Under current California law, there's no way for a non-resident to legally exercise their right to bear arms. The state doesn't recognize any concealed carry licenses issued by the other 49 states and the District of Columbia, and there's no provision in California statute allowing non-residents to obtain a California concealed handgun permit.
A federal judge, however, has granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation that opens the door to non-resident carry... at least for members of those organizations.
In her order filed this week, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett laid out the cumbersome process that those gun owners must go through in order to legally carry in California going forward.
California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3) will not apply to Nonresident Applicants. Rather, Nonresident Applicants must apply with the sheriff (per Penal Code section 26150) or chief of police (per Penal Code section 26155) (collectively “Local Issuing Authority(ies)”) of a California jurisdiction in which they intend to spend time within the subsequent twelve(12) months and attest to that intention under oath in the application.
You can't just apply for a carry license from any licensing authority. No, you have to figure out where you intend to spend time in the state and apply there, which is an oddity unto itself.
The strangeness doesn't stop there.
To satisfy California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(4) or 26155(a)(4), Nonresident Applicants must complete a training course that meets the criteria set forth in section 26165(a)(1)-(3) and (5)-(6), and section (b), as it pertains to the Local Issuing Authority where the Nonresident Applicant applies. If the Local Issuing Authority where the Nonresident Applicant applies has not approved of any online training courses, a Nonresident Applicant may complete an online training course approved by any other Local Issuing Authority instead. For the live-fire shooting exercises required by section 26165(a)(6), Nonresident Applicants shall complete live-fire shooting exercises for each handgun they intend to carry in California. A Nonresident Applicant shall inform the Local Issuing Authority where the applicant applies of the live-fire course the applicant intends to complete, and the Local Issuing Authority shall either approve such course or suggest an alternative acceptable course within 75 miles of the applicant’s residence.
Now, if an applicant can use an online training course approved by another licensing authority, why can't they just be able to apply with any licensing authority in the state? And what happens if the licensing authority doesn't approve of the applicant's choice of live-fire course and cant' come up with alternative located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence?
Another quirk in Garnett's order states that applicants can only carry California-approved firearms. I suppose that makes sense in terms of complying with California's existing statute, but it's also yet another burden on non-residents being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the Golden State.
As burdensome as Garnett's edicts are, they're still a baby step in the right direction. Ideally, California should recognize all carry permits issued by other states, just as they do with driver's licenses. Garnett's order still demonstrates that our right to keep and bear arms doesn't stop at the state line where we live, however, and that in itself is a win given the anti-2A hostility among California lawmakers, who never would have taken even this modest step on their own.
