Attorney and gun rights advocate Tom Grieve recently delivered a strong warning in his latest video: there are nine states that have effectively set up “Constitution-free zones” when it comes to the Second Amendment. These areas, he explained, are zones where the rights that apply in your home state no longer protect you as soon as you cross their borders. For millions of gun owners who travel or move between states, this is a wake-up call that the Bill of Rights isn’t being treated as national law.
How the System Works
According to Tom Grieve, these states, including California, refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permit. This policy means a responsible, law-abiding gun owner from another state instantly becomes unable to legally carry a firearm for self-defense once they enter. On top of that, most of these states won’t allow non-residents to apply for a permit either, so there is no legal pathway for visiting gun owners. It’s a structure that turns rights into privileges that end at the border.
The States in Question
Grieve named all nine states creating these invisible barriers: California, New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island. “That’s right,” he said, “these states have turned away 90% or more of the country’s lawful carriers by denying recognition of their permits.” For anyone planning a road trip or a cross-country move, these states pose a real legal risk even for people with spotless records.
Why This Is a “Constitution-Free Zone”
In Grieve’s words, this policy creates a situation where the Bill of Rights becomes meaningless the second you cross certain borders. He compared it to requiring a state-issued permit for free speech, but only for residents, saying, “Imagine if you needed to move and pay taxes just to be allowed to talk.” He argued that by any reasonable measure, the Constitution should be the same for everyone in all fifty states.
The Lawsuit That Could Change Everything
The attorney pointed to a recent lawsuit, Hoffman v. Bonta, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) along with three gun owners from Pennsylvania, Idaho, and New Mexico. This case directly challenges California’s refusal to allow non-residents to even apply for a concealed carry permit. These plaintiffs are arguing that the Constitution does not stop at the California state line, and Tom Grieve said this could be one of the most important Second Amendment cases of the year.
How the Court Tested the Law
Grieve explained how the court used the Bruen test, the legal standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022. This test has two parts: first, does the conduct fall under the Second Amendment? If yes, the second part requires the state to prove there is a strong historical tradition for restricting that conduct. If no such tradition exists, the law fails. He emphasized that this test is reshaping gun laws across the country because the burden is now on the state to justify their restrictions.
California’s Weak Defense
California’s legal arguments, according to Grieve, came up empty. “They basically argued it’s inconvenient to process applications from people who don’t live here,” he said. Administrative hassle, the judge ruled, is not an excuse to violate constitutional rights. The state also attempted to dig up old 19th-century laws for support, but none of them came close to justifying a modern blanket ban.
A Significant Court Ruling
In the end, the judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. That means the court decided, without even needing a trial, that California’s residency requirement is unconstitutional. “The judge said your rights don’t stop at the state line,” Grieve reported. “This decision is a major step toward tearing down these border walls, and it could be the start of a national shift in how states treat traveling gun owners.”
What Happens Now
While this ruling is a victory for the plaintiffs, Grieve noted that California is certain to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, there is no official process for non-residents to apply for a permit in the state. “We’re in a little bit of a chaos zone,” he said. But the decision sends a clear signal to other states enforcing similar bans, and it has started a legal battle that could reach much higher courts in the future.
A Win With Broad Impact
Grieve said this case isn’t just about California. If the decision holds, it could affect the other eight states with similar restrictions. More importantly, it establishes that the Constitution doesn’t change depending on where you are in the country. “This is a huge win for the Second Amendment,” he added, “and a warning shot for any state trying to block lawful citizens at the border. It proves that the concept of a Constitution-free zone doesn’t hold up in court.”
Why This Matters
This case is fascinating because it brings the 14th Amendment into play alongside the Second. Grieve explained that the Privileges and Immunities Clause ensures that citizens from one state are treated equally when they enter another. It’s an argument we don’t often hear in gun rights cases, and it shows how courts are beginning to look beyond just the Second Amendment when dealing with these issues. That could become a powerful tool for future lawsuits challenging other state-level restrictions.
A Turning Tide
Grieve also pointed out a broader shift in momentum. “For years, we’ve been on defense. Now we’re starting to go on offense,” he said. He believes that groups like FPC, GOA, and others are making real progress, case by case, to roll back unconstitutional state restrictions. It’s a reminder that these wins come from persistence, legal skill, and public support. What’s happening here might represent a new chapter where gun owners are no longer just responding to bad laws but actively fighting to take back lost ground.
The Bigger Picture
While the final outcome of this case is still unknown, one thing is clear: this ruling challenges the idea that your rights stop at the border. Whether it’s California, Hawaii, or Illinois, the states listed by Tom Grieve are now on notice. If higher courts agree with this decision, the concept of a “Constitution-free zone” could soon be a thing of the past. The case is a sign that more lawsuits like this are coming, and courts may have to confront how far state borders can really go in limiting a constitutional right.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article Your Gun Rights Stop at the Border in These 9 States (New Tactic) first appeared on Survival World.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
