San Diego federal lawsuit challenges law banning most non-California residents from carrying guns

A firearms advocacy group and three people who live in Pennsylvania, Idaho and New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Diego federal court challenging a state law that mostly bans non-California residents from carrying guns in the state.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulation violates the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment and should be overturned. It claims the law is “unconstitutionally restrictive” and bars the plaintiffs from carrying guns in California even though each have been issued concealed-carry permits in their home states.

“Individuals like Plaintiffs do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,” the lawsuit alleges. “They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

The office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the named defendant in the case, did not respond to a request for comment. Bonta’s office has vigorously defended the state’s challenged gun laws and other weapons laws in the past.
The lawsuit alleges that the three plaintiffs live out of state and wish to carry firearms when they visit California but are legally barred from doing so. The suit claims that the main exception to the law — for certain people who live out of state but operate a business in California and spend significant time at the business — is so narrow that it’s irrelevant.

Included among the plaintiffs is Christopher Hoffman, a Pittsburgh resident who lived in San Diego County between 1990 and 2012. According to the lawsuit, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department previously issued Hoffman a concealed-carry weapon, or CCW, license on multiple occasions when he resided in the county.

“Hoffman … frequently returns to San Diego County to visit family and friends,” the lawsuit states. “Hoffman desires to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while he visits California and would do so if California law permitted him to.”

The suit makes similar claims as to plaintiffs Chad Orrin, a former California resident who now lives in Idaho, and Jennifer Sensiba, a New Mexico resident. All three of the individual plaintiffs are members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is also a plaintiff in the suit.

“The right to bear arms doesn’t end at California’s border,” Brandon Combs, founder and president of Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. “We look forward to eliminating this unconstitutional ban and restoring liberty in the Golden State.”

The suit is the latest in a long list of challenges to California’s strict weapons laws filed in San Diego federal court in recent years. Other lawsuits have challenged the state’s bans on assault rifles, large-capacity magazines, frequent gun purchases and switchblades.

San Diego became a favorite venue for such challenges thanks in part to the decisions of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who so frequently ruled in favor of striking down California’s weapons laws that gun enthusiasts gave him the moniker “St. Benitez.” For a time, Second Amendment advocates used a local court rule regarding related cases to get weapons challenges to Benitez’s courtroom even after those cases were initially and randomly assigned to different judges.

The local court amended that rule last year even before so-called judge shopping become a national issue. Last month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new guidance aimed at ensuring constitutional cases with nationwide implications be assigned randomly, and this week Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell each proposed bills to change how cases are assigned.

The suit challenging California’s non-resident gun ban was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo.

Gun rights groups have found success in the courts with various judges over the better part of the past two years stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new standard for analyzing the legality of weapons restrictions.

Courts considering whether modern gun regulations are legal must now make their decisions based on the “Second Amendment’s plain text” and must ensure modern laws are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” according to the Bruen decision.

Under that analysis, Benitez and other federal judges in San Diego have over the past year overturned California laws banning assault rifles, outlawing billy clubs, imposing background checks for ammunition purchases and banning certain “unsafe” handguns. All of those rulings are under appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.