Monday, September 01, 2025

Non-Resident CCW Permits for California


On July 1, 2025, United States District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted summary judgement to Firearms Policy Coallition members to obtain California Concealed Carry Permits. Judge Bencivengo ordered the Plaintiffs and Defendant to submit proposed orders within 30 days. From the order

For the above reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to their facial challenge pursuant to the Second/Fourteenth Amendment and denies the request for relief pursuant to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a proposed order for an injunction consistent with this order within 30 days. 


It is SO ORDERED.

The California Attorney General submitted a proposal whereby applicants would have to attest, under oath, they intended to spend time in a California jurisdiction within the next 12 months. It includes four pages of explicit instructions about how non-residents can apply, and what laws they must observe.

The plaintiffs submitted an order which simply says California licensing authorities are permanently enjoined from enforcing Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3). Judge Bencivengo chose the Firearms Policy Coallition's order. Here it is:

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta; Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant, are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3) as to CCW applications submitted by Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition’s members who are not residents of California, including the named Individual Plaintiffs.

The order took effect on August 21, 2025.

California vests the issuing of concealed carry permits with sheriffs and police chiefs. The issuance of permits varies enormously between jurisdictions. 30 years ago, Sheriffs and police chiefs could issue permits to anyone they chose. This became a way for people who desired a permit to escape the horribly restrictive polices of sheriffs or police chiefs in large cities. Some counties were issuing thousands of permits to people who did not reside in their jurisdiction.  The California legislature passed a statute forbidding the issuance of permits to people who did not live in the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.

The permanent injunction applies only to non-residents of California who are members of the Firearms Policy Coalition. This effectively makes it easier for non-residents of California to obtain California concealed carry permits than for residents of some restrictive areas in California. For example, only 100 to 200 permits were expected to be issued for San Francisco in 2024.

The order does not limit what jurisdiction an applicant may apply in. Placer County California already lists a process for obtaining a non-resident concealed carry permit. It is not clear how non-resident applicants may qualify with their personal handguns.

In the next few months, there will be many applications for non-resident concealed carry permits in California. The process may vary significantly by county.

Those counties which cater to non-residents are likely to reap the rewards of their efforts. California concealed carry permits are currently valid for two years. At the Crime Prevention Research Center, the cost of obtaining a California permit was summed up at over a thousand dollars for the initial permit, and over $600 for renewal, in 2023.  Some jurisdictions, such as Placer County, appear to charge a couple of hundred dollars less.

 

©2025 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch
  


 

2 comments:

Stephen P Wenger said...

Along with members of Firearms Policy Coalition, members of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Association may also apply. The standard application for nonresidents requests documentation of membership but there is not requirement that the membership predate the court ruling.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the Good Work! It is appreciated.