Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new lawsuit challenging California’s ban on firearm carry by non-residents. The complaint in Hoffman v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“This ban is unconstitutional. Individuals like Plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs say in the complaint.
“The right to bear arms doesn’t end at California’s border,” said Brandon Combs, Founder and President of FPC. “We look forward to eliminating this unconstitutional ban and restoring liberty in the Golden State.”
“California’s ban on firearm carry by non-residents is blatantly unconstitutional,” said FPCAF President Cody J. Wisniewski, also counsel for FPC.
“Whether California likes it or not, the United States Constitution requires the State to allow non-residents the ability to exercise their natural, fundamental right to bear arms. We again look forward to reminding California that it is not above the Constitution.”
FPC is joined in this case by three of its members, Christopher Hoffman, Jennifer Sensiba, and Chad Orrin.
Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs like these can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit membership organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.
FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.
FPC Action Foundation (FPCActionFoundation.org), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty through charitable legal action, public policy, education, and research programs.
The FPC non-residents lawsuit should include every state that refuses to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. Concealed carry permits should be treated the same way driver’s licenses are honored throughout the country.
True story. If the defense tries to invoke a strict scrutiny defense based upon drivers licenses the data clearly sides with us. There is no threat to public safety when I drive in CA (rarely) with my Arizona DL. That is exactly why the City of Needles passed a city ordnance recognizing the right of Arizona residents to carry in their city. Reciprocity works both ways. And the data impacting public safety clearly favors us in both accounts, both CCW and Drivers licenses.
But data is not a factor in the 2nd Amendment. No matter what other people do with their weapons, we are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
HLB
Does the city of Needles require those Arizonans to have an AZ CCW? If not does the city also allow CA residents to carry without a permission slip?
We always school the left when they make comparisons of driving, a privilege, and constitutional rights. They are not the same!
The best argument imo is –
No other constitutional right stops at state lines.
Period.
Yes but no. Drivers licenses are not the same as a constitutional right.
HLB
Correct.
So when are elected bureaucrats going to face jail time for unconstitutional acts?
Bring back the gallows.
Start with Newsom.
or maybe putting a small amount of “wisdom” (read: fear”) into the black hearts of those miscreants….. thus at least temporarily curing the problem.
they are, indeed, not. That shows that the FACT that sll tates rcognise any license to drive issued by other states, which license is NOT a constitutional right, should all the more so recognise the CNSITUTIOONA: right to bear arms in any state in which they happen to be. Presently there are some states into which I refuse to trvelm or in the caseof flying, even select a flight that would take me NEAR some states: New Your, ew Jersey, Illinois, California, to name the most obnoxious abd dangerous. I read some years back of a Utah (?) attorney flying… Read more »
I think this is where this lawsuit will end.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Keep your fingers crossed and pray for the safety of Thomas.
Driving is held to be a privilege, not a right as keeping and bearing under the 2A. There should be no, none, zilch, nada piece of paper from our ruling Karens in order to practice our God-given right to self protection, and defense of the Constitution. Interesting note, the people who make their livings on the backs of the 2A, will be bowing to CA’s tyranny in that they will not be carrying at the Second Amendment Foundation’s Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, September 27-29. This was learned when I called to gain SAF recommendations, speaking with Dave Workman esteemed… Read more »
If a highly regulated privilege such as driving has nationwide reciprocity then what justification is there for the way an enumerated constitutional right is handled? Cars kill far more people that guns do. No two states have exactly the same rules for licensing drivers or vehicles but a license plate from any state would allow me operate a vehicle in Kommiefornia that I could never get registered here. In the case of CA it’s mostly because of emissions regs. The state decided long ago that only criteria for roadworthiness is what comes out of the tailpipe.
I don’t know how your calculating car vs gun deaths, but you’re incorrect,but I will provide a caveat. The media incorrectly has stated that deaths of “children” are greater due to guns than cars. This is false as the report included 18 & 19 year olds; which are adults. When taken out if the mix, cars are the leading cause of death for actual children (those under 18). Deaths by gun still exceedall killed in cars. But here’s the caveat, suicides account for 54% of deaths in which a firearm was used. Recognizing that someone hell bent on suicide will… Read more »
I get what you mean but, since we argue against the left that 2A is a right and driving is a privilege, I don’t think this is the best analogy; just gives the left ammo against the right – oh! It’s okay to compare the two when it suits YOUR narrative.
Best to just leave it at, “It’s a Contstutionally protected right and no other right needs permission or is prevented when crossing state lines.”
Q