Rights don't end at state lines
It's virtually impossible for your average citizen to carry a firearm in all 50 states. You can finagle things to carry in most of them, via a combination of reciprocity and different states' non-resident permits, but you can't carry in all of them.
The reason is that there are a couple of states that only issue permits to residents. One of the most significant is California.
This was even more of a deal back when the state could arbitrarily decide which residents could get a permit, though that's thankfully history. Still, if you're going to the Golden State, there's no chance at all of you lawfully carrying a firearm.
It's just not happening.
And, it seems, that the Firearms Policy Coalition has filed a lawsuit challenging the law, which has at least some questioning whether the state's regulation is constitutional or not.
Gun rights group the Firearms Policy Coalition is suing the state of California in federal court, arguing that a state law banning out-of-state residents from carrying guns in-state violates the Second Amendment.
“State law generally prohibits individuals from carrying firearms either openly or concealed in public, and non-residents are not eligible for a license to carry a firearm in public. Indeed, California’s unconstitutionally restrictive scheme provides no path for non-residents to carry a firearm lawfully in public at all,” the coalition argued in its complaint.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
A lawsuit complaint represents one side of the story. The Bee reached out to the California Attorney General’s Office, which is charged with defending the law, for comment, but did not immediately hear back.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three non-California residents — Christopher J. Hoffman of Pennsylvania, Chad Orrin of Idaho, and Jennifer Sensiba of New Mexico — who are licensed in their home states to carry firearms.
Both Hoffman and Orrin are former California residents, according to the complaint. “Individuals like (Hoffman, Orrin and Sensiba) do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state,” the complaint reads.
While California offers concealed-carry licensing to residents, non-residents are ineligible. The law requires that an applicant live in the state for a two-year license or have a principle place of business or employment in the state if applying for a 90-day limited license.
Honestly, the quote from the complaint makes a valid point. You don't lose any of your rights when you cross state lines other than your Second Amendment rights. People wonder why we say the Second Amendment is treated like a second-class right.
Regardless, California has no provision at all for a non-resident who might be visiting to get a permit. They don't share reciprocity with any state, either, so you can't get a permit from another state and it apply there.
In short, if you're there for the summer or on vacation, you'd better be very careful because you have no right to defend yourself on the streets of California.
More accurately, you have no right to have the means with which you can defend yourself. The right still sort of exists, they just don't let you do anything to actually come out on top.
It's insane.
Let's not forget that despite having the most extensive gun control laws in the country, California is 20th in homicide rate according to the CDC. They also note that the state has more total homicides than any other in the nation.
I say that to point out that there are reasons why people visiting California might want to carry a firearm, particularly considering that the places where they're least likely to need one aren't exactly the most attractive to visitors. Which do you think will attract more people, Los Angeles or Amador City?
Exactly.
So my hope is that the courts recognize this serious infringement on the Second Amendment and take steps to address it. People don't leave their rights at the state line.
Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here. Your support is greatly appreciated.