a problem of knowledge, education, nor intelligence.
I am really happy to see we are finally attacking interstate carry and reciprocity. 38 states are not enough.
Missouri_Mule,
Me too. And the way that things are humming along (like a well-oiled machine), we can look forward to the courts striking-down these unconstitutional laws within 30 years tops, assuming that Democrats never win the Oval Office nor a majority in the U.S. Senate in the next 30 years.
(In other words don’t hold your breath waiting on the courts any time soon, if ever, to affirm and enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.)
Hopefully there is enough supporting the case that it is able to get traction. After resident only permits I guess permits to own/buy/register would probably be a good next step.
Meanwhile the democRat state of ca and the media make guns the center of attention while ignoring the far more dangerous two ton projectiles that any lame brain can propel down streets and wreak havoc. Yeah guns are the problem but here’s your keys to the missile.
The hypocrisy that rides with Gun Control never ends so carry anyway and FJB, FKH, FTT, FGN.
h ttps://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/armed-citizen-stops-a-man-trying-to-run-over-three-people/
and here’s an example of auto-weapon.
Me thinks that the general population, regardless of party affiliation, is absolutely clueless regarding the myriad of laws we must deal with when traveling. Imagine if you were immediately arrested for having out of state tags on your car. That’s the equivalent.
sorry but the end result of this might be worse. ca will eventually issue non-resident permits so long as the applicants undergo background checks, social media reviews, in-person multi-day training with live fire in california, in-state psych evals, in-state letters of reference, in-state interviews with issuing agencies, approval letters from out of state law enforcement, out-of-state permit, etc etc etc. it’s quite possibly better for nonresidents to just carry concealed and keep quiet. and if there’s a problem the legal defense would include the impossiblity of getting a permit.
sorry but the end result of this might be worse. ca will eventually issue non-resident permits so long as the applicants undergo background checks, social media reviews, in-person multi-day training with live fire in california, in-state psych evals, in-state letters of reference, in-state interviews with issuing agencies, approval letters from out of state law enforcement, out-of-state permit, etc etc etc. it’s quite possibly better for nonresidents to just carry concealed and keep quiet. and if there’s a problem the legal defense would include the impossiblity of getting a permit.
They’ve been getting a monthly donation outta me for years. As I do better, the larger my donation gets. California is the tip of the spear for bad ideas. If we dont bury the idea there, it migrates across to New York and Colorado. from there, the bad idea goes to the other blue states.
Gotta stop the bad ideas in CA or they become the nations bad ideas.
If my driver’s license is good in other states, why isn’t my cc permit?
And considering the test for a DL is written to be simple enough that a 16 y.o. can pass it, why not do the same thing with a cc permit?
As well as teach basic firearm safety in school along with driver’s education.
Might solve a lot of problems.
Comments are closed.