Hoffman v Bonta - challenge to denial of non-resident CCW

[Librarian]

Filed 4-11-24

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hoffman

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

California?s non-resident carry ban violates the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments. The Second Amendment is applicable to the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010)
(incorporating through Substantive Due Process); id. at 805 (Thomas, J., concurring)
(incorporating through the Privileges or Immunities Clause)

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution provides: ?The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.?

[BAJ475]

Filed 4-11-24

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hoffman

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

I should be a plaintiff. Like plaintiff, Chad Orrin, I am a resident of Idaho. While, under Idaho law, I have the right to carry a concealed firearm without a license, I have an Enhanced Idaho Carry License. Also, like plaintiff Orrin, I had a CA CCW when I moved to Idaho. My CA CCW was issued by the Butte County Sheriff, and had been renewed continuously for several years until I moved to Idaho. I currently have licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns issued by the states of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Based on my licenses or permits, I can lawfully carry concealed handguns in 41 different states.

While I applaud the plaintiffs' efforts, if they achieve what they are asking for, they will have fallen far short of what is needed. None of the handguns I now carry would qualify in California because they all have standard capacity magazines that exceed 10 rounds in capacity. My Canik Mete has a 20 round magazine. Even the S&W SD9VE that was on my CA CCW has freedom week magazines. My Canik Mete and Walther PDP have never been registered in CA, or anywhere else, because the Idaho Constitution prohibits registration of firearms. So, merely allowing non-residents to apply, would not achieve a meaningful result.

[AlmostHeaven]

I should be a plaintiff. Like plaintiff, Chad Orrin, I am a resident of Idaho. While, under Idaho law, I have the right to carry a concealed firearm without a license, I have an Enhanced Idaho Carry License. Also, like plaintiff Orrin, I had a CA CCW when I moved to Idaho. My CA CCW was issued by the Butte County Sheriff, and had been renewed continuously for several years until I moved to Idaho. I currently have licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns issued by the states of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Based on my licenses or permits, I can lawfully carry concealed handguns in 41 different states.

While I applaud the plaintiffs' efforts, if they achieve what they are asking for, they will have fallen far short of what is needed. None of the handguns I now carry would qualify in California because they all have standard capacity magazines that exceed 10 rounds in capacity. My Canik Mete has a 20 round magazine. Even the S&W SD9VE that was on my CA CCW has freedom week magazines. My Canik Mete and Walther PDP have never been registered in CA, or anywhere else, because the Idaho Constitution prohibits registration of firearms. So, merely allowing non-residents to apply, would not achieve a meaningful result.

The lawsuit sets the sights far too low. Most out-of-state residents do not have the means or time to undergo the extremely onerous requirements, including police interviews and 16 hours of in-person training, to obtain a California permit. Plaintiffs should request national concealed carry reciprocity in the style of marriage licenses as the judicial remedy.

[BAJ475]

The lawsuit sets the sights far too low. Most out-of-state residents do not have the means or time to undergo the extremely onerous requirements, including police interviews and 16 hours of in-person training, to obtain a California permit. Plaintiffs should request national concealed carry reciprocity in the style of marriage licenses as the judicial remedy.

I am not sure the court could grant such relief, even if it had been asked for. But they sure could have attacked California's requirements as unconstitutionally beyond what is allowed under Bruen. For instance: is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others or the community at large is still unconstitutionally discretionary; has been subject to a restraining order within the last 5 years; has a drug offense conviction within the last 10 years; failed to report the loss of a firearm; and the requirement for any psychological testing are just a few.

[AlmostHeaven]

Duplicate

[AlmostHeaven]

I am not sure the court could grant such relief, even if it had been asked for. But they sure could have attacked California's requirements as unconstitutionally beyond what is allowed under Bruen. For instance: is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others or the community at large is still unconstitutionally discretionary; has been subject to a restraining order within the last 5 years; has a drug offense conviction within the last 10 years; failed to report the loss of a firearm; and the requirement for any psychological testing are just a few.

I wish someone would try to go all the way to national reciprocity. The Second Amendment community has failed to sufficiently advance Full Faith and Credit Clause arguments, when this current Supreme Court could potentially be receptive.

[DolphinFan]

I like the argument.
I like the plaintiffs.
I wish them luck.
I will follow.

[BAJ475]

I wish someone would try to go all the way. The Second Amendment community has failed to advance Full Faith and Credit clause arguments, when this current Supreme Court could potentially be receptive.

To me, there is a simple solution. That is for gun owners in states whose carry permits are not recognized in CA, NY, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, RI and OR to contact their state attorney general and ask that attorney general to join with other attorneys general and sue the states of CA, NY, and HI for not allowing non-residents to apply for carry permits and not recognizing permits from any other state and in the case of OR for only allowing non-residents of adjoining states to apply for a carry permit and in the cases of IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, and RI for imposing excessive fees and conditions and restrictions that are contrary to and inconsistent with the holdings in NYSRPA v Bruen, DC v Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago and Caetano v. Massachusetts. The advantage of such a suit is that it should fall under the original jurisdiction of the United States Suprene Court, avoiding 2A hostile district courts and circuit courts of appeal and convincing enough justices to grant cert.

[splithoof]

To me, there is a simple solution. That is for gun owners in states whose carry permits are not recognized in CA, NY, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, RI and OR to contact their state attorney general and ask that attorney general to join with other attorneys general and sue the states of CA, NY, and HI for not allowing non-residents to apply for carry permits and not recognizing permits from any other state and in the case of OR for only allowing non-residents of adjoining states to apply for a carry permit and in the cases of IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, and RI for imposing excessive fees and conditions and restrictions that are contrary to and inconsistent with the holdings in NYSRPA v Bruen, DC v Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago and Caetano v. Massachusetts. The advantage of such a suit is that it should fall under the original jurisdiction of the United States Suprene Court, avoiding 2A hostile district courts and circuit courts of appeal and convincing enough justices to grant cert.

I like your reasoning.

[AlmostHeaven]

To me, there is a simple solution. That is for gun owners in states whose carry permits are not recognized in CA, NY, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, RI and OR to contact their state attorney general and ask that attorney general to join with other attorneys general and sue the states of CA, NY, and HI for not allowing non-residents to apply for carry permits and not recognizing permits from any other state and in the case of OR for only allowing non-residents of adjoining states to apply for a carry permit and in the cases of IL, NJ, MD, MA, CT, and RI for imposing excessive fees and conditions and restrictions that are contrary to and inconsistent with the holdings in NYSRPA v Bruen, DC v Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago and Caetano v. Massachusetts. The advantage of such a suit is that it should fall under the original jurisdiction of the United States Suprene Court, avoiding 2A hostile district courts and circuit courts of appeal and convincing enough justices to grant cert.

This sounds excellent to me. I should send a letter to Attorney General of Virginia Jason Miyares, thankfully a Republican.

[BAJ475]

This sounds excellent to me. I should send a letter to Attorney General of Virginia Jason Miyares, thankfully a Republican.

I already sent a letter to Raul Labrador, Idaho's attorney general with copies to the attorneys general of Montana, Wyoming and Utah. Given that there are now 29 permitless carry states and that half of the states have gun ownership rates above 40%, that is a lot of potential voters. It is time for gun owners to flex their voting power to get the AGs to get behind this idea. The message to the AGs should be: Either protect our 2A rights and make sure that they are not lost when we visit other states, or we will find someone else who will!

[CrazyCobraManTim]

Hoffman..... Hoffman.... .that name vaguely rings a bell.



Excellent....most excellent CPRA effort!

[Sputnik]

Looks like Christopher Hoffman, not Gene.

[CrazyCobraManTim]

It was worth a try...

[AlmostHeaven]

BAJ475, did you ever receive a response to any of the letters sent to attorneys general?