SAF Celebrates Victory Over California Non-Resident Permits

As Cam wrote last week, California’s anti-gun regulatory scheme got handed a bit of a body blow when a judge ruled that the state had to start issuing non-resident permits. 

For a state that doesn’t even like residents being able to get permits, this is something no one is going to be particularly thrilled with and I expect the state to start trying to find ways to make it even more difficult to get permits, but they can no longer just blanket deny everyone who doesn’t live in California their Second Amendment rights.

One of the groups leading the charge was the Second Amendment Foundation, which sent out a press release celebrating the win:

A district court has ruled that members of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) nationwide can now apply for a non-resident carry permit in California. 

The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in CRPA v. LASD, SAF’s legal challenge to the refusal of California officials to allow non-resident carry permits in the state. 

“The judge ruled that as a SAF member your right to carry a firearm for self-defense doesn’t stop at the California border just because you are a resident of another state,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more benefit of being a SAF member.”

The injunction requires California to accept permit applications from any United States resident outside the state who is a member of SAF or its partner organizations and not prohibited from possessing firearms. SAF is joined in the case by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several private citizens. The original complaint was filed in December, 2023, and followed by a motion for preliminary injunction shortly thereafter in January, 2024. 

“It’s common sense that your fundamental right to bear arms does not evaporate when you leave your home state,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We’re committed to dragging states like California kicking and screaming into alignment with the demands of the Constitution, and now, peaceable SAF members can exercise their right to bear arms in California.”

This, of course, is good news.

Better news would simply be national reciprocity, in part because I fully expect California to try to find ways to make non-resident permits as burdensome to get as humanly possible, but it’s still a major win. Even if it’s only for SAF members and members of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and Gun Owners of America, which joined in the lawsuit.

However, it’s also a district court ruling. That means it doesn’t really apply elsewhere, and it’s also an injunction and not a formal ruling. That means it could well change down the road just as quickly.

But the fact that the injunction was issued at all is at least suggestive of where an actual ruling might land, especially after the Bruen decision. Yes, Rahimi muddied the waters a good bit, but there’s no historical regulation out there from the time of the Founding or the time of incorporation that justifies this sort of thing.

So this will warrant us following this case, but it’s hopeful.

And if it annoys California gun grabbers, well, that’s just a massive bonus.