Skip to Content

Gun Rights Across State Lines: CRPA Files Amicus Brief in Matthews v. City of Los Angeles Case

The case of Matthews v. City of Los Angeles has become a focal point for Second Amendment advocates, as it challenges the restrictive laws that hinder out-of-state residents from carrying firearms in California. This case represents a significant legal battle that could reshape gun rights across state lines, bringing into question whether the Second Amendment’s protections should be limited by state borders. With key organizations like the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and prominent legal experts weighing in, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications on concealed carry reciprocity.

CRPA’s Amicus Brief: Defending Non-Resident Gun Owners

CRPA's Amicus Brief Defending Non Resident Gun Owners
Image Credit: Survival World

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has taken a strong stance in support of non-resident gun owners by filing an amicus brief in the Matthews case. According to CRPA’s announcement, the brief argues that California’s law prohibiting out-of-state residents from obtaining a concealed carry permit (CCW) is unconstitutional. CRPA notes that there is no historical precedent for restricting the right to carry a firearm based on state residency. In fact, many historical laws actually protected the rights of travelers, allowing them to defend themselves regardless of their location.

The CRPA’s filing emphasizes that California’s refusal to issue CCW permits to non-residents places out-of-state gun owners in a legal limbo, effectively stripping them of their Second Amendment rights while in the state. This deliberate legal maneuver, they argue, is an effort by gun control advocates to undermine the right to bear arms through bureaucratic obstacles.

SAF Joins the Fight: Extending Gun Rights Beyond State Lines

SAF Joins the Fight Extending Gun Rights Beyond State Lines
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has also stepped into the legal fray, supporting the challenge against California’s restrictive gun laws. In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), SAF highlighted the constitutional issues at the heart of the case. The organization’s brief argues that Garry Matthews, a Tennessee resident arrested in Los Angeles for carrying a firearm without a California permit, had no legal way to obtain such a permit in the first place. SAF maintains that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense, regardless of the state in which the individual resides.

SAF’s stance is clear: constitutional rights do not vanish when you cross a state line. The foundation’s brief aims to reinforce this principle, arguing that Matthews’ arrest in 2019 violated his Second Amendment rights since there was no legal pathway for him to comply with California’s laws as a non-resident.

William Kirk Breaks It Down: The Washington Gun Law Perspective

William Kirk Breaks It Down The Washington Gun Law Perspective
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the Matthews case comes from William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, in his video. Kirk takes a deep dive into the legal issues surrounding the case, explaining why it’s absurd that constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, are universally recognized across state lines, but the Second Amendment often isn’t.

Kirk raises an essential question: Why should someone’s right to carry a firearm for self-defense be restricted simply because they crossed into California? He points out that California’s law not only places an undue burden on lawful gun owners but also contradicts the historical tradition of allowing travelers to bear arms for self-defense.

No Historical Justification: CRPA’s Argument Against California’s Law

No Historical Justification CRPA’s Argument Against California’s Law
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Both the CRPA and SAF argue that California’s restrictions on non-resident concealed carry permits have no basis in history. Kirk explains that in early American history, states routinely made exceptions for travelers, allowing them to carry firearms for self-defense while passing through different regions. He points to examples dating back to the colonial era, where states like East Jersey specifically exempted travelers from local weapons restrictions.

Kirk warns that California’s attempt to impose modern-day restrictions on out-of-state gun owners not only ignores historical precedent but also sets a dangerous legal precedent. If the courts uphold these restrictions, other states could adopt similar laws, further eroding the rights of lawful gun owners.

The Ninth Circuit Challenge: A Tough Legal Landscape

The Ninth Circuit Challenge A Tough Legal Landscape
Image Credit: Survival World

Kirk acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is currently being heard, has historically been hostile to gun rights. However, he remains hopeful that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which reinforced the constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense, will play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this case.

Both the CRPA and SAF have pointed out that California’s law contradicts the very principles upheld in Bruen. By preventing non-residents from carrying firearms, the state is effectively undermining the Second Amendment and creating an unfair barrier for lawful gun owners who wish to exercise their rights while traveling.

What This Case Means for Gun Owners Nationwide

What This Case Means for Gun Owners Nationwide
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

The outcome of Matthews v. City of Los Angeles could have far-reaching implications, especially for the issue of concealed carry reciprocity. As Kirk explains, if California’s law is upheld, it could embolden other states to impose similar restrictions, making it nearly impossible for gun owners to legally carry firearms when traveling. This would create a patchwork of conflicting laws, further complicating the ability of citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights across state lines.

On the other hand, if the courts rule in favor of Matthews and strike down California’s non-resident restrictions, it could pave the way for nationwide reciprocity, ensuring that concealed carry permits issued in one state are recognized in others.

Constitutional Rights Shouldn’t End at State Borders

Constitutional Rights Shouldn’t End at State Borders
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Kirk emphasizes the absurdity of the current situation: if constitutional rights like freedom of speech and protection from unlawful searches and seizures are recognized nationwide, why should the right to bear arms be any different? He argues that the Second Amendment, like all other constitutional rights, should transcend state borders and be uniformly recognized throughout the country.

This case, he asserts, is about more than just concealed carry permits—it’s about ensuring that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are protected for all Americans, no matter where they are.

A Dangerous Precedent: The Risk of a Negative Ruling

A Dangerous Precedent The Risk of a Negative Ruling
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Kirk also warns of the potential dangers if the Ninth Circuit rules against Matthews. He explains that if the court sides with California, it could set a legal precedent that allows states to impose even more draconian restrictions on gun owners, potentially undermining the Second Amendment altogether. Such a ruling could embolden states like New York and Hawaii, which have already implemented restrictive gun laws, to further erode the rights of lawful gun owners.

The Supreme Court May Need to Step In

The Supreme Court May Need to Step In
Image Credit: Survival World

Given the importance of this case, many legal experts, including Kirk, believe that the Supreme Court may eventually decide it. With the Court’s recent pro-Second Amendment rulings, there is hope that a ruling in favor of Matthews could not only strike down California’s restrictive laws but also set a national standard for concealed carry reciprocity.

Kirk is optimistic that the Supreme Court will take up the case if necessary, potentially delivering another landmark ruling that reinforces the Second Amendment’s protections for all Americans.

The Importance of Advocacy: CRPA and SAF Lead the Charge

The Importance of Advocacy CRPA and SAF Lead the Charge
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Both the CRPA and SAF have been instrumental in challenging California’s restrictive gun laws. Their amicus briefs have provided critical legal arguments that could shape the future of gun rights in the United States. As Kirk points out, it’s organizations like these that are at the forefront of defending the Second Amendment and ensuring that lawful gun owners can continue to exercise their rights, regardless of where they live or travel.

The Fight Continues

The Fight Continues
Image Credit: Survival World

As the Matthews v. City of Los Angeles case moves forward, it serves as a reminder that the fight for Second Amendment rights is far from over. With the CRPA, SAF, and legal experts like William Kirk leading the charge, there is hope that the courts will ultimately rule in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans, no matter where they are. This case has the potential to reshape gun rights across the country, and its outcome will be watched closely by gun owners and advocates alike.

Setting a National Precedent?

Setting a National Precedent
Image Credit: Survival World

Should constitutional rights like the Second Amendment be uniformly applied across all states, regardless of individual state laws? Why or why not? How might the outcome of Matthews v. City of Los Angeles impact gun owners in other states with restrictive gun laws? Could this set a national precedent?