In layman’s terms: The preliminary injunction in this case had only one far-reaching benefit: allowing non-residents to apply for CCW permits in California.
California residents received only partial relief this week in a motion issued by a United States District Judge in a case challenging numerous elements of the State’s concealed carry laws and permitting schemes. The motion was largely a win for the State, leaving the challenged laws as status quo.
Presiding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Garnett granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The case, CRPA v. LASD, was brought by a coalition of gun rights groups in December of last year, as we previously reported. Parties to the case include: The Second Amendment Foundation, The California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several private citizens.
The case challenges the slow processing of CCWs and long wait times, excessive fees, improper denials, psychological exam requirements, and nonresident carry.
In the 44-page mixed opinion, Judge Garnett granted relief on the issue of excessive wait times beyond the state’s 120-day assessment period, noting that the 18-month delay “crosses the line.” However, the relief was extended to only the named plaintiffs.
The Court also ruled that California must allow nonresidents to apply for a permit, an administrative win but one that will likely meet stonewalling from the state when those applications are actually submitted.
Judge Garnett denied relief on many of the crucial challenged elements, leaving onlookers wondering exactly how the court determines what is and is not a Second Amendment issue and what the Court’s exact criteria is for addressing such issues.
For example, the Judge denied relief on:
- California honoring CCW permits issued by other states
- the high fees issue
- the psychological exam issue
“While the ruling is disappointing in several ways, we are glad we scored some wins for the time being, and we now have a roadmap on what the Court would like to see in order for CRPA to prevail on the remainder of the issues,” said CRPA in a statement on Twitter.
Although this motion was positive in one or two relatively inconsequential elements, in many ways it was downright hostile to the Second Amendment. For example, it aptly describes the argument made by the plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs contend that LVPD’s psychological testing requirement is unconstitutional because it is “inherently subjective and discretionary,” there is no appeal process, and the administrative burdens of the test dissuade individuals from applying for a CCW license….Plaintiffs further argue that “[n]othing in the Second Amendment requires Plaintiffs to subject themselves to the indignity of a subjective exam as a precondition to exercise their Constitutional rights.”
The hostility is noted in the Court’s reluctance to view any of this as related to the Second Amendment and its unbelievable response:
The Court observes that, in making their arguments, Plaintiffs fail to contend with the Bruen framework and have not addressed their burden of establishing the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue, leaving the Court with no parameters for which to consider their challenge.
As in many other Second Amendment cases, courts are sneaking in interest-balancing even though expressly prohibited in Bruen. In its analysis in this case, the court employed another variation of interest-balancing under the header “Balance of Equities and Public Interest,” which it called the Winters factor.
Numerous cases around the country are challenging the anti-Bruen carry permit schemes at the state level. Earlier this week, the NYPD allegedly began issuing permits to out-of-state residents following a GOF lawsuit against New York.
