A federal judge just dropped a constitutional hammer on California’s restrictive gun laws. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo ruled that the state’s ban on issuing concealed carry weapons permits to nonresidents is a direct violation of the Constitution.
This isn’t just a win for gun rights; it’s a sharp rebuke to policies that seem to cherry-pick who gets to be “the people” under our founding document.
Breitbart reported that Judge Bencivengo granted summary judgment in the case of Hoffman v. Bonta, striking down California’s prohibition on nonresident concealed carry permits as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, brought by Christopher J. Hoffman and the Firearms Policy Coalition, took aim at a California policy that essentially tells out-of-staters, “Sorry, your rights stop at the border.”
It’s a stance that reeks of elitism, as if only Californians deserve the full protection of the Second Amendment. And let’s be honest, in a nation built on equal protection, that’s a tough sell.
Judge Bencivengo didn’t just rule against the ban; she dug into the heart of California’s shaky logic. The state’s argument, she pointed out, implies that nonresidents somehow don’t count as “the people” under the Constitution. That’s the kind of legal gymnastics that would make even the most progressive activist blush.
Looking to higher courts for guidance, the judge noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has ever defined “the people” in such a restrictive way. California’s attempt to shrink the Constitution’s umbrella feels less like law and more like a political agenda dressed up in legalese. It’s a reminder that rights aren’t a state-issued privilege—they’re inherent.
In her ruling, Judge Bencivengo leaned on the precedent set by the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Bruen, which has become a north star for gun rights cases.
That decision emphasized a historical and textual approach to the Second Amendment, one that California’s ban clearly couldn’t pass muster under. If history teaches us anything, it’s that rights don’t come with a residency requirement.
The judge didn’t mince words when she declared, “The provisions barring nonresidents from applying for CCW licenses violate the Constitution.” That’s not just a statement—it’s a wake-up call for states that think they can rewrite the Bill of Rights to fit their narrative. While some might cry “public safety,” the Constitution isn’t a suggestion; it’s the law of the land.
This ruling isn’t about turning the Golden State into the Wild West; it’s about ensuring that law-abiding citizens, no matter where they’re from, aren’t stripped of their fundamental protections.
California’s policy seemed to assume that nonresidents are inherently less trustworthy, which is a leap of logic that doesn’t hold water. Equal protection under the law isn’t a catchy slogan—it’s a promise.
Following her decision, Judge Bencivengo ordered the parties in Hoffman v. Bonta to meet, confer, and submit a proposed injunction consistent with her ruling within 30 days. This isn’t the end of the road; it’s a critical step toward dismantling a policy that’s been on shaky ground from the start. The clock is ticking for California to rethink its approach.
For Second Amendment advocates, this ruling is a breath of fresh air in a landscape often choked by restrictive state laws. It sends a message that the Constitution isn’t up for debate, even in states where progressive policies tend to dominate the conversation. While respecting public safety concerns, it’s hard to ignore that rights must apply equally—or they’re not rights at all.
California has long been a battleground for gun control debates, often positioning itself as a counterweight to federal protections.
But decisions like this remind us that state power has limits, especially when it collides with constitutional guarantees. It’s a polite nudge to policymakers: govern within the framework, not outside it.
The Hoffman v. Bonta case isn’t just about concealed carry permits; it’s about who gets to claim the full scope of American freedoms. Nonresidents aren’t second-class citizens, and treating them as such undercuts the very principles this nation was built on. That’s not woke or unwoke—it’s just common sense.
As the parties prepare to hash out the next steps, gun rights supporters are watching closely, hoping this sets a precedent for other states with similar restrictions. California may drag its feet, but the judiciary has spoken, and its voice carries weight. The Second Amendment isn’t a local ordinance; it’s a national shield.
Critics of the ruling will likely argue that states should have leeway to protect their citizens as they see fit, and that’s a fair concern worth debating. But when state laws start carving out exceptions to the Constitution, it’s a slippery slope to eroding everyone’s rights, not just those of nonresidents. Balance matters, but so does fidelity to our founding principles.