The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has announced it has filed a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s ban on firearms carry by nonresidents.
In the case, Mate v. Westcott, which is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, FPC argues that the carry of firearms by residents and nonresidents alike is protected under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, Louisiana’s ban on nonresident carry is unconstitutional.
“Peaceable people have a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms throughout the United States,” Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a news release announcing the action. “Second Amendment-protected rights don’t end at a state’s border. This case is an important step towards achieving our goal of restoring the right to bear arms everywhere.”
The matter of Second Amendment rights currently being blocked when crossing state lines is one of the reasons National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is being discussed for the upcoming Congressional session, beginning in January. Until then, lawsuits like this one by FPC are attempting to end the trend of states not recognizing the rights of nonresidents.
Immediately addressing the first and second Bruen requirements, the complaint states: “Closing off nonresidents’ ability to obtain a carry license substantially infringes their constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. There is no well-established and representative historical tradition of restricting the ability to bear arms based on residency.”
As the plaintiffs pointed out, when Louisiana passed constitutional carry in July 2024 the legislature kept a permitting system in place for residents but failed to provide an avenue for nonresidents to apply for a permit. Such permits exempt holders from the 1,000-foot non-carry zone around schools, so many residents have chosen to continue having a permit.
In its complaint, FPC noted that the state failed to meet the second Bruen requirement of showing a historic precedent at the time of the nation’s founding for such a law.
“It is the state’s burden to ‘affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,’” the complaint states. “Louisiana cannot meet this burden. There is no well-established and representative historical tradition of restricting the ability to bear arms based on residency. Accordingly, the residency requirement for obtaining a carry license in Louisiana … violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In the end, plaintiffs are asking the court to overturn the laws and stop all enforcement of it.
“This court should enter a judgment that declares Louisiana’s non-resident carry restriction unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants (and all those under Defendants’ supervision) from enforcing the residency requirement for carry applications with respect to otherwise qualified individuals who are not Louisiana residents.”
I have to wonder if a better strategy was to challenge the permit/license requirement all together?
First of all, there is no historical law or tradition during our nation’s founding era which required a permit/license to purchase, own, possess, or carry firearms. For that matter, Firearms Policy Coalition could even cite the Declaration of Independence where an important basis for booting out England was their requirement for licenses for almost everything.
Second, states which require a permit/license before you can purchase, own, possess, or carry firearms is exactly the same as a poll tax which the U.S. Supreme Court already declared unconstitutional.
Third, we can use the recent Pr0gre$$ive firearm litigation strategy against them: Pr0gre$$ive litigators have argued that the only firearm laws which the courts should find unconstitutional are laws which constitute a COMPLETE BAN on the right, which is exactly what permit/license laws are. Oh, and we could also use the Pr0gre$$ive argument that laws which require people to obtain state government issued identification before voting are too burdensome–therefore laws which require people to obtain state government issued “identification” (firearm permits/licenses) are also too burdensome.
Isn’t it time, now, to chuck firearm/carry permit/licensing?
Oh, I’m sure the NRA/ILA is fighting vigorously against the permit itself. Very vigorously. I’m sure they’re losing hours and hours of sleep there’s so much work to do. Elon Musk has nothing on the NRA/ILA when it comes to industriousness.
/sarcasm, of course.
Way past time to dump permits.
It’s only twenty seven words for a reason.
So once again, I ask: Where is the NRA/ILA on this? Even with Wayne LaPierre gone now almost a year, we get nothing. No court cases, no use of their vast bully pulpit, no nothing.
It’s as if the [FPC] and its peers are the experts at doing this stuff, while NRA/ILA is just a kid running a lemonade stand…without lemonade. Or a stand. Seriously, NRA?
NRA/ILA doesn’t qualify for any of my donations. Is it complacency? Laziness? Outright incompetence? Is the ghost of Wayne still spending money on designer suits? What’s going on, NRA?
What’s especially disappointing is that the NRA could be the 800 pound gorilla that we need. We NEED the gorilla to get off its butt, but what we GET is a years-long siesta from them.
We need to start seeing headlines about NRA doing things. Real things, in support of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Osprey,
I heard a sentiment several years ago (I am not sure how accurate that sentiment truly is): the NRA’s primary mission is to promote firearm safety, ownership (especially with respect to long guns), and firearm sports (such as hunting or skeet shooting). The aspect of their mission for ownership implies lobbying governments and relegates litigation to a very minor and arguably even incidental aspect of their mission. If that characterization is accurate, then it makes sense that NRA is not significantly involved in litigation.
Full disclosure: I am NOT an NRA fanboy. I am merely trying to advance accurate knowledge of our world as it is.
I get you, and you make a good point. But then can we drop the ILA part?
From the Googler:
“NRA-ILA stands for National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The ILA was established in 1975 to defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess, and use firearms.”
They sure aren’t doing anything to “defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess, and use firearms.”
It’s like calling Obamacare “The Affordable Health Care Act”, and then proceeding to make it about everything BUT affordable health care.
If lobbying and legislating isn’t half of the NRA/ILA’s mission, then let’s just stop fantasizing that it is. Drop the ILA. Or give it to FPC; certainly some good would at least come from this absurd mistake.
I first carried a concealed handgun in New Orleans in 1977. I was eighteen. The last time was when I went to SHOT before they began to hold it exclusively in Las Vegas. If LA can’t take a joke then they can kiss my ass. The only place I don’t carry a concealed handgun is in the passenger cabin of commercial aircraft, or a Federal Courthouse. I have no reason to enter either of those again.
This^^^^. I haven’t been to Illinoistan in decades because of their firearms laws and it’s just across the river.
Louisiana does have reciprocity with 37 states. Even military personnel assigned to a base in Louisiana and Resident honorably discharged veterans [see ACT 680 (SB 143)] can carry concealed without a permit.
Not sure you understood in the article: LA has constitutional carry now. Everyone who can lawfully own a firearm can carry concealed there without a permit as of July 4th, 2024.
ClearlyInsane1
I am a resident of Louisiana and well aware of SB 1 that became law July 4th this year. It is my understanding that if one lives in a CC state that they can carry concealed in other CC states. And I was merely adding to the list of CC carriers. The problem must be the 1000 foot rule per schools etc. La residents with a permit are exempt from the 1000 foot rule (see La RS 14:95.2/C9). Non residents are not exempt. Also, non-residents cannot apply for a Louisiana CC permit and I have no idea as to why. I did forward this article to many Louisiana Reps and Senators including the authors of the CC legislation and other big supporters of that legislation and other pro 2A legislation.
For the record, I do support national reciprocity and the elimination of any license requirement. As for me I am a veteran, have a permit and live in the CC state of Louisiana. Covered 3 ways. I keep the permit for credibility reasons which I hope I never need.
I keep my Florida CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit; which covers more than just firearms) for the same reason; reciprocity with other states. My Florida “non-firearm weapons”, however, would not be covered under reciprocity in some liberal mecca such as Michigan, so I still have to disarm to some degree when I leave Florida.
I should not have to do this; my Florida driver license should be enough since Florida does not require a CWP.
But having the CWP card to hand to a state trooper is better than nothing. So I continue to spend the money to keep it current.
Is the FPC lawsuit based strictly on the issue of non residents not being allowed to get a Louisiana CC license?
As I stated earlier Louisiana does have reciprocity with 37 other states.
With that in mind, there is NO non resident carry ban.