The nation’s largest state, and one of the most popular tourist destinations on the planet, will have to allow non-residents to carry guns for self-defense in short order. Well, at least some of them.
Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman examines a new federal court ruling that opens California’s carry permitting process. He lays out what it means and what it doesn’t.
Then, I look at the Trump Administration’s initial actions and their impacts on gun policy. One noticeable move was when the White House published a priority list. Certainly, a literal priority list can tell us quite a bit about what the administration will spend the most time and effort on–though, it obviously doesn’t tell us everything.
Plus, Kevin Williamson from The Dispatch joins the podcast to review Trump’s first week and discuss his in-depth series on the ATF.
Analysis: Some Non-Residents Will Soon Be Able to Carry in California [Member Exclusive]
By Jake Fogleman
Long a national outlier, California will have to allow at least some out-of-state visitors an opportunity to carry a firearm in the near future.
On Thursday, US District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett signed an order laying out the terms of a preliminary injunction she previously issued against in CRPA v. LASD last August.
That initial injunction found that California’s practice of denying non-residents the ability to apply for a concealed carry permit likely violated the Second Amendment. It directed the coalition of gun-rights groups that first brought the suit to work with state officials on a practical agreement on how that ruling would be implemented. With Garnett’s approval, Americans planning to make their way to the third most visited state in the country now have a realistic chance of doing so while lawfully armed.
But there are some important caveats.
Who Can Apply
One practical limit to the order’s reach is that it is currently limited to the plaintiffs in the case and their members. Beginning in 90 days, only members of either the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, or the Second Amendment Foundation who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing guns under federal or California law will be permitted to apply.
What’s the Process
By and large, out-of-state applicants seeking a California non-resident permit will have to meet the same application criteria and processes spelled out by the state’s Bruen-response law. That includes classroom and live-fire training requirements, fingerprinting, a potential psychological exam, and fees.
However, Judge Garnett’s order does include some allowances for non-resident applicants that provide flexibility above and beyond that afforded to in-state applicants. For instance, though California residents are required to apply for a permit with the police agency or sheriff’s office covering the jurisdiction where they reside, qualified non-resident applicants will be allowed to apply with any local issuing authority, provided it’s a jurisdiction “in which they intend to spend time within the subsequent twelve (12) months and attest to that intention under oath in the application.”
With some California licensing authorities already notorious for charging thousands of dollars and slow-walking applications, that’s an accommodation with the potential to save non-residents serious money and time.
The order also allows non-resident applicants to complete the required non-live-fire training and any required interviews or psychological examinations virtually rather than in person. The live-fire course is still required for each handgun an applicant intends to carry in California, but it can be completed anywhere, subject to the approval of a local licensing authority. If the licensing body does not approve of an applicant’s preferred course, they are required to suggest an approved course within a 75-mile radius of the out-of-state applicant’s residence.
Restrictions
Beyond the special allowances spelled out in the order, non-resident permittees will be subject to all of the same weapons-related restrictions as Californians. That means non-residents can only carry handguns and ammunition magazines that are legal to possess in the state. They’ll also be required to identify the make, model, and serial number of any handgun they intend to carry ahead of time, which will be listed on their permit.
It also means that even those who can successfully wade through the novel application process to receive a permit are still subject to the dozens of “sensitive places” restrictions the state has adopted in recent years. That significantly limits the practical benefit of a California carry permit.
Why it Matters
While the order is restricted somewhat in who it applies to, it still marks the first time in the 21st century that most non-Californians will be provided a practical, legal avenue to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while spending time in the state.
The gun-rights advocates who secured the order said it is a sign of progress in their longstanding quest to increase gun-carry rights nationwide.
“While this isn’t the permit reciprocity we hope will eventually be the law of the land, it is a big step towards the principle that the Second Amendment does not end at state lines,” Chuck Michel, President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said in a statement.
It also marks one of the first times since the Supreme Court recognized a fundamental constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense that a federal court has ordered a state to recognize non-resident carry rights. It comes as gun-rights advocates are actively filing additional suits in states and cities across the country, hoping to replicate the result. Meanwhile, they’re similarly working at the federal level to solve the issue once and for all with so-called national reciprocity legislation under a newly minted GOP governing trifecta.
Podcast: The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson on Trump’s First Week, ATF Reform [Member Early Access]
By Stephen Gutowski
We are about one week into President Donald Trump’s new term. So, we’ve got Kevin Williamson from The Dispatch back on the show to go over what happened.
Or, perhaps more accurately, what didn’t happen. Williamson said Trump’s first week was relatively light on gun action, especially compared to other issues. He said that may not tell us where Trump, who he described as transactional on most issues, on gun policy. But it did give insight into how his administration prioritizes gun rights initiatives.
Williamson also gave an overview of his new series on the ATF. He described the agency’s origins, overarching purpose, and ways it could be reformed or improved. He argued that the most substantive changes would require congressional action, but he said Trump could make improvements if he chooses the right director.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. An auto-generated transcript is here. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. Everyone else can listen on Monday.
Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription at The Dispatch here.
Plus, Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover Trump’s pardoning of the January 6 rioters, many of whom will again have access to firearms despite being convicted of violent offenses. Finally, we break down a few new developments at the ATF and provide a brief update on the latest news out of the Supreme Court in its consideration of an “assault weapons” ban case.
Analysis: Trump Admin Literally Leaves Gun Rights Off Priority List [Member Exclusive]
By Stephen Gutowski
In a repeat from the campaign, Trump snubbed gun rights in his written agenda for the next four years.
On Monday, the White House unleashed a flood of Day One executive orders tackling everything from immigration to federal hiring to cryptocurrency. It also launched a new website that spelled out the incoming administration’s priorities. One key issue absent from both was gun policy.
While these are only the earliest days of the Trump Administration, and the lack of major immediate action on policy or personnel directly related to firearms doesn’t necessarily signal any change in Trump’s approach to the issue, it is another sign guns are not one of his top priorities. Leaving them off the administration’s literal priority list may even be the most prominent sign yet.
But the signs have been there for a while. Though Trump has been vocally pro-gun throughout his time as a politician, he was fairly light on detailed promises in his 2024 campaign. Although he promised to roll back Former President Joe Biden’s efforts to restrict access to firearms during a February 2024 speech to the NRA, he made little mention of the issue elsewhere on the campaign trail and canceled on the gun-rights group just days before the election.
Then, he helped strip nearly all of the gun policy promises from the GOP platform during the 2024 Republican National Convention. The only mention of gun rights in that platform came as part of the preamble, where it was bunched together with several other freedoms.
Now, the official priority list for the Trump White House drops even that fleeting mention.
As with Pam Bondi’s nomination for Attorney General and the lack of questioning about her past support for “Red Flag” laws and age restrictions on gun ownership at her confirmation hearing, the literal deprioritization of gun policy in the first days of the second Trump Administration is a bad sign for gun-rights activists.
It is still early, though. Trump may still have some executive gun actions to publish by the end of his first week or even his first hundred days, which is the more traditional marker for judging what a new administration is really focused on.
However, during his first days, Trump clearly tried to make a big push in the areas he values. Guns were not one of those areas—at least not in comparison to the others.
He has three years, eleven months, and 51 weeks or so to impact gun policy. Even if it isn’t a top priority, Trump will inevitably leave his mark on America’s firearms policies. In fact, simply not taking a whole-of-government approach to restricting guns for most Americans will still provide a noticeable contrast to the Biden Administration.
Not instituting new restrictions might be enough to keep many gun voters happy. But gun-rights activists want more than that, and the very early indications are not great on that front.
That’s it for now.
I’ll talk to you all again soon.
Thanks,
Stephen Gutowski
Founder
The Reload
