A gun rights group and three people living in Pennsylvania, Idaho and New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Diego federal court challenging a state law that primarily bans non-California residents from carry firearms in the state.
The lawsuit alleges that the settlement violates the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment and should be overturned. He claims the law is “unconstitutionally restrictive” and prohibits the plaintiffs from carrying firearms in California, even though each of them obtained a concealed carry permit in their home state.
“Individuals like Plaintiffs do not lose the protection of their rights under the speech or religion provisions of the First Amendment when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,” the lawsuit claims. “Similarly, they do not give up their rights protected by the Second Amendment when they travel outside their home state. »
The office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the named defendant in the case, did not respond to a request for comment. Bonta’s office has vigorously defended the state’s contested gun laws as well as other weapons laws in the past.
The lawsuit alleges that the three plaintiffs live out of state and want to carry firearms when visiting California, but are legally prohibited from doing so. The suit claims that the main exception to the law — for certain people who live out of state but operate a business in California and spend significant time there — is so narrow as to be irrelevant.
Among the plaintiffs is Christopher Hoffman, a Pittsburgh resident who lived in San Diego County between 1990 and 2012. According to the lawsuit, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department previously issued Hoffman with a gun license concealed carry, or CCW, on several occasions while residing in the county.
“Hoffman…frequently returns to San Diego County to visit family and friends,” the lawsuit states. “Hoffman wishes to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while visiting California and would do so if California law permitted.”
The suit makes allegations similar to those made by plaintiffs Chad Orrin, a former California resident who now lives in Idaho, and Jennifer Sensiba, a New Mexico resident. All three plaintiffs are members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is also a plaintiff in the suit.
“The right to bear arms does not stop at the California border,” Brandon Combs, founder and president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. “We look forward to eliminating this unconstitutional ban and restoring freedom to the Golden State.”
The lawsuit is the latest in a long list of challenges to California’s strict gun laws filed in San Diego federal court in recent years. Other lawsuits have challenged state bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, frequent gun purchases and switchblade knives.
San Diego has become a prime venue for such challenges, thanks in part to the rulings of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who has so often ruled in favor of repealing California’s gun laws that gun enthusiasts gave him the nickname “St. Bénitez.” For a time, Second Amendment supporters used a local court rule regarding related cases to bring gun challenges into Benitez’s courtroom, even after those cases were initially randomly assigned to different judges.
The local court changed that rule last year, even before “judge-shopping” became a national issue. Last month, the American Judicial Conference issued new guidelines aimed at ensuring that constitutional cases with nationwide implications are assigned randomly, and this week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Leader Senate minority Mitch McConnell have each proposed bills aimed at changing how cases are assigned.
The lawsuit challenging California’s nonresident gun ban was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo.
Gun rights groups have enjoyed success in court with various judges for the better part of the past two years, following the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruenwhich set a new standard for analyzing the legality of gun restrictions.
Courts considering whether modern gun regulations are legal must now make their decisions based on the “plain text of the Second Amendment” and must ensure that modern laws are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun control.” firearms regulations,” according to the Bruen decision.
As part of that analysis, Benitez and other federal judges in San Diego have over the past year struck down California laws banning assault rifles, banning batons, requiring background checks for purchases ammunition and banning certain “dangerous” handguns. All of these decisions are being appealed to the 9th United States Court of Appeals.
California Daily Newspapers
