CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT OUT OF STATE CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS!!

[Blackwater 53393]

 

NEWS & RELEASES

SAF MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR CA NON-RESIDENT CARRY PERMITS

BELLEVUE, Wash. — Jan. 24, 2025 — A district court has ruled that members of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) nationwide can soon 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. While the ruling was handed down Jan. 23, the order will go into effect in 90 days. 

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.”

 

*courtesy SAF*
 

I’m sure that this doesn’t mean that will issue any such permit!!

 

 

[Pat Riot]

4 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I’m sure that this doesn’t mean that will issue any such permit!!

Oh, they’ll be working it out…for years and years.

[Blackwater 53393]

1 minute ago, Pat Riot said:

Oh, they’ll be working it out…for years and years.

Probably take ‘em three or four years just to produce an application form!!

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Before I left California I applied for a resident CCW permit.  A few hundred dollars and  ten months later I had encountered a whole mess of "do it over again" and " you need to do this" run-arounds.

 

When we decided to move to Arizona I called the proper agency, had the forms in my hand in a week or so, submitted the forms with a check for (IIRC) $38.00 and got them back a few days later saying in essence "Dumb ass, you didn't sign the space on page two".

 

I signed, resubmitted, and had the card in my possession in another three weeks.

 

Don't think California won't put everything possible in the way to make it almost impossible to get an Out Of State CCW....if for no other reason than being spiteful over losing a court battle.

 

I lived in that state for almost 38 years.  I know what they are capable of and I know that they have no respect for citizens, courts, nor anything else that stands in their way of controlling everyone.

Edited January 27 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Never going to happen - at least under the wording above.

 

A Governmental entity cannot discriminately extend privilege toward people because of membership or participation in a private organization.

 

This would fail muster when examined against "equal protection under the law".

 

The SAF could fight for and lobby for ALL legal citizens to be able to apply for non resident permits - but categorizing this ability as a "perk of membership" is a non starter.

 

[Blackwater 53393]

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Never going to happen - at least under the wording above.

 

A Governmental entity cannot discriminately extend privilege toward people because of membership or participation in a private organization.

 

This would fail muster when examined against "equal protection under the law".

 

The SAF could fight for and lobby for ALL legal citizens to be able to apply for non resident permits - but categorizing this ability as a "perk of membership" is a non starter.

 

Fifth District Federal Court ruled that the organizations involved in a dispute before them and two or three individuals were exempt from prosecution in a gun rights case there.

 

Not so unusual. Anyone is free to join these organizations, so it’s not exclusive.

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Never going to happen - at least under the wording above.

 

A Governmental entity cannot discriminately extend privilege toward people because of membership or participation in a private organization.

 

This would fail muster when examined against "equal protection under the law".

 

The SAF could fight for and lobby for ALL legal citizens to be able to apply for non resident permits - but categorizing this ability as a "perk of membership" is a non starter.

 

Well, yes, but those who did not sue or are not members of organization which did not sue do not have standing at a preliminary injunction phase of a trial. That is the state of this challenge. A final future win (the 9th will not so at SCOTUS) would apply to all citizens. And national reciprocity will be the answer, not some theoretical future where a citizen has the "right" to apply for a home-state permit and 49 separate non-resident permits. This model actually should break at applying for and paying the appropriate fees for the "right" to vote in the home state.

[John Kloehr]

2 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Fifth District Federal Court ruled that the organizations involved in a dispute before them and two or three individuals were exempt from prosecution in a gun rights case there.

 

Not so unusual. Anyone is free to join these organizations, so it’s not exclusive.

New claim by those being challenged for supporting these laws is to limit protection to those who were members of named organizations at the time of ruling, not those who joined later (particularly if they joined because of a ruling).

 

On edit: Not this particular case, but bump stocks and certain trigger litigations.

Edited January 26 by John Kloehr

[Subdeacon Joe]

The phrase "When Pigs Can Fly" comes to mind.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

Are there really that many people that would be willing to go through the hassle and expense of applying for a California carry permit if they don't even live in that state?  They would be better off waiting for a national reciprocity law.  

[John Kloehr]

4 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

Are there really that many people that would be willing to go through the hassle and expense of applying for a California carry permit if they don't even live in that state?  They would be better off waiting for a national reciprocity law.  

Suits like this can help bring that about. And judges do not like when local authorities defy instructions or create unreasonable roadblocks, or in the case of carry rights (at SCOTUS), make a decision based on a subjective evaluation.

Edited January 26 by John Kloehr

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

Better than that...

 

(The Center Square) – Republicans in the U.S. Senate and House introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which President-elect Donald Trump has said he will sign.

 

U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Republicans from Texas, Thom Tillis, R-NC, and Chuck Grassley, R-IA, filed the bill in the U.S. Senate, joined by 40 cosponsors. U.S. Reps Richard Hudson, R-NC, and Nathaniel Moran, R-TX, filed the companion bill in the House, which has more than 120 cosponsors.

 

Full article here:

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_9c276c0e-d375-11ef-847d-1fd27706c1b0.html

[Sedalia Dave]

By the time you jumped through all the hurdles you'll have spent so much time in the PRoK that they'll claim that you are now a resident and fine you for not getting a PRok Driver's license and car registration.

 

Then they'll make you start all over.

 

Edited January 27 by Sedalia Dave

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

There is no “shall issue” attached to this.

[watab kid]

will be interesting to see this proceed but seems to me it falls short if a state does not allow CCW