Are You Applying for a Concealed Carry License Post-Bruen, in …

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, or D.C.?

These were the "may-issue" jurisdictions in which such licenses were generally unavailable; if you're applying there (and outside the counties which were apparently de facto shall-issue, such as Sacramento, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties in California, as well as some rural counties), let me know what you're seeing of the process. Are you seeing general compliance by the licensing authorities? Obstructionism? Manageable but annoying red tape? Likewise, if you apply a few weeks from now, please e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu to let me know.

I'm inclined to apply for a concealed carry permit in L.A. County, but that would require buying a specific concealed carry gun (I'm not sure I'd want to use my current handgun, which is pretty heavy) before even starting the process, since the particular carry weapons' descriptions and serial numbers have to be listed on the application. Given the press of other business, it will probably take a bit of time for me to figure out what I want and buy it; I'll get going on the application after that.

Comments

[JPS1788]

It will be interesting to see how non-resident permits are handled too, especially in jurisdictions where they are either unavailable unless people own property or work in the state. New York, California, and South Carolina are such examples. Hawaii does not issue any non-resident permits at all, Colorado only offers them to members of the military permanently stationed in Colorado and their immediate family members living in the state, and Oregon only provides them to residents of contiguous states with a compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need. Given that Bruen makes patent both that carrying firearms outside the home is a fundamental liberty interest and that there must be analogous historical precedent for laws limiting that right, it is difficult to perceive how such restrictions are now viable. First, in addition to the second amendment, the 14thAmendment’s privileges and immunities clause (i) protects our right to travel (a similar point was made by Justice Kavanaugh in his Dobbs concurrence) and (ii) safeguards our fundamental liberty interests in all states. See Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551-52 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) (enumerating fundamental rights to include “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety” [emphasis added]); see, e.g., Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 512 (1939) (“it is clear that the right peaceably to assemble and to discuss these topics, and to communicate respecting them, whether orally or in writing, is a privilege inherent in citizenship of the United States which the Amendment protects”). And, second, I am not aware of any analogous law during the founding or reconstruction periods that proscribed the right of people to travel among the states with their firearms. Indeed, it would be shocking to learn that Alexander Hamilton did not travel between New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. with firearms or that he violated a New Jersey law when he traveled there to duel Aaron Burr to avoid New York’s law against dueling. All of that being said, I doubt that the New York legislature is focused on curing this aspect of its firearms legislation in its upcoming special session.

And, in terms of CCW, go with the Sig P365 XL Spectre Comp.

[Bubba Jones]

That seems like an easy equal protection case.

I wonder how the whole "3 unrelated character references" BS will play out.

[Mark Pennak]

Excellent analysis. I fully agree. The States will have to either allow non-residents to apply for a State permit on the same terms as residents, or adopt a reciprocity law that recognizes any permit issued by any other State. This will have an impact in Maryland (where I live), as that State doesn't recognize any permit issued by any other State and purports to require (by the State Police) that a non-resident have a Maryland "nexus" in order to get Maryland permit. And, of course, Maryland's "good and substantial reason" requirement for a permit is history after Bruen.

[John Cuyle]

The P365XL is a good suggestion, but CA has an "approved" gun list and it's so restrictive of gun choice that I don't think a single modern carry gun is on there. I haven't looked at it recently, but I think the least terrible options are along the lines of a 3rd gen Glock 19.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

At the risk of mixing Dobbs and Bruen,

a passage in Dobbs states that the People have a right to interstate travel---in Dobbs, to get an abortion if one's home State has outlawed them---and if RKBA applies outside the home, it should also apply outside one's home State.

My marriage license from NY is good elsewhere. So should my carry permit.

[jimc5499]

You have to list the specific weapon on the permit? Wow that wouldn't work for me. I have a fairly small pistol I carry in warmer weather and a slightly larger one that I carry when it is cooler and I have a jacket or coat on. One of the quirks in our law is that if you have a CC permit, you must carry concealed. You can actually get into trouble if the weapon is visible.

[Longtobefree]

That's the problem with allowing infringements on the bill of rights.
Picky bureaucrats will thwart the constitution at every turn.
How can a right be limited by how you dress?
(no jacket, gun visible, just fine; wearing a jacket, gun "concealed", you're a felon)
I mean, are we not back to "with that short skirt she was asking for it"?

[Eugene Volokh]

Oh, you can list more than one -- you just have to have them identified before you submit your application.

[Bubba Jones]

Can you add them later?

[Eugene Volokh]

Yes, but you apparently have to apply to modify the permit.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

I think only the bigoted States list the specific weapon on the permit.

Other, more advanced and tolerant States make their permits effective for 'any legal firearm.'

[Longtobefree]

Serious question; would you consider applying for a free speech permit if CA claimed you needed one to post your blog?

[Eugene Volokh]

Longtobefree: Sure, I'm pretty law-abiding. Of course, I would try to challenge such a law, if I thought a challenge was legally plausible; but it would take a lot for me just to violate the law instead of complying or challenging. (Note that, as to concealed carry, the Bruen majority expressly held that concealed carry licensing schemes, if sufficiently objective and not unduly burdensome, are constitutional.)

[dwb68]

sort of. They also invited challenges.

In footnote 9 they favorably cited Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), which held:

"1. A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights. "

[Bubba Jones]

"require buying a specific concealed carry gun"

That's a great excuse to buy a new gun.

If you're not sure what to get, get several...

Or get a compact version of what you already have.

[Frank Drackman]

Or just pretend you're a guitarist who has to take his Stratocaster everywhere.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course everyone (should) know you need a back up gun, for those times when something happens to your primary, or if you're a Dinosaur like me and carry a Revolver, that old Dirty Hairy Axom "Quickest reload is a second gun"
I guess we Oliver Twists should be grateful for Gruel, but restricting carrying to one particular gun? It's (Literally) Pre-Nazi Germany!!!(Man!) what if a woman could only have one abortion?? only kill one of a set of twins???
Frank "S&W 19 2.5" and a S&W 37 Airweight" (on my Person) gotta Remington 870 Police 12g in the trunk, for those special occasions)
Nope, no "Assault" Rifles (as far as anyone knows)

[Mr. Bumble]

Professor Volokh,

You may have seen this already but in case you haven't I think this is a pretty good example of what people can expect.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/a-minor-impact-on-gun-laws-but-a-potentially-momentous-shift-in-constitutional-method/

[dwb68]

yes. who cares if it's "heavy" start the (lengthy) process asap.

[Mark Pennak]

Professor Volokh: I was going to recommend the Sig M18. It is the short barrel (4") version of the M17, which is the Army's new standard sidearm. Comes with a thumb safety. Outstanding carry gun. Of course, you can't buy it California because it is not on the California handgun roster. https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search?make=150970 It doesn't have microstamping, a requirement that was sustained by the 9th Circuit (no manufacturer is compliant for new models because no manufacturer can get it to work). See Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018), cert denied sub nom., Pena v. Horan, 141 S.Ct. 108 (2020). You would be a perfect plaintiff for a renewed challenge to this law after Bruen.

[dwb68]

Donation to MSI inbound !!!!

Keep up the good work.

p.s. Why isnt Frosh out with an announcement. Someone needs to remind him that the standards for W&C review needs to be objective, narrow, and definite. And reviews need to be completed in asap.

[Mark Pennak]

Thank you!

[Mark Pennak]

PS: Frosh has been put on notice. He is an ex-Senator. It may be personal with him.

[Volfan98]

Professor Volokh......I intend on applying for my CCW in what was previously a "may issue" jurisdiction here in CA (Santa Barbara County). Our current sheriff has refused to issue CCW permits to anyone outside of judges (and political donors I suspect) prior to the recent ruling. There was even a recent write up in a local paper that tallied the number of permits issued in the county https://www.independent.com/2022/06/08/concealed-weapons-permits-in-santa-barbara-county/. In light of the SCOTUS ruling, and the the recent California AG memo on the subject, I intend on pursuing the permit. I'm curious to see if the Sheriff will make the change to "shall issue" and I'm willing to pay the fees and start the process to see. Several years ago I purchased a "carry-able" firearm in the hopes that one day either the law or the sheriff would change. Seems now is my chance. My gun is both registered to me and on the California DROS list. I also hold a position of trust with the government with no criminal record so I shouldn't have any problems with "being of good moral character". Given all that my application SHOULD be very vanilla and routine. I would be happy to share my experiences on the process with you. I'll probably get the ball rolling in the next few weeks. If you could supply me with an email address here I will privately share with you how it goes.

[KHP54]

Aren't sheriffs elected in California?

[Volfan98]

Yes.....the Sheriff in our county has been in office for several terms...since 2007.

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

Each day I kneel down and touch my glock to reflect on the Bruen decision, I laugh because Bruen will bring MORE regulation and MORE litigation. The image that comes to mind is...shooting yourself in the foot.

[Volfan98]

Sorry....just noticed the email address in the article above. I'll email you there.

[Commenter_XY]

Question: Does participation in a state administered medical marijuana program preclude one from owning any kind of gun, whatsoever? Do you fail the federal background check?

Asking for a friend residing in the People's Republic of NJ.

[Scribe]

Yes. Both a 9th Circuit case where someone went out and got a medical MJ card (even though they didn't need it) then tried to buy a firearm and answered truthfully about the MJ card - the 9th Circuit said "no guns for you".
Then ATF adopted that holding and added it to the 4473. Look up the current version of that form and you'll see a warning about medical MJ being still illegal and no guns for you.

[Commenter_XY]

Total bullshit = summary denial for MMP participants

Perhaps that can be a test case?

[darkknight9]

Professor V:
Would you still intend to apply in L.A. even after today's 'accidental' release of personal records of California gun conceal carry permit applicants and holders?

"The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge."

https://thereload.com/new-california-ag-website-leaks-massive-trove-of-gun-owner-private-information/

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"interesting to see how non-resident permits are handled too"

IIRC, Colorado still has a 'traveling' exemption.

However, I have family in upstate NY and some are advanced in age, can pass at any time. Might want to be able to enter NY.

There's also the troubling matter of people transiting NYC-area airports, with firearms in checked baggage. Occasionally their connecting flights cancel and they have to stay overnight in a hotel off the airport, exposing them to arrest for handgun possession in NY that they didn't intend, despite Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Bruen might be useful to anyone facing prosecution right now under such circumstances.

[jdgalt1]

I suggest checking out the podcast gunguytv.locals.com.

They just did a show on the challenges of getting Bruen applied to California's gun laws. There are several obstacles yet to be removed, including California's short list of handguns allowed for civilian ownership, microstamping requirement, prior refusal to recognize the Heller and MacDonald precedents, and the endless delays by California's appeals courts.

[Bubba Jones]

Open carry is stupid for self defense.

[Bubba Jones]

For the longest time, California allowed open carry of unloaded guns. You could have a magazine, it it weren't inserted.

The court rulings were hilarious: It's ok to ban concealed carry because open carry is legal.

Then: It's ok to ban open carry, because many states prefer concealed carry.

Each subsequent case managed to avoid the totality of banning both open and concealed at the same time.

[QuantumBoxCat]

The state could also criminalize carrying a deadly weapon in a manner likely to terrorize others. Thomas stated that this type of law has a history in the common law. If only open carry is permitted, then gun holders have to carry their weapons openly. If the state gives a broad definition to "a manner likely to terrorize others," then anyone carrying openly risks being arrested. They can avoid the risk by leaving their guns at home.

Or, to prevent any pre-enforcement challenges, the state could allow it's citizens to bring a private lawsuit against anyone who carries a deadly weapon in a manner likely to terrorize others. This would wrap the defendant up in civil litigation as they try to defend themselves.

[ThePublius]

And maybe we can require people to display badges or armbands indicating their religion, or ethnicity, just so we don't accidentally discriminate against a protected class. /sarcasm

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Open carry might discourage some aggressors, but serves as a 'shoot me first' sign for others.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually you'd be sure to attack him first, so he can't interrupt whatever badness you're about to do.

[Frank Drackman]

Well you won't ever need an abortion if you follow that policy, Hey Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dwb68]

I dont agree with this. Open carry is a deterrent, in the same way having a dog or a "Security by ADT" is a deterrent. Generally, criminals are predators and seek the softest targets.

There are times when I am carrying "concealed" in name only. In the summer, in FL, in shorts and a t-shirt, I print. Can't be avoided.

I have not seen anything scientific regarding open vs concealed. The debate is legendary on the internet. If there was some hard and fast science, I would expect that the FBI would recommend that police officers stop carrying a gun on their hip openly.

[KHP54]

Lots of bubbas say this, but I've yet to hear one cite evidence, or even a single anecdote, in favor of the assertion.

[Rossami]

If the state gives a broad definition to "a manner likely to terrorize others," such as you describe - in other words, one where no reasonable person would actually be terrorized - that definition would be an obviously unconstitutional failure.

Read the opinion. There's actually a pretty good discussion already there about what "a manner likely to terrorize others" really means. Mere open-carry ain't it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If only open carry is permitted, then gun holders have to carry their weapons openly. If the state gives a broad definition to "a manner likely to terrorize others," then anyone carrying openly risks being arrested. They can avoid the risk by leaving their guns at home.

You're actually that stupid?