California Concealed Carry Now Available to Out-of-Staters
It’s a small step in the right direction for self-defense rights.

If you've traveled to California in recent years, you know that, despite the state's obvious woes (though San Francisco is, hopefully, turning things around), nonresidents can't legally carry a firearm for self-defense. The situation is only marginally easier for residents. Given the state's other restrictions on even nonlethal self-defense tools, that's left visitors with a choice between abiding by rules seemingly crafted to favor criminal predators or ignoring the law and doing what needs to be done. But that may be changing now that a federal judge has ordered that out-of-state members of several gun rights organizations suing California over its gun laws must be allowed to apply for concealed carry licenses.
California's Legal Gauntlet, Now More Widely Available
"Together with the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California, we sued Attorney General Bonta to force him to recognize the right to carry of nonresidents as part of our lawsuit in CRPA vs. LASD," the California Rifle & Pistol Association announced. "While the Judge ruled against us for the time being in our argument that California must honor CCW [concealed carry weapon] permits issued by other states (known as 'reciprocity'), she did agree that California must at least allow residents of other states to apply for a California CCW permit."
Applicants must be members of one of the plaintiff organizations (yes, you can still join) and must apply in a "California jurisdiction in which they intend to spend time within the subsequent twelve (12) months and attest to that intention under oath in the application," according to the order by United States District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Applicants are also bound by all the usual California rules, including a limited choice of firearms "legal to possess in the state." California severely limits those that can be commercially sold according to an ever-shifting list of features, though you can still possess many but not all other handguns there if you already owned them or bring them from outside. California CCW licenses are also specific to designated handguns identified by the applicant according to make, model, and serial number.
In other words, all the usual California nonsense—but now, at least, available to out-of-state residents.
Until now, the California Office of the Attorney General specified that "CCW licenses are issued only by a California county sheriff to residents of the county, or the chief of police to residents of the city. California law does not honor or recognize CCW licenses issued outside this state."
Out-of-State Residents Benefit From a Broader Case
Even for California residents, this isn't an easy task. The recent court order results from a case, CRPA v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, challenging the onerous, lengthy, and expensive concealed-carry requirements imposed by many jurisdictions in the state.
"The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department admits it takes a year to a year and a half to process a CCW application," according to the Second Amendment Foundation. "The La Verne Police Department's CCW application process costs between $900-$1100 for the initial application and over $500 for a renewal which is necessary every two years. Additionally, both the LASD and LVPD impose subjective permit-issuance criteria, in direct contravention to the Supreme Court's edict in Bruen."
Some jurisdictions now require psychological screenings, usually at the applicant's expense. Others want full records of past employment.
"CRPA realizes how complicated this all seems compared to the application process in nearly every other state," the self-defense rights organization comments in its press release. "And all we can say to that is: welcome to California!"
No Ban, Just Bureaucracy
The intent seems to be to make the process as annoying and intrusive as possible to discourage those who aren't already in the good graces of the authorities. That's not permissible, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recognized concealed carry as a protected right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). The court anticipated that some freedom-unfriendly jurisdictions would try to impose death by a thousand bureaucratic cuts on anybody seeking to exercise the right.
"Because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
In the course of challenging California's red-tape barriers to concealed carry, the plaintiffs also opposed the state's refusal to recognize out-of-state CCW permits and licenses. By contrast, neighboring Arizona recognizes CCW permits from all other states and its own permits are recognized in 36 states in addition to Arizona. While relief for California' residents awaits the outcome of continuing litigation, out-of-state residents get a bit of a breather with the opening of the CCW licensing process.
Limited Alternatives
If you're thinking that it's nice that California is now willing to subject out-of-staters to the Kafkaesque ordeal it imposes on its residents with CCW licenses as the prize, but you'd rather carry a knife and pepper spray than jump through the hoops, keep in mind that we're talking about California. Knives are also strictly regulated and subject to length limits, concealment rules, and potential prohibition. Police may decide that any given blade is a "dirk" or "dagger" subject to more rules.
Pepper spray is legal, but subject to limitations. No pepperball guns, for one. You're limited to 2.5-ounce containers which must all be labeled: "The use of this substance or device for any purpose other than self-defense is a crime under the law."
Saps, blackjacks, and batons, which offer the grace of leaving would-be muggers unperforated and most-likely alive while correcting their attitudes, are strictly illegal—sort of. Last year, a federal judge voided this law on Second Amendment grounds, but the state is appealing.
That's not to say you shouldn't carry any of the above. When laws become ridiculously restrictive, it quickly becomes ludicrous to expect compliance. Being able to defend yourself and your family is more important than any government directive to the contrary. But big-boy rules apply: Be careful and don't attract attention.
Until restrictive laws are fully overturned, it's encouraging to see litigation forcing California to progress towards recognizing out-of-staters' right to defend themselves even to the limited extent permitted to state residents. Hopefully Californians will soon win some breathing room for themselves.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What? A Reason writer advocating disobeying an unjust law? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Forget it, Jake. It's Tuccilletown.
Chef's kiss
Oh California. One step forward, two steps back kind of state ya know?
It used to be.
It's getting harder to remember the last real step forward, though.
When we canned a governor for not keeping the lights on, caving to the unions, and stopping the military from helping (again because unions) while neighborhoods were burning in fires.
Alas, that was 20 years ago.
Newsome does all of those things, and worse, but the Ds have a media stranglehold and zero big party opposition now.
I just found out that if I travel to California I have to leave my brass knuckles, blackjack and dirk behind. Totally bummed.
Applicants must be members of one of the plaintiff organizations...
Lol.
I think you can join for $25.
I’m more interested in learning which counties are the easiest for getting a permit.
Still waiting for a reasoned argument about how a state can ignore another state's carry permit, yet all states have to honor marriage certificates and driver licenses from all states.
If California can ignore a Florida carry permit, Florida should be able to ignore a California driver license with an incorrect sex identifier, or a marriage certificate between two men (for examples)
(Relevant point: ALL permits 'required' to exercise constitutional rights are unconstitutional)
Professional licenses rarely work in multiple states. If you try to sell real estate in New York on a New Jersey license you could go to jail. If you are an insurance company you have to apply to do business in each state you want to do business in. If you are a doctor and want to practice in Virginia on a Maryland medical license you will likely do some hard time in prison. The list goes on and on.
The problem is that the standards for getting a carry permit vary enormously across states. In many, you don't even need a permit, which is great if you are a criminal and won't pass a background check. In New York a real background check is required, which is why New York is reciprocal with nobody. There are limited circumstances in which nonresidents can apply for New York firearms permits, and it is complicated in NY because they aren't issued by the state but by local police agencies. It is much easier to get one in small upstate communities than to get one from NYPD. We like not having a lot of guns here in NYC and as a direct result having some of the lowest rates of both homicide and suicide in the US. (Most firearms deaths in the US are from suicides.)
Just for the record:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Spending hundreds of dollars and begging for permission is an infringement.
Your right to enlist in the National Guard is not being infringed.
Your inability to interpret the meaning of a clear statement should not have any impact on his rights.
Your lack of understanding about how the militia clause came about has sadly been adopted by recent courts. The Second Amendment authors NEVER imagined that they were creating a right to individual ownership of firearms. They put the Second Amendment into the Constitution to prevent a repeat of what had happened in the UK in 1708, when Queen Anne Stuart vetoed a bill enacted by Parliament allowing Scotland to have a militia. (It is actually the first and last bill ever vetoed by a reigning UK monarch.) Everyone knew what this war about back then. The authors of the Bill of Rights wanted no more Queen Annes. Instead we are getting King Donald who is ignoring most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, to the approval of most hypocritical commenters here who only care about one misinterpreted Amendment to the Constitution.
If there were any true libertarians at Reason they'd say the 2A is the only permit we need.
Unfortunately, you shrike and jeff are the only true libertarians around.
If you have been convicted of a crime you don't have the same rights as others.
J. D. doesn't see the two prior issues.
1) the need constitutionally for states to honor the law of other states.
2) The fact that concealed carry is a right until restricted and not the other way around
IN 2015 Reason (J. D. Too ??) knew that
13 states then currently banned same-sex marriages
Due to the demonic ethics of an Ayn Rand you first pick what you want to support or oppose (same-sex marriage or open carry) and they you argue for the states or for the Feds.
Here is a stupid quote to show she knew nothing of St Augustine and "THe City of God"
"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
Ayn Rand"
Good quotation.
An example of the junk coming from one of the most vile self centered cult leaders ever.
This should apply to everyone, not just the plaintiffs. That is what happened with all the other gun control suits.
I don't think so. I believe there was a recent case in Texas where a group sued over the federal tax stamp on suppressors and won. But the judge ruled that only members of the organization were declared exempt. So if you don't want to pay the $200 tax stamp you have to join that organization. I'd look it up but I'm lazy.
My constitutional rights should not be dependent on what private groups I join.
I was doing was providing a counterexample to your second statement, not disagreeing with your first.
I would love to get rid of the $200 tax stamp.
You are welcome to sue. But the conservatives do have a point: Cases are binding only on the parties to that case.
Conservatives have been trashing judges issuing nationwide injunctions for years. Now that a judge is doing what Conservatives want, they get trashed anyway. Hypocrites.
*...that's left visitors with a choice between abiding by rules seemingly crafted to favor criminal predators or ignoring the law and doing what needs to be done.*
"Seemingly" is overly generous. Given the tone of the article, the correct adverb would be "obviously" or "maliciously". And anyone who has ever interacted with the California government will know that to be true.
I'd love to know how this argument doesn't apply to illegal immigration, where rules were "seemingly" crafted to aid criminal illegals in entering the country and avoiding detention or prosecution. So I guess JD believes we as sovereign citizens have the right to do what needs to be done.
Is doesn't seem accurate to say that the rules are "designed to favor criminals" since the advantage the criminals have is their lack of adherence to those rules. The same would essentially be true of laws prohibiting insider trading and the rules for pretty much any organized sport or game imaginable.
It could be said that the rules are designed to make the law-abiding into "soft targets", and there's a compounding factor in that some major players within law enforcement in CA have decided to apply those laws in a somewhat selective manner (which is not part of the legislation)
That's entirely reasonable. And I think the general point he was making and I was agreeing with was your soft target argument.
However, as a guy who fled California with intention, I can tell you that the state does in fact make (or at least selectively enforce) laws in a way that favors career criminals. Like not imposing stricter sentences on criminals who use illegal guns in the commission of a crime (or not charging them with ANY crime as became the norm in California), while simultaneously targeting the law abiding who run afoul of some paperwork crime or technicality because 2nd Amendment people are icky.
Illegal immigrants automatically become legal simply by applying for asylum. You can think that that is a stupid law, but that IS the law.
And almost nobody is ever prosecuted for illegal entry. It isn't a crime to be in the US without a visa.
"the right to do what needs to be done"
You have no right to be a vigilante. We have a Rule of Law here, or at least we did until Trump.
Oh yeah, bring a handgun into California and then try to convince a Soros district attorney to look up "reciprocity." That's where the smart money is, for sure.
If it's being transported in accordance with state laws, there's not much they can do if you simply bring a legally owned gun into CA from another state.
If you're carrying a loaded handgun in your pocket or under a jacket in a shoulder/IWB/OWB holster rig, or carrying it loaded within reach of the driver's seat in a vehicle without a CCW permit, you're likely to catch a charge in CA regardless of where/how the gun was purchased.
If you have a loaded handgun or AR on a mount inside a vehicle where it's visible from outside, you're likely to get into some trouble at the "agricultural check" unless you happen to pass through the checkpoint during the 60% of the time (depending on the checkpoint location) when those checkpoints don't have any CHP troopers "checking" the cars through.
For the most part, if you're not on any kind of "watch list" and whatever you happen to have with you is in a locked container and fits within the trunk or under the seat of the vehicle, your odds of drawing any attention in a passenger car or RV are very small. If you're cruising through AZ or NV waving guns out the window and drawing attention that gets some kind of "BOLO" put on your license plate, you might get picked out for some level of deeper scrutiny when you cross over into another state.
If you are open carrying a pistol or AR in New York City, you will likely get shot on sight by NYPD. As you should. You are committing a dangerous felony.
You're assuming a spherical cow. My point is that, in the real world, just as a traffic cop can always find something for which to give you a ticket, a leftist district attorney will always find some way to charge you regardless of your personal interpretation of the laws.
J.D. is wrong about J.D.
Traveling into California with out of state license plates is advertising how defenseless a victim you are. Leftists don't mind robbery as it is mere economic redistribution or reparations on fast forward.
The best and most effective course of action is to avoid ever entering the Soviet of Taxifornia.