First NY, Now CA. Court Rules on Non-Resident Carry Permits

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) recently scored a legal victory, not only for the long-oppressed residents of the state but for visiting non-residents also. The   case, known as CRPA vs. LASD challenged the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and the La Verne Police Department (LVPD) on the issues of delays, denials, and other means of obstruction in the processing of concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses. The case covered broader topics also, like non-resident carry, out-of-state permit reciprocity, exorbitant fees, and mandatory psychological exams. The outcome, which provides some relief to law-abiding citizens who chose to take personal responsibility for their safety, does come with pros and cons. Let’s take a closer look.

The Pros

The court’s ruling, which recognized that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, also provides that excessive delays in licensing could be construed as infringement. To this point, the court did concede that 18-month delays, like those experienced by some plaintiffs, may be unconstitutional. This critical concession could pave the way for future legal challenges.

Another victory in the recent ruling states that California must now allow non-residents to apply for a CCW permit. This development is critical for those who travel to the state frequently for business or otherwise recurring matters, as violent crime continues to be a concern. One might wonder why it is often the case that areas with the most gun control seem to be the ones with the greatest incidence of violence. I’m just kidding. We stopped wondering a while ago.

The parties were ordered to work together to implement the ruling, which will undoubtedly invite additional challenges and hopefully broader changes in the state’s restrictive gun laws.

The Cons

With the court passing a judgment familiar to a  recent New York ruling, forcing the state to allow non-residents to apply for concealed carry permits, it similarly fell short of ordering California to honor out-of-state CCW permits. The denial of reciprocity mixed with the state’s rigorous and expensive licensing requirements is clearly designed to discourage non-residents from seeking to exercise the very right the court agreed is constitutionally afforded to them.

Speaking of expense, the court also denied relief concerning excessive fees and psychological exams required by certain jurisdictions, ruling that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate these issues as falling within the plain text of the Second Amendment. This is interesting, as the plain text itself dictates that we shouldn’t be in court for these matters in the first place.

The Future

This ruling is a mixed bag, leaving much on the table for seemingly endless litigation. It is difficult not to celebrate steps in the right direction, like the court’s recognition that Second Amendment rights extend to carrying in public and the rights of non-residents to have a legal path to carry, however, the refusal to mandate reciprocity standards while allowing jurisdictions to demand excessive fees and psychological exams means that law-abiding gun owners still have a long road ahead of them.

Let us know what you think in the comments below. Are we heading in the right direction or right back into a courtroom? Would you consider jumping through hoops for a non-resident CCW or avoid these places altogether?