Discussion By William Kirk
Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. This story starts in California but could ultimately affect all of you nationwide. We've talked about this case before. It has to do with all of the crazy roadblocks that are put up by people in California who have the audacity to want us preserve their own life and go out and get a concealed carry permit. As we know, there are multiple jurisdictions in the state of California that have made it virtually, if not completely impossible to do, which is of course set a lawsuit in motion, which we've already covered. However, there's a sub component of this lawsuit that has really been the thing we've been geeking out on the most. The motion is now in for a preliminary injunction, and we've had an opportunity to geek out on the pleadings there, and I got to tell you, this argument has some real teeth and I think it could actually change concealed carry laws nationwide forever. Don't believe me. We'll try to connect the dots. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about the case that could change concealed carry forever.
California Rice Full and Pistol Association v Luna
Okay, coming to you from Washington's nicest indoor shooting facility. Of course, that Security Gun Club right here in Woodinville, Washington. The case we're talking about today is California Rice Full and Pistol Association v Luna. It is a case that is filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and is brought to us by our good friends at the Second Amendment Foundation, the gun owners of America and the gun owners of California to name just a few of the plaintiffs. What is at challenge here initially was all of the crazy delays going both on in Los Angeles County for those who actually wanted to try to get a concealed carry license and the municipality of Laverne, California. However, there is an additional issue which has been added to the argument. That's what we're going to be focusing on. It's really only takes about six pages of the memorandum.
Irreparable harm
This is a really, really well drafted motion for an injunction. They're asking at the current time for these laws to be placed on hold because there is both irreparable harm and they're demonstrating a likelihood of prevailing. But I want to focus on the other argument that the plaintiffs are making here, which is this, Hey, listen, we can't get a license from our own state, so maybe we can just go to Nevada or Oregon or some other state that adjoins California, get a license there, and then it would be accepted of course by the state of California. But no, no, no, no, no. See, that is absolutely positively impossible. Why is that impossible? Because the state of California and the state of Hawaii, Hawaii, you better listen up on this, are the only two states in the union that one will not issue a concealed carry license to any person who is not a resident of that state, and two, will not recognize a concealed carry license from any person from any other state no matter what.
Constitutional rights linked with state
Which means that the right to carry a firearm concealed outside of your home in the interest of your inalienable right of self-preservation is available in California and Hawaii only to those who happen to be residents of that state. Can you think of any other constitutional right that suddenly ends the minute you cross a state line? Now, what I love about what the plaintiff's counsel has done here with their pleadings is that they have skinned this cat multiple ways, and even though one might think that this is an issue of first impression for the courts, not really. You see the whole out-of-state licensing issue has been thoroughly vetted and argued even to the highest court in the land, plaintiffs should not be required to endure the expense arbitrary and protectual requirements delays and other abuses imposed on them by local governments that refuse to recognize or honor their residents Second Amendment rights.
Application process
And when you take a look at what residents of California are being subjected to just to be able to complete the application process for concealed carry license, it literally would be easier for them to fly all the way across the country to South Carolina, establish domicile there, get their concealed carry license, and then pray to God that some other state would accept that because the chance of you getting that done prior to getting your license from the state of California is really, really good. As the plaintiffs wisely point out, no other constitutional right ends at state borders, yet non Californians have no ability to exercise the right to carry in this state, including plaintiff Hoover, who was plaintiff Hoover. Mr. Hoover was a former district attorney in the state of California who was a lawful holder of a concealed carry license, retired, moved out of state to Nevada, occasionally comes back to California because obviously he's got family.
But guess what? Even though Mr. Hoover was allowed to conceal carry when he was a resident of California, he is no longer allowed to carry when he enters that state anymore. Now, as I've mentioned before in previous videos, and the plaintiffs do an excellent job of pounding away at this, the need for states to recognize an out-of-state license has been already thoroughly vetted, explained, argued, and decided by the United States Supreme Court. Let us remember the case of Obergfel v Hodges. What is that case you say? Well, that's a case that stood for the proposition that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right and the facts of that case involved. A homosexual couple who resided in Ohio went to Maryland to get married, and upon returning to Ohio was told by that that their marriage license was null and void and they had none of the rights or privileges that come with being a married couple.
Review by the United States Supreme Court
Upon review by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled for some couples even an ordinary drive into a neighboring state to visit family or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event of a spouse's hospitalization while across state lines. In light of the fact that many states already allow same-sex marriage, and hundreds of thousands of these marriages already have occurred, the disruption caused by the recognition bans is significant and ever growing. As counsel for the respondents acknowledge that argument, if states are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriage licenses performed elsewhere are undermined. And listen, these types of laws, the inability to recognize the concealed carry privileges and or rights from another state have led to some horribly unjust and ridiculous consequences. Consider the case of former Marine Lloyd Mulrow, who defended many individuals from an armed conflict in Baltimore, Maryland, and after being congratulated by the police was then arrested because his Virginia concealed carry license was not good in Maryland.
Case of Commonwealth v Donnell
Let us remember also the case of Commonwealth v Donnell, a case in which an individual entered a New Hampshire shopping mall, but by the time he got to the other end of the property, he technically was inside the state of Massachusetts. Now, although he was concealed carrying consistent with New Hampshire law and his New Hampshire concealed carry license, since he was located in the state of Massachusetts, he was arrested in throwing out that conviction. The court found indeed, one can think of no other constitutional right, which a person loses simply by traveling beyond his home state's borders into another state continuing to exercise that right and instantaneously becomes a felon subject to mandatory minimum sentence and incarceration. But in addition to all of these arguments, plaintiffs make a couple of other very well thought out and articulated arguments. For example, this law clearly would chill the ability or thwart the ability of individuals to travel into the state of California because they have to make a choice of whether they travel or they preserve their own life.
Laws which hinder, unduly, hinder or obstruct the person's ability to travel freely throughout the country have consistently been deemed to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. Accordingly, California's policy of denying out-of-state residents the ability to lawfully exercise their constitutionally protected rights to be armed in public inhibits the free interstate passage of citizens and violates equal protection doctrines by treating Americans differently merely on account of their state of residency. And then let us remember under Article four, section two of the federal Constitution, there is the privileges and immunities clause, which essentially tells states that you have to honor certain judicial orders of other states as plaintiffs put it here. Furthermore, the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution provides that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. And as plaintiffs further explain the privileges and immunities clause bars discrimination against citizens of other states based on their status as a citizen of another state, California's refusal to honor the CCW permits or licenses issued by its sister states is frustrating.
Constitutionally mandated policy
This constitutionally mandated policy and ultimately in summing up this argument, putting a little bow on it at the very end, the plaintiffs argue, California may not deny law abiding Americans the right to carry in California just because they are not residents. Just as the state in Donald recognized and just as with the out-of-State Marriage license and Obergfel California may not deny the out-of-state CCW permits of its own residence, this court should rule accordingly. Okay, the case once again is California Rifle and Pistol Association v Luna. We will link up the pleadings down below so that you can geek out on it for yourself. We think that this case actually has the potential somewhere down the road to have a huge seismic impact on the Second Amendment rights of every single American. Listen, if you've got any more questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is also down there in the description box. Now, in the meantime, lets everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun honor like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1lVJP_BNas
Credit: William Kirk, Esq. Washington Gun Law
Also, read Your Complete Guide to Concealed Carry in Virginia