In a landmark ruling that could reshape the landscape of concealed carry laws, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, an Obama appointee, recently ruled that California’s restriction on non-residents applying for concealed carry permits is unconstitutional. This decision, handed down on July 1, 2025, marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates, particularly those representing the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a prominent gun rights organization.
The case was triggered when several non-resident concealed carry permit holders from states like Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico filed suit against the state of California after they found out that non-residents are prohibited from applying for concealed carry permits in the state.
A Violation of Two Amendments
As Sam Ribakoff reports for Courthouse News Service, the plaintiffs sought to carry their firearms for self-defense while visiting California, but they were denied the right to apply for a concealed carry permit, despite holding valid permits from their home states. The core of the lawsuit centered around the violation of both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Bencivengo’s ruling was clear: California’s refusal to allow non-residents to apply for concealed carry permits violates the constitutional rights of Americans. She emphasized that opening the application process to non-residents does not undermine California’s ability to regulate concealed carry permits through other measured parameters. In her order, she wrote, “Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
This ruling aligns with similar decisions from other courts, including one in the Central District of California, which had previously found that excluding non-residents from the concealed carry permit process violated the Second Amendment. Judge Bencivengo’s decision was a significant one for those advocating for broader interpretations of the right to bear arms.
State’s Argument and Historical Precedents
The state of California, represented by Attorney General Rob Bonta, argued that the Second Amendment does not mandate that non-residents be allowed to carry concealed weapons in the state. To support this stance, the state referenced historical examples of restrictive concealed carry laws dating back to the Reconstruction era and even earlier, when certain colonies required permits for firearms ownership. These analogies, however, were not sufficient in the court’s eyes. As Mark W. Smith discusses in his video on The Four Boxes Diner, the state of California struggled to provide an adequate historical justification for the restriction.
Smith pointed out that California’s argument based on 19th-century laws, including those that restricted firearm access for Native Americans, did not meet the standard set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the right to carry firearms in public is a constitutional one, and local governments must justify their gun laws by showing they align with historical regulations in American law.
The Bruen Precedent and Its Impact
Judge Bencivengo’s decision also underscores the broader implications of the Bruen ruling, which reshaped the legal landscape regarding concealed carry. Under the Bruen framework, laws must be consistent with historical gun regulations that were in place at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. The state of California’s reliance on 20th-century laws and outdated precedents failed to meet the rigorous standards of the Bruen decision, which ultimately led to the court’s conclusion that California’s refusal to allow non-residents to apply for concealed carry permits was unconstitutional.
Smith elaborates on this point in his commentary, arguing that the court’s decision is a “major win for the Second Amendment,” building momentum for the broader movement to restore and protect gun rights across the country. The ruling provides a powerful message that the right to bear arms is not confined to a specific group of people based on their residency status; rather, it applies to all Americans equally.
Why the Ruling Is So Significant
The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. For many gun rights advocates, the decision is a clear affirmation of the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry firearms across state lines, just as other constitutional rights, like freedom of speech or religion, extend beyond state boundaries. Ribakoff notes in his Courthouse News article that this judgment underscores a key point: people are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights, whether it’s the right to speak or the right to bear arms, no matter where they go in the United States.
The case also has far-reaching implications for concealed carry laws in other states. California, with its strict gun control laws, has long been a target of criticism from pro-gun groups, but this ruling could set a precedent for challenges to similar laws in other states. The broader principle here is that the right to carry firearms for self-defense should not be restricted based on where a person lives.
What This Means for California’s Laws
So, what happens now? The court’s ruling grants the plaintiffs in the case an injunction, allowing non-residents to apply for concealed carry permits in California. The plaintiffs, backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, are now entitled to injunctive relief, meaning they can legally carry concealed firearms while visiting the state. The court’s decision signals a significant shift in California’s approach to gun rights, potentially opening the door for more challenges to other restrictive laws.
California officials have indicated that they are reviewing the court’s opinion, and it remains to be seen whether the state will appeal the decision. However, as Smith highlights in his video, this ruling represents a key victory for the Second Amendment movement, particularly because it builds on previous rulings and strengthens the legal foundation for expanded gun rights.
The Legal Landscape Post-Ruling
The ruling also reinforces the broader legal trends shaping the future of gun rights in America. With more courts aligning with the Bruen standard, challenges to restrictive gun laws are likely to increase. As Smith suggests, each legal victory, like the one in this case, adds another “brick” in the wall protecting the right to bear arms. With this legal framework in place, gun rights advocates will continue to push for more reforms, and future rulings may continue to chip away at state and local restrictions on concealed carry.
Opposition to the Ruling
Despite the ruling’s significance for gun rights, not everyone is celebrating the decision. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta has expressed his commitment to defending the state’s gun laws, calling them “commonsense firearm safety laws.” The state’s appeal of the decision remains a possibility, especially as gun control advocates continue to argue that strict regulations are necessary to curb gun violence. For now, however, the ruling stands as a significant step toward expanding concealed carry rights across the nation.
A Victory for Constitutional Rights
One of the most fascinating aspects of this ruling is the way it underscores the evolving interpretation of constitutional rights. As Smith points out, the court’s decision is not just about guns; it’s about the broader principle that constitutional rights cannot be confined by state lines. The ruling serves as a reminder that the rights enshrined in the Constitution belong to all Americans, regardless of where they live.
Moreover, the decision shines a light on the growing influence of the Bruen decision, which has become a cornerstone for challenges to restrictive gun laws. This case could set a new standard for how courts assess the constitutionality of gun regulations, especially when it comes to the right of non-residents to carry firearms in public.
Expanding Gun Rights
In conclusion, the ruling by Judge Bencivengo marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates. As Ribakoff and Smith highlight, the decision is a crucial step in ensuring that the right to bear arms is protected for all Americans, no matter where they reside. While California may continue to fight against this decision, the broader trend toward expanded gun rights is clear. With each legal battle, the wall around the Second Amendment grows stronger, brick by brick. This case is yet another reminder of the ongoing struggle to ensure that constitutional rights are upheld across the country.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.