Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ban on Out-of-State CCW Applicants as Unconstitutional

By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

Second Amendment Update; Out-Of-State CCW Applicants:  

A lower federal court judge for the Southern District of California (San Diego) ruled on July 1 that California’s statutory restrictions on issuing to out-of-state applicants concealed weapons (CCW) permits, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 26155(a)(3) (issuance by a sheriff), and Cal. Penal Code §§ 26150(a)(3) (issuance by a chief of police), are unconstitutional.  Also at issue was another California statute—Pen. Code § 26220(b)—that restricts the renewal or extension of a CCW permit to those who reside in the “city, county, or city and county in which the licensee resides.”  

In Hoffman v. Bonta (Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Cal., July 1, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125285, plaintiffs (all residents of other states) sought injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of California’s refusal to allow out-of-state residents to obtain a CCW permit, arguing that the applicable statutes (cited above) violated their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”   

As with all such challenges to a state’s attempt to restrict the possession or use of firearms, the District Court turned to an analysis of the historical application of the Second Amendment, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1.  (See also D.C. v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570; and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill. (2010) 561 U.S. 742.)  

Pursuant to Bruen in particular, if the plaintiffs are able to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that they are “part of the people whom the Second Amendment protects, whether [any] weapon at issue is in common use today for self-defense, and whether the proposed course of conduct falls within the Second Amendment,” then the Court is to find that “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” (Bruen, at pg. 24.) Plaintiffs argued here that as law-abiding citizens, their purpose in carrying a concealed firearm—specifically a concealable pistol—in public, would be for self-defense; an activity traditionally protected by the ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.