Proposed South Carolina law would allow open carrying of guns in public. The Republican-controlled South Carolina House voted overwhelmingly to allow lawful firearm owners to carry handguns openly or concealed without a state permit.
San Diego, California – A federal judge in San Diego has ruled that California’s longstanding restriction on concealed carry applications from non-residents is unconstitutional, marking a significant victory for gun rights advocates and opening the door for out-of-state visitors to apply for concealed carry permits in the state.
In a 12-page decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo sided with the Firearms Policy Coalition and three gun owners from Idaho, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania who brought the case. The plaintiffs argued that while they are legally licensed to carry concealed firearms in their home states, California’s laws barred them from even applying for the same right when visiting the Golden State — an exclusion they said violated both the Second and 14th Amendments.
“The provisions barring nonresidents from applying for CCW licenses violate the Constitution,” Bencivengo wrote in her opinion, concluding that California’s residency requirement cannot stand in light of the Second Amendment’s text or the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The ruling comes amid a national reckoning over the boundaries of gun control laws following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case redefined the way courts evaluate firearm regulations, shifting the focus to whether a law is consistent with “historical tradition,” rather than whether it serves a compelling public interest.
In this case, Bencivengo found California failed to show any relevant historical precedent for barring non-residents from accessing a general firearms licensing process. “The State cannot point to a single law from the Founding or framing tradition that wholesale blocked nonresidents from participating in a general firearms licensing scheme,” she wrote.
The ruling grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, effectively ending the case without a trial. Bencivengo also ordered the state to negotiate an injunction outlining how the law should be changed, giving both parties 30 days to present a proposal. While the injunction is still pending, the ruling is already being hailed as a nationwide precedent by pro-gun organizations.
“This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which has spearheaded similar challenges across the country.
California’s Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision, but said in a brief statement Wednesday that the state “remains committed to defending our commonsense firearm safety laws.”
As the country grapples with a steady drumbeat of mass shootings, accidental discharges, and gun thefts, the ruling once again raises a familiar question: how many more guns do we need, and at what cost?
