9th Circuit Reopens Case Against LA’s Concealed Carry Arrests

In a surprising decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has revived a lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ pre-Bruen concealed carry policy, allowing plaintiffs arrested under the city’s “no-issue” scheme to move forward with their claims.

According to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which filed an amicus brief in the case alongside the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and others, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred when it dismissed the Second Amendment claims of plaintiffs Hunn and Hearns. The ruling means the case will return to the lower court for a full hearing on the merits.

The “No-Issue” Policy at the Heart of the Case

As the SAF explained in its public statement, the plaintiffs allege that before the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, Los Angeles only issued concealed carry permits to judges and law enforcement officers. The policy left ordinary residents with virtually no legal avenue to carry a firearm for self-defense, even if they passed all other qualifications. This amounted to a “no-issue” jurisdiction, where permission to exercise a constitutional right was reserved for a narrow, elite class. The Ninth Circuit agreed that under Bruen, such a restrictive licensing regime is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs have grounds to seek redress.

Futility Doctrine in Play

One of the most notable parts of the ruling, as reported by SAF and confirmed in News2A’s coverage, is the court’s rare invocation of the “futility doctrine.” The LAPD had argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they never applied for a carry permit. The Ninth Circuit rejected this, reasoning that applying for a permit in Los Angeles at the time would have been pointless since the policy categorically denied applications from almost everyone who wasn’t a judge or in law enforcement. In the court’s words, plaintiffs are not required to “engage in a futile exercise” just to preserve their legal claims.

News2A: Standing and Injury Clearly Established

In its reporting, News2A highlighted that the court found the plaintiffs had Article III standing – meaning they suffered a real injury, directly traceable to the city’s policy, and that a court ruling could remedy it. The Ninth Circuit summarized the plaintiffs’ case this way: if Los Angeles had operated a constitutional “shall-issue” regime, Hunn and Hearns would likely have obtained licenses, and the officers who arrested them would have lacked probable cause. This concise framing shows how the unconstitutional policy was the direct cause of their arrests and subsequent legal troubles.

Jared Yanis: A Rare Win from the Ninth Circuit

Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, told viewers this was an unusually positive outcome for gun owners from the Ninth Circuit, which is historically known for decisions hostile to Second Amendment claims. He described the pre-Bruen environment in Los Angeles as one where “permits were basically only for judges, celebrities, or people with political connections.” Yanis argued that the city’s “good cause” requirement wasn’t just restrictive – it was a mechanism to shut out ordinary citizens from carrying at all.

Not Everyone Gets to Proceed

While the Ninth Circuit ruling is a major win for Hunn and Hearns, the case’s namesake, Matthews, will not move forward. As News2A noted, Matthews missed the two-year statute of limitations for bringing his claims before Bruen was decided. His Fourteenth Amendment claim was also dismissed for the same reason. Jared Yanis pointed out that this is a reminder of how important deadlines are in civil rights litigation – even groundbreaking rulings like Bruen can’t save a claim if it’s filed too late.

A Potential Ripple Effect Beyond California

Yanis stressed that the Ninth Circuit’s application of the futility doctrine could have far-reaching implications. In some states, such as Hawaii and New Jersey, and even in certain counties within “shall-issue” states, officials have used excessive delays, high fees, or subjective “good moral character” reviews to slow-walk carry applications. If plaintiffs can show that these systems are functionally designed to deny or discourage applications, they may be able to bypass the process entirely and still have standing to sue.

CRPA’s “CCW Reckoning Project”

CRPA President Chuck Michel posted on X that his organization led the charge in submitting amicus briefs for this case and that the ruling could help push LAPD to issue carry permits faster. He urged supporters to back CRPA’s “CCW Reckoning Project,” which targets jurisdictions across California that are charging excessive fees or dragging their feet on issuing licenses. Michel framed the ruling as a tool for holding agencies accountable to Bruen’s mandate, which requires states and localities to respect the right to carry without subjective hurdles.

Why This Matters for Past Convictions

Both Yanis and News2A emphasized that if the plaintiffs ultimately win, the case could establish a precedent for overturning past convictions related to unconstitutional carry policies. People arrested under “no-issue” schemes, like the one Los Angeles operated pre-Bruen, might be able to challenge their records. This potential retroactive relief is one of the more powerful aspects of the case, as it suggests that Bruen’s protections might reach backward in time to address past violations.

Futility Doctrine Could Be a Game-Changer

The Ninth Circuit’s embrace of the futility doctrine is what makes this ruling particularly interesting. For decades, restrictive jurisdictions have shielded themselves from lawsuits by claiming, “You didn’t apply, so you can’t complain.” If this logic spreads to other circuits, gun owners in places like Massachusetts, parts of Maryland, or even certain California counties could bypass rigged application systems and head straight to court. In that sense, this case isn’t just about Los Angeles – it’s about removing one of the biggest procedural roadblocks to challenging bad laws.

Signals a Shift in Judicial Attitude

While the Ninth Circuit hasn’t suddenly become a champion of gun rights, this decision signals a willingness to apply Bruen’s reasoning to past injustices. That’s a subtle but important shift. Many post-Bruen fights have been about states resisting the decision or finding ways to delay compliance. By reopening this case, the Ninth Circuit is telling lower courts not to slam the door on claims simply because they involve pre-Bruen conduct. That’s a win for fairness, even if the ultimate outcome remains undecided.

Next Steps in the Case

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling doesn’t declare Los Angeles’ old policy unconstitutional outright. Instead, it sends the case back to the district court for a full hearing. Hunn and Hearns will now be able to present their argument that the city’s “no-issue” scheme violated their Second Amendment rights, and Los Angeles will have to defend that policy in a legal environment shaped by Bruen. Given how clearly the Supreme Court rejected “good cause” requirements in Bruen, the city’s chances may be slim. But regardless of the outcome, this case could influence how courts handle similar claims across the country.