This 2A Case Could Blow a Hole in California’s CCW Policies

The Matthews v. City of Los Angeles case, recently argued in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, could send shockwaves through California’s concealed carry (CCW) system. On CRPA TV, host Kevin Small and CRPA President Chuck Michel laid out what’s at stake. This isn’t just a routine legal battle – it’s a criminal case with the potential to reshape how Second Amendment rights are treated across the state, especially when it comes to the right to carry a concealed firearm.

The Criminal Nature of the Case Changes the Stakes

As Chuck Michel explained, Matthews is different from typical civil gun rights cases. It began as a criminal prosecution – making it harder to challenge under Second Amendment grounds. Criminal defendants face stricter procedural rules. “The state throws up a wall of procedural junk,” Michel said, making it expensive and time-consuming to reach the core issue: whether the LAPD’s refusal to issue CCWs violates the Constitution. But if the court agrees that this case exposes a systemic denial of rights, it could open a path to major changes.

Why Matthews Matters in a Post-Bruen World

The case centers on a man prosecuted years ago for carrying a firearm without a CCW. After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, which struck down restrictive “may-issue” laws, the defendant argued the original charge was unconstitutional. The City of L.A. still wouldn’t acknowledge fault. As Kevin Small said in the CRPA video, “This could be one of those ‘nuggets’ – a decision that sets a precedent and forces reform in places like L.A.”

The Futility Argument – Why Applying Didn’t Make Sense

One key issue raised in oral arguments was whether the plaintiff should have applied for a permit in the first place. According to Michel, that’s a red herring. “LAPD didn’t issue permits back then – there were only four active CCWs, all given to VIPs or police brass,” he explained. In fact, LAPD had such a tight grip on permits that even their own police chief from Pennsylvania couldn’t pass the state exam – but was handed a permit anyway. That selective treatment, Michel argues, proves the system was rigged.

The Equal Protection Problem

This double standard isn’t just unfair – it’s unconstitutional, according to Chuck Michel. When LAPD gives a permit to someone with built-in armed protection, while denying it to everyday people facing real threats, it violates equal protection principles. Michel emphasized that this is part of a long-running game: L.A. issues a few permits under pressure, only to revoke them later or drag out the process. “They say they don’t have enough manpower to process applications, but that’s just another form of denial,” he said.

Waiting Lists and Stonewalling: LAPD’s New Tactic

Instead of denying CCW applications outright post-Bruen, LAPD now uses slow-walking tactics. Applicants can’t even file paperwork without getting on a waitlist. Once filed, there’s another wait to process. Kevin Small and Chuck Michel confirmed that CRPA is preparing to sue LAPD for this exact behavior, just as they’ve sued L.A. County Sheriff, the City of La Verne, and Santa Clara. “We make law in one place, and it spreads,” Michel explained, adding that each win lays the groundwork for change statewide.

Judges Showed Clear Skepticism During Oral Argument

The Ninth Circuit panel didn’t hold back. As Small noted, the judges questioned why someone needed to apply for a permit that was clearly unattainable. In one exchange, a judge asked, “How can the state or city limit constitutional rights to residents?” It was a powerful moment. Michel said the judges seemed to understand the absurdity of a system where you can be arrested for not having a permit that the issuing agency refuses to issue.

Residency Restrictions May Not Hold Up

The judges also tackled the idea of residency-based limitations. Matthews was from Tennessee, which, under the city’s logic, meant he couldn’t be issued a permit at all. But as one judge pointed out, you don’t lose your First Amendment rights just because you’re visiting a city. “You don’t need a speech permit just to talk,” the judge said. The same logic should apply to the Second Amendment. It’s a strong argument, and one that could open the door to nationwide reciprocity if pushed further.

Likely Outcome: Remand for Discovery

Michel predicted that the case will likely be sent back down to the trial court for discovery, specifically to explore whether it was truly futile for Matthews to apply. This is where the LAPD’s own words – on their website, no less – could work against them. “They stated they weren’t issuing permits at the time,” Small emphasized. That alone could be enough to prove the plaintiff’s case. And if that happens, it could explode the state’s excuse for restricting access to permits under the guise of process.

This Could Break the Dam

What’s most interesting about this case is how it doesn’t come from a major gun rights group filing a civil suit. This started from a real person being arrested – and that’s harder for the state to ignore. It’s also telling that the Ninth Circuit judges weren’t dismissive. In California, that’s not always a given. If the courts acknowledge that L.A.’s permit scheme was never meant to be fair, then the entire foundation starts to crack.

The Bigger Picture: More Cases Are Coming

Matthews is just one of several important cases on the docket. CRPA has also filed amicus briefs in Metcalf (a “sensitive places” case) and Kiten (a machine gun case). Chuck Michel pointed out that the big goal remains consistent: to force courts to apply the Bruen test properly. And in his view, many judges still try to sidestep that standard by stretching historical analogies or redefining what “arms” means. “Suppressors, parts, magazines – it’s all part of the right,” Michel argued.

The Supreme Court May Have to Step In

The U.S. Supreme Court could eventually weigh in, especially if the Ninth Circuit continues to dance around Bruen. Michel named two major contenders: the Duncan case (magazine limits) and the Illinois semi-auto ban. Both cases come with fully developed trial records, which the high court seems to favor. “We need them to step in and clarify,” he said. Until then, every win, no matter how small, moves the ball forward.

A Glimpse of Judicial Sanity in the 9th

Kevin Small ended the episode with a sense of hope. “It was refreshing to see a panel that seemed to get it,” he said. That’s a rare thing in the Ninth Circuit, long considered hostile territory for gun rights. Whether Matthews v. L.A. becomes a landmark or not, it’s a case that shows how fragile California’s anti-CCW system has become – and how easily it could unravel under the right kind of pressure.