Though the lawsuit challenging excessive fees and lengthy delays in processing carry permits is still in the relatively early stages, a federal judge has partially granted the plaintiffs one of their requests already: a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s complete prohibition on non-residents exercising their right to bear arms.
As the Second Amendment Foundation reports, as of Tuesday at least some non-residents can now apply for a California permit, though the process isn’t exactly painless.
“As you might imagine, the state of California is not wanting to make it easy for non-residents to apply for a carry permit,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As a SAF member and non-resident of California, however, you’re allowed to apply. The main thing to keep in mind is that you need to submit your application through the sheriff or police department for the county you plan to visit. The order specifically lists how to apply, so that’s the best place to find the exact information you need.”
United States District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett’s Jan. 22 order sets forth the following criteria for those applying for the newly available non-resident permits:
Must be a member of SAF or other partner organization included in the lawsuit.
Applicants must file the application with the sheriff or chief of police in a county in which they plan to visit in the next 12 months.
Must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident and not prohibited from possessing firearms.
Non-residents receiving a California permit can only carry handguns and magazines that are legal to possess in California.
For complete instructions on how to apply, you can view the order here.
The organizational plaintiffs in CRPA v LASD are the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Gun Owners of California. So long as you’re a member in good standing of one of those groups you’re eligible to obtain a permit, though as Kraut says, the state still isn’t making it easy.
Non-residents can choose where to apply, but they must attest under oath that they plan to spend time in that jurisdiction at some point over the next twelve months. I’m guessing that most gun owners who are looking to carry when visiting the state would like to do so in tourist destinations like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego, and unfortunately many those places have years-long delays, exorbitant application fees, or both.
Applicants also have to take a California-approved training class, which won’t be easy to find outside the state. The order allows for non-residents to take most of the training online, but applicants also “shall complete live-fire shooting exercises for each handgun they intend to carry in California.”
A Nonresident Applicant shall inform the Local Issuing Authority where the applicant applies of the live-fire course the applicant intends to complete, and the Local Issuing Authority shall either approve such course or suggest an alternative acceptable course within 75 miles of the applicant’s residence.
What happens if there is no alternative course within 75 miles of the applicants home is an open question, but I suspect the courts are going to have to figure that out pretty quickly.
There are host of additional requirements as well:
Nonresident Applicants must identify on the application by make, model, and serial number the handguns capable of being concealed upon the person that they intend to carry in California, and such handguns must be listed on the license to be validly carried in California. Identification of a handgun that cannot lawfully be carried in California shall be cause for denial of a license as to that handgun. Nonresident Applicants may seek to amend the list of firearms identified on their licenses in the same manner as California residents.
A Nonresident Applicant may choose to complete the interview required by California Penal Code section 26202(b)(1) virtually in lieu of in person, so long as the applicant appears by video and audio.
In addition to the means set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 4420, Nonresident Applicants may submit their fingerprints on an FBI form FD-258 fingerprint card to satisfy the requirements of California Penal Code section 26185.
If a Local Issuing Authority has opted to require a psychological examination before issuing a concealed handgun license, the Local Issuing Authority shall either conduct such examination virtually for a Nonresident Applicant, so long as the applicant appears by video and audio, or approve an examination provider located within 75 miles of the applicant’s residence.
I’m sure that most out-of-state gun owners who want a California permit would choose to apply in a jurisdiction that doesn’t require a psychological exam or force them to fork over $1,000 or more to obtain a permit, whether or not they actually plan to spend any time there. It’s unclear what consequences might come from attesting that you plan to visit Kern County but end up hanging out in Los Angeles instead, but it’s not like the state is going to be able to easily check and track your movements once you’re in the state. I suspect that rural counties that are more Second Amendment-friendly are going to get the lion’s share of out-of-state applications, at least in the near future, though whether that actually results in more visitors remains to be seen.
While this is definitely a step in the right direction, it’s ridiculous to think that this process is reasonable or 2A-compliant. Our rights don’t stop at the state line, and California is a prime example of why we need national right-to-carry reciprocity.
Read the full article here
