A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction in the case challenging California’s ban on nonresident carry of firearms, thanks largely to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
According to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in the case California Rifle & Pistol Association v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.
“Americans do not leave their Second Amendment right to bear arms at the California border,” Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said. “California is behind the curve in recognizing that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment since SAF’s Supreme Court victory in the 2010 McDonald ruling.”
Along with nonresident carry, also at issue in the case was two plaintiffs who have had their concealed carry permit applications pending for more than a year and a half, without being either approved or rejected. The judge found that situation didn’t live up to the second Bruen standard requiring a historical precedent.
“The Court finds the LA Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate that the over 18-month delays imposed on Individual Plaintiffs Weimer and Messel are part of a historic tradition of firearms regulation,” the judge wrote. “First, Plaintiffs are correct that the only laws from the Founding era to which the LA Defendants cite are those that outlaw carrying based on race, and the LA Defendants do not explain how racial regulations bear on a waiting period. The LA Defendants otherwise cite to regulations allowing municipal authorities to issue CCW licenses, most of which arose for the first time around the 1870s, among various other twentieth century regulations that set forth licensing regimes for CCW licenses. This is insufficient to carry the LA Defendants’ burden.”
Adam Kraut, SAF executive director, said this initial victory in the case is a good sign for things to come.
“The writing is clearly on the wall when Judge Garnett noted the Court already found that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our argument that California’s residency requirement for CCW applications is unconstitutional,” kraut said. “We are confident our challenge will continue to prevail.”
The case was brought by the SAF, along with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens.
Read the full article here
