Hoffman v. Bonta
3:24-cv-00664
| S.D. Cal. | Jul 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are nonresidents of California, each holding valid concealed carry licenses issued by their home states, who wish to carry firearms for self-defense while visiting California.
- California law requires applicants for a standard concealed carry weapons (CCW) license to be residents, and does not recognize CCW licenses from other states.
- Plaintiffs filed a facial challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on whether California’s residency requirement for CCW license applicants is constitutionally valid.
- The core legal issue is whether the Constitution requires California to allow nonresidents to apply for a CCW license on equal footing with residents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether banning nonresidents from applying for CCW | The ban violates Second/Fourteenth Amendments. | Residency requirement justified by history/trad. | Ban violates Second/Fourteenth Amendments. |
| Nonresidents as “the people” under Second Amendment | Nonresidents are part of "the people.” | "The people" excludes nonresidents. | Nonresidents are protected “people.” |
| Historical analogues for nonresident bans | No historical tradition supports a ban. | Historical licensing laws had residency reqs. | No analogous Founding-era bans found. |
| Privileges and Immunities Clause claim | Ban violates Privileges & Immunities Clause. | Clause limited to economic rights; not violated. | Court declines to rule (no added remedy). |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment guarantees individual right to possess and carry weapons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Incorporates Second Amendment via Fourteenth Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (Outlines current Second Amendment analysis: text & historical tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (Discusses standard for facial challenge and burden on government)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Standard for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Standard for summary judgment)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Standard for injunctive relief)