California’s concealed-carry permitting rules will almost certainly become more lax under a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday nullifying a similar framework in New York.
Like New York, California gives local law enforcement some discretion in issuing permits — a commonality that Justice Clarence Thomas specifically noted in his opinion striking down New York’s rules. California law requires sheriffs and police departments to consider whether applicants are morally upstanding and have cause for a permit, in addition to imposing a training requirement.
The California Department of Justice said the decision likely invalidates the state’s rule that applicants must show cause for obtaining a permit, although Attorney General Rob Bonta said he believed the court allowed requirements like background checks or mandatory safety training.
“States still have the right to limit concealed carry permits to those who may safely possess firearms,” Bonta said in a statement, adding “We are working with the Governor and the legislature to advance legislation that is both constitutional and will maintain safety for Californians.”
The difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit tends to vary in California, with law enforcement in more urban and populous counties applying the ‘good cause’ standard more rigorously than officials in more conservative precincts. The Supreme Court ruling will likely do away with the requirement entirely.
The high court’s decision drew condemnation from California Democrats — Gov. Gavin Newsom in a tweet Thursday excoriated a “dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens” — but their hands may be tied.
Newsom vowed to swiftly update California law, saying legislators were “ready with a bill that will be heard next week to update and strengthen our public-carry law and make it consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, just as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh said states like California are free to do.”
More court challenges could follow. The California Rifle and Pistol Association lauded the Supreme Court’s decision and said it planned a flurry of legal action to shift California’s stringent gun control laws, noting it already had various challenges in the court pipeline.
“This is a game changer, and a hard reset for gun control law legal challenges in California, and nationally,” President Chuck Michel said in a statement.
A broader suite of tough California gun control laws could also be in jeopardy. Laws banning high-capacity magazines, prohibiting assault weapons and requiring people to be 21 to purchase semiautomatic rifles are all moving through legal challenges.
The Firearms Policy Coalition specifically vowed to use the court’s reasoning to file “many more important strategic lawsuits,” including seeking to unravel “bans on self-manufacturing firearms and so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity’ magazines.”
“This decision only has immediate consequences for the few counties in California that currently require concealed-carry applicants to show a special need or proper cause,” David A. Carrillo, executive director of Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center, said in an email. “But the test the Court applied, which requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding, potentially has long-term implications for California’s other gun laws.”
Brady Campaign Chief Counsel Jonathan Lowy said on a call with reporters that he believed California’s prohibitions on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines “should be upheld even under the test announced by the court,” but he acknowledged “there’s a risk.”
“This opinion certainly gives ammunition, if you’ll excuse the phrase, to other conservative, policy-driven judges,” Lowy said.
