Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction on California’s Ban on Non-Resident Carry

The Firearms Policy Coalition is hailing a federal judge’s permanent injunction against the state’s ban on non-resident carry, which allows FPC members to file an application for a permit to carry in any of the state’s 58 counties.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued the permanent injunction on Thursday, several weeks after she concluded that the state’s ban on non-resident carry was unconstitutional. 

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta; Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant, are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3) as to CCW applications submitted by Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition’s members who are not residents of California, including the named Individual Plaintiffs.

That’s pretty simple and succinct. And as FPC notes, that’s also pretty much the exact opposite of what Bonta was asking for. 

The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional…

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 21, 2025

In a statement, FPC elaborated on Bonta’s request. 

The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional conditions and qualifications. But the Court agreed with FPC, which asked the Court to enter a straightforward injunction simply blocking enforcement of the ban altogether. 

“People do not lose their right to keep and bear arms when they visit California. With this injunction, they can finally protect themselves and their families while in the Golden State,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. 

FPC members will be able to apply in whatever county they wish, without having to provide any sort of sworn statement or notarized declaration of intent, which is exactly how it should be. California residents may be forced to apply for a carry permit in the county where they live, but it makes no sense for non-residents to be funneled into one particular county… particularly given the lengthy wait times and excessive fees that are found in some of the state’s most populated counties.

Los Angeles County, for instance, is probably the most popular destination for out-of-state visitors, but any non-resident applying for a carry permit there is likely going to wait more than 12 months just to get their permit approved. Visitors to Silicon Valley, meanwhile, would face application fees of more than $1,000 if they were forced to apply in Santa Clara County.

There are some counties in the state where application fees are more reasonable, at least compared to what’s found in anti-gun jurisdictions. There are also counties that don’t require applicants go through a psychological exam before submitting their application, which adds even more time and expense to the process (as well as introducing subjective standards in what’s supposed to be an objective system). I hope FPC will offer some guidance to members about what counties best respect the right to bear arms, so that they know where not to go through the application process. 

Interestingly, this isn’t the first injunctive relief that’s been given to members of Second Amendment organizations. In a separate legal challenge, another federal judge earlier this year declared that members of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and Second Amendment Foundation can also apply for and receive permits to carry. Unlike Judge Bencivengo, though, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett imposed most of the conditions that Bonta wanted to impose on FPC members. 

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 fact that different rules exist depending on what Second Amendment group you belong to seems logically, if not legally, untenable to me, but that’s the reality of the situation for the moment. 

Hopefully the plaintiffs in CRPA v. LASD will be able to cite Bencivengo’s order as the basis for reshaping the terms of Garnett’s injunction. Ideally, of course, California would simply recognize permits issued by other states, but that’s not likely to happen in the near future. Reforming California’s draconian gun laws is a herculean task, and one that won’t be accomplished overnight. FPC’s latest victory, though, brings us one step closer to the day when the Golden State is forced to recognize the fundamental importance of our right to keep and bear arms.  

Editor’s Note: Second Amendment groups are launching lawsuits across the country to protect our right to keep and bear arms.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.