Posted on 07/08/2025 6:40:06 AM PDT by marktwain
On July 1, 2025, in the Southern District of California, Federal District Judge, the Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ruled that 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, there 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.
The State of California contended that bans on licenses for carry were common for non-residents. For example, from the Defendant’s 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.
The time frame of the laws in question is much too late to be considered relevant. Judge Bencivido has issued an order granting partial summary judgment in part to the plaintiffs. From the order:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Are non-Resident aliens under the same compact (the Constitution) as Citizens?
I think not.
It's code for "bodyguards for the politically connected or the wealthy who aren't current or former law enforcement". (Current and former law enforcement have a special card that allows them to carry in all states - so much for equal rights).
Ummmm...non-residents aren't citizens.
So much stupid in two words.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title26/pdf/USCODE-2023-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapN-partI-sec865.pdf
Page 2050...(g) United States resident; nonresident
Somebody is more stupid than a rock.
See reply 24. Your ignorance is amazing.
That’ll teach gavin. Not. There are counties near me where one could pretty easily get one. If you don’t mind listing the 3 of your choice with make, model, caliber and SNs. No thanks. Oh, and 10 rounds max.
Here is an excerpt from the ruling. It clearly states the plaintiffs are concealed carry holders from other states, not the alien residents that live inside your head. You can decide what you're dumber than.
Individual Plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico. [Hoffman Decl., Doc. No. 17-2 ¶ 2; Orrin Decl., Doc. No. 17-3 ¶ 2; Sensiba Decl., Doc. No. 17-4 ¶ 2.] Each Plaintiff maintains membership in the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is incorporated in Delaware with a primary place of business in Nevada. All individual Plaintiffs maintain validly issued concealed carry licenses issued by another state. [See, e.g., Sensiba Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.]
It’s not my fault California judges are as dumb as a box of rocks. Bitch at them, not me.
As stated before, conceal carry permits are admistered by the states, and are often divided into resident and non-resident permits, meaning residents and non-residents of the state. Some states do not allow non-resident permits or recognize other state permits. It’s quite the stew of laws that the feds should supersede.
BTW, Cally tax law, where resident and non-resident come into play, comports with federal tax law...Citizens, though in this case State Citizens, and non-Citizens.
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.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated July 1, 2025
Links are great, aren’t they.
The link to the ruling was in the story.
I don’t care about tax law.
Ammoland geared the story to firearm aficionados, who know about resident and non-resident CCW permits. That is who the language was geared toward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.