In a major win for gun rights advocates and defenders of the Constitution, a federal judge in California has struck down the state’s ban on concealed carry permits for nonresidents. The ruling in Hoffman v. Bonta (Case No. 3:24-cv-664-CAB-MMP) is more than a procedural victory—it’s a resounding affirmation of the fundamental principle that constitutional rights do not end at state lines.
This case centered on a straightforward but powerful question: Can a state deny nonresidents the ability to even apply for a concealed carry weapons (CCW) license? For decades, California has operated under the assumption that it could do just that. But in a meticulously reasoned opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California held that such a blanket denial violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Constitutional Core: Equal Access to Fundamental Rights
The plaintiffs in this case weren’t radicals or fringe actors. They were law-abiding Americans—residents of Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico—each with valid CCW permits in their home states. Each had compelling, personal reasons for wanting to lawfully carry a firearm while visiting California, and each would have applied for a license had the state allowed them to.
Instead, they were barred entirely—not denied after a review, but prevented from even submitting an application. That’s not regulation. That’s prohibition.
The court rightly recognized that this is unconstitutional.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the judge affirmed that the right to “bear arms” applies broadly to “ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens,” regardless of their zip code. Importantly, the court rejected California’s narrow interpretation of “the people,” emphasizing that out-of-state visitors remain part of the national community and retain the full protections of the Bill of Rights.
The Bruen Test: History, Not Bureaucracy
In its defense, California tried to justify the ban by invoking public safety concerns and historical firearm regulations. But under Bruen, states must demonstrate that a firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition—not just that it’s convenient or popular today.
The court gave California ample opportunity to provide such historical analogues. It came up short.
While states historically required licenses or permits for public carry, the record showed no tradition of categorically denying nonresidents the ability to apply. In fact, many historical laws explicitly allowed nonresident applications or granted “traveler exceptions.” Even post-Civil War laws—often the strictest in terms of carry restrictions—rarely went so far as to exclude outsiders from lawful self-defense entirely.
In short, there was no meaningful historical precedent for California’s residency restriction.
Federalism Does Not Mean Fragmented Rights
California argued that its laws were simply an expression of state sovereignty and local values. But as the court noted, federalism cannot be used as a shield to deny constitutional rights. As with the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and other rights enshrined in our founding charter, the Second Amendment must travel with the citizen.
This decision doesn’t mean California can’t regulate concealed carry. What it can’t do is impose an absolute bar on entire classes of people, such as visitors from other states, based solely on their residency. How this can be squared, however, with the outright possession/carry bans imposed on 18-20 year-old adults by many states remains unexplained.
Injunctive Relief and the Road Ahead
Recognizing the gravity of the constitutional violation, the court also granted injunctive relief. This means California must now allow nonresidents to apply for concealed carry licenses—putting them on equal footing with residents for the first time in decades.
Importantly, the court left open the possibility for some regulatory differences (e.g., nonresident fees or additional paperwork), but emphasized that any such differences must not amount to a meaningful constraint on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Why This Matters
This case is about far more than one state’s permit process. It’s about whether the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution are truly national in scope—or subject to erosion every time we cross a border.
The logic of the court’s opinion, grounded in history and reaffirmed by Bruen and Heller, provides a powerful template for future challenges to overreaching gun laws.
At a time when many states are experimenting with creative (and often hostile) restrictions on gun ownership, this ruling is a timely reaffirmation that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.
Final Thoughts
Hoffman v. Bonta represents a victory not just for gun owners, but for every American who believes that constitutional rights should be honored consistently and fairly—no matter the state.
It’s a reminder that freedom does not stop at the state line—and neither should the Second Amendment.
The cynic in me, however, still points to decisions like this as being, perhaps, a grim reflection of what much of the judiciary in the United States now thinks of this right: That all that the 2nd Amendment protects against are blanket bans on possession- or as to certain entire classes of persons, as was the case here- and that virtually all other infringements short of that are perfectly fine constitutionally.
MA GUN LAWYER 
Leave a comment