LOS ANGELES –-(Ammoland.com)- Today, plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed last fall announced that Senior United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order permanently enjoining Riverside County, California from having a policy and practice of preventing legal U.S. residents from exercising their right to apply for a carry license in Van Nieuwenhuyzen, et al. v. Riverside, CA Sheriff Stanley Sniff, et al. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.
The order states that “this Judgment for a Permanent Injunction shall be entered as to and against the defendants in this action, who are now and hereby enjoined from enforcing, and continuing to enforce, implement or abide by any policy regarding the issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons (CCWs) to the extent that such policy prohibits non-U.S. citizens who are otherwise qualified, lawful permanent residents of the County of Riverside, and who are not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms, from applying or obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon under state law, Cal. Pen. Code § 26150, et seq.”
The challenged policy was carried out under former Sheriff Stanley Sniff, who lost to current Sheriff Chad Bianco in the last election. Sheriff Bianco campaigned on a promise to promote access to concealed carry licenses and reform earlier policies. “This coalition victory is important because it not only helps to restore access to the fundamental right to bear arms, it also sends a crystal-clear message to carry licensing authorities that the rights of the people can and will be enforced in our courts,” commented FPC President Brandon Combs.
The case was brought by a coalition of constitutional rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and Riverside County resident Arie van Nieuwenhuyzen, a permanent resident alien who has lived in Riverside since 1983 and is a business owner there.
“We’re delighted with the outcome of this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This isn’t our first experience with such a policy, and we’re happy to have had good partners in this challenge. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyzen has been a productive, law-abiding member of his community for decades, and there is no good reason to discourage or deny someone of his background and standing the ability to apply for a carry license.”
The plaintiffs were represented by attorney George M. Lee of San Francisco litigation firm Seiler Epstein LLP. “This case was about eliminating discriminatory and unconstitutional policies and practices,” said Lee. “The Defendants’ policies and practices violated the Constitution, and thus, we were compelled to take action.”
“The Second Amendment means that people have a fundamental, individual right to carry loaded firearms outside their homes for lawful purposes, and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that those human rights are protected not just for those individuals the government favors, but for all people legally residing in our nation,” explained Lee. “We are delighted with the outcome in this case and look forward to restoring civil rights in future cases.”
Anyone who is prevented from applying for a carry license or who has been denied a carry license because they are not a U.S. citizen, no matter where they live, should contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) as soon as possible.
Please consider donating to help support more cases like this.
About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
About Firearms Policy Foundation
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.
About The Calguns Foundation
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
Still Waiting for my reply to @V to be uploaded
Since @V has stated his desire for clarity by posting to the top of the page so all may know of EAM, I will show @V the same respect. Please refer to his replies to his comment further down the page for reference. Enjoy. @V I’ll answer your last question first. We get quite a few left wingers who come here in support of the second amendment. Its nothing special. Heck, ammoland even has an acknowledged author who openly admits to it. Greg Camp. Now most do suffer from a case of hypocrisy, which I do call them out on.… Read more »
Also, in addition to the above statement, I’d like to provide everyone with a good example of the differences between certain people coming to our country in the “Civics” lesson currently being given to @V. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/students-walk-out-of-vigil-for-fallen-student-over-anti-gun-message/#axzz5pLyL9q2p This is a story, here at ammoland from the beginning of the month, about a student at the Colorado STEM school named Kendrick Castillo. Castillo comes from a Family of latin heritage. I do not know if he was a first or second generation indigenous American, or if he was an immigrant himself coming here with family while young. I don’t know. What I… Read more »
Y’all need to go over to theeconomiccollapseblog.com and take on So Cal Beach Dude. He dominates the thread and likes discussions like this. Jaebo
I don’t “take on” anyone except for a few select reasons.
1. Clear demonstration of Hypocrisy(This is what got me started on @V)
2. Willfully lying or continued propagation of a lie after presentation of evidence has been given.
3. Clear violations of the Constitution, or dishonoring Military service for personal gain.
That’s pretty much it.
@The Revelator “The Revelator”? – surely you are going to be revealing something. Eventually. I find the terms “left winger” and “leftist” incoherent with people who support the 2 amendment without restrictions. I read all your comments carefully before responding to them. You on the other hand reacted to my post in an uncivilized way. Hence lacking civics. Being versed in history does not make you a civil person to debate with. Also, you clearly demonstrate your arrogance through the likes of statements like this: “my record here on that front is five years long and a lot more learned… Read more »
@V I’m going to respond in order. I read your comment Carefully, twice through. Now please pay attention, cross reference with your comment, and answer the question I’m going to put at the end. Each of your paragraphs will be handled in order and correspond with the individual numbered quotes I provide from them. I’m not going to let you wiggle out of this, sorry. For Reference, all definitions given come from a collegiate dictionary. 1. “I find the terms “left winger” and “leftist” incoherent with people who support the 2 amendment without restrictions.” That is your opinion, not fact.… Read more »
@V 2. “You on the other hand reacted to my post in an uncivilized way. Hence lacking civics” Civics ~ the study of the rights and duties of citizenship. Civility ~formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech. For your information, I am confrontational for a reason. Number one, it triggers a mental reflex in those it is intentionally directed at. This is a little different from trolling, “Trolls” since you chose to put up a wikipedia definition and part of it was correct. Troll as a Verb is used in fishing, referring to the act of dragging a lure… Read more »
Y’all need to go over to theeconomiccollapseblog.com and take on So Cal Beach Dude. He dominates the thread and likes discussions like this. Jaebo
Considering my reply had 35 points in total to respond, it appears @V has chosen option number 1. too bad not all of them posted.
Leasing a right enshrined in Bill of Rights is unlawful. The right to bear arms is protected by 2A and 2A is license and registration. Selling rights to self defense is treason.
Remember this for the upcoming war.
I noticed that the law firm that represented the client was from the liberal sanctuary city of San Francisco. Let’s see if they will do the same for a conservative constitutional AMERICAN citizen!
“Constitutional American citizen” is overly redundant. Citizen would suffice.
In any case, that fight has been going on for 8 (eight!) years:
And it is a fight for all citizens. Not just the conservative ones.
Many LEGAL, LAW ABIDING permanent residents are going through the process of applying for citizenship. It is NOT an EASY process, so citizens should absolutely value their status. Permanent residents should NOT be at the mercy of criminals and tyrannical government until their citizenship is granted.
STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.
This lawsuit merely strikes down another dumb law that would PREVENT legal permanent residents from APPLYING for CCW. It says nothing for GUARANTEEING that the CCW will be granted.
Constitutional Carry in all 50 states!
@V, Allow me to amend your comment to “unrestricted Constitutional Carry in all 50 states.” FIFY. A friend of mine lives in Oklahoma, and they’ll be allowed to CC when their new law takes effect later this year. Unfortunately, different states have different versions of CC law. For example, I live in California (born here, raised here, still fighting behind enemy lines here to support the 2A), and if I visit Kansas as a non-resident I can CC without a permit, per the explanation I read on their law. However, if I visit Idaho or South Dakota I cannot CC,… Read more »
@Guesty Mcguesterson How about we just enforce the Constitution instead? Constitutional Carry under that is simply “Keep and Bare”. That is what you were trying to say, and is correct. Just shortening it for a more manageable form. What V was doing was trying to cause confusion. We as conservatives and Constitutionalists do support Legal Immigration, always have. What we don’t support is illegal entry and violation of our sovereignty. That is where he is trying to muddy the waters, and quite frankly is a retard for doing so. Notice his use of the word hoax. It’s mixed in nicely… Read more »
sir: keep & bear
Word Fill claims another victim.
It is unfortunate that you see confusion when I was merely trying to clear up a previous comment that you most likely didn’t take the time to read. It is your type of mentality though, that makes other people think that all immigrants are here to cause harm and attack the sovereignty of the U.S. Am I concerned that among those illegally entering the U.S. there will be those that look to cause harm to others? Absolutely. Am I angry that many will come into this country illegally after people like myself are doing so legally? You bet. The use… Read more »
@V No, what you said you said quite clearly. “STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.” Now what was my response? That real Conservatives and Constitutionalists(two separate groups) do not group Legal immigrants with illegal aliens. Furthermore, the fact that we have waves of people trying to enter illegally or under false pretenses. As of March 2019 it was reported that ICE captured and released approximately 107,000 ILLEGAL immigrants since the beginning of the year. Keep in mind, many historical armies barely reached one quarter of that amount for… Read more »
It will be interesting to see if V continues to contradict his own statements. Simply put his actions and words don’t line up, which is why he is making generalized claims.
It’s a left wing tactic which can be summed up as “if you argue with me, you are lumping all immigrants together and you are a racist”
Wait for the fireworks and enjoy. =)
@The Revelator If you would have taken the time to read all the comments to this article you would see that my comment is in response to EAM stating that this case is about allowing illegal immigrants access to 2A rights. I chose to post my comment at the top of the hierarchy in order to let more people become aware that this case is a win for gun rights, in that it overturns an unjust law for legal permanent residents. You Sir, chose to jump in and make an incorrect statement about how I was causing confusion, when in… Read more »
@V I’ll answer your last question first. We get quite a few left wingers who come here in support of the second amendment. Its nothing special. Heck, ammoland even has an acknowledged author who openly admits to it. Greg Camp. Now most do suffer from a case of hypocrisy, which I do call them out on. The last and most notable was a boy named “Green watch Dog.” Had you taken the time to read my comment, then you would have noticed that I did not dispute there are people who try to bring race and bigotry here. I have… Read more »
@Guesty McGuesterson: Constitutional Carry is unrestricted carry. Period. No twisted interpretations of a very simply stated 2nd Amendment to the Constitution are to be tolerated (not criticizing you here). I agree with you that many states have imposed restrictions on a right that “Shall NOT be infringed”. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional. Those that impose said restrictions should be held accountable for the violation. Something that is itching me lately is the lack of accountability that lawmakers enjoy, even after unconstitutional laws are overturned. Why should citizens endure… Read more »
@V, The process was made a lot easier under the Clinton and Soetoro administrations. Did you know? One of the questions is ” How many stripes are on the American flag.” (As if that were an important aspect of American civics.)
Aliens that are Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence (properly referred to as LAPRs) do have the Right to purchase, carry, sell, collect etc firearms. I am sure that you were aware.
“The process was made a lot easier under the Clinton and Soetoro administrations. Did you know?” – I did not. But, with the lengthy waiting period to get permanent resident status, and then having to wait 5 more years before being permitted to apply for citizenship, I can’t say I’m upset that the test to pass the application has been made more accessible. Someone applying for citizenship understands that the advantage is to be able to voice their position through voting. And get an American passport. “Aliens that are Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence (properly referred to as LAPRs) do… Read more »
California especially needs to review and amend current policy moving forward to a policy admitting the supremacy of the United States constitution and bill of rights granting the right to own and carry a firearm.
Will people PLEASE stop saying things like “granting the right?” GOD gives rights. Constitutions RECOGNIZE and are supposed to guarantee those rights.
” , , , guarantee and PROTECT those rights.”
What about current legal citizens who are routinely denied CCW permits in areas like San Francisco? Why is the non-citizen given this constitutional protection before our citizens are?
This case is not about that issue, which is particular to a defined class of persons; this the case did not contemplate the particularity you stressed. Moreover, now that resident aliens are guaranteed rights, you or anyone else can enter a case for citizens that would gain legitimacy from the result of this case. Good thinking on the part of those who brought and argued this case and those who are contemplating the case I’ve suggested above. Expand your view and you will see the elegance of the presently decided case and its promise for the future.
Riverside COunty, last I checked (recently) was one of the many SHALL ISSUE counties in the mess commonly referred to as California. San Bernardino, Inyo, Orange, Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Humboldt, many of the more rrual counties are shall issue. Of course, in Kaliforniastan, the process is expensive, long, insulting, restrictive.. I think its only three handguns you can register to carry, and they must be named and numbered on the card you carry. One of them breaks, you’re down to only two you can lawfully carry until you go do the pwperwork dance at the sheriff’s office., And the… Read more »
a non-citizen is not GIVEN this right, any more than full citizens are. We ALL have the right by our birth. Some jurisdictions continue to illegally DENY that right, in areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, to name a few I am aware of. This case, unfortunately, can only deal with the specific situation faced by the plaintiff, but it DOES establish in California the principle that legal residents cannot be denied the use of arms solely on the basis they are not yet full citizens. We tried in the Peruto case which SCOTUS declined… Read more »
@Tionico: “Or, apply, get denied, then get with 2AF, CalGuns, etc, and launch a new Peruta case….. the present SCOTUS may be more disposed to take up such a case on Cert than the one that refused Peruta.” – agreed. If a critical mass of people did this, it would have weight for sure. “Or, do as some five millions already have, simply perform a CalExit.” – unfortunately, that will not be possible or desirable for all of us. And I bet that the majority of those 5 million left not because for the 2A violations by the state, but… Read more »
Because only WHITE MEN WITH GUNS can be trusted. How’s that been working? Fools!
goober-ment t**ts in action, keeping islam safe in CA
@m, Hmmm, I see a trollette has thrown up an outrageous statement, in hopes of responses.
I’m sorry, but I disagree with the premise and outcome of tbis case. I am a very firm believer in the right to bear arms and concealed/open carry. I own all sorts of pistols and long guns myself, and carry as often as is practical. However, this is a constitutiinal right as a CITIZEN of the united states. Non-citizens should not have that right until such time as they legally apply for, and earn, their citizenship. Are we going to let all if these muslim and latino hoards entering our country easily arm themselves and create lawless enclaves, as some… Read more »
I was thinking the same thing. Citizenship ought to be the goal of all good honest people who come to this nation looking for opportunity and a better life. There should be advantages to being a citizen vs just a resident alien or temporary worker. To give the 2nd amendment rights to someone not a citizen “cheapens” the great value and exquisite privilege it is for anyone to be a citizen of the United States of America.
Gentlemen, The current immigration act gives LAPRs (Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence) nearly all civil Rights of citizens, but not the vote, of course. This statute was the work of a liberal Congress, can be changed when the current Congress takes up the immigration issue. Trump is pushing for an overhaul of the Im. Act, so this might be the opportunity we are looking for.
It is not government that ‘”gives” any of our natural rights to anyone. The right to arms, amongst others, are granted us by the God who made us. Our Constituton merely acknowledges that fact, and tells FedGov to leave those rights alone. ANYONE “subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside, and of the United States” is fully able to enjoy all the rights, priviledges, immunuties enumerated in the Constitution, cknowledged and clarified by the 14th Article of Ammendment. This court case merely established, beyond all doubt, that these rights cannot be removed simply on the basis… Read more »
To assert that only citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights is absurd. It’s laughable on its face.
@Jdberger, I don’t think anyone asserted that only citizen are protected by the Bill of Rights, but aliens in the U.S. do not have the full panorama of Civil Rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For example: voting in national elections.
And aliens in the U.S. have rights that American citizens do not have. A hearing before an Immigration Judge, for example.
Double bingo. Article 3, Section 1 of the California Constitution consists of only a single sentence: “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” I’m not really sure how the Dems in Sacramento have been able to get away with completely disregarding and disobeying not only the Federal Constitution and its 2A, but our own state constitution which very clearly defers to the first document as the overriding authority. Why this hasn’t been a slam-dunk argument in Federal Court against CA is… Read more »
I didn’t know that; thanks for posting.
The right to bear arms is not a citizen’s right, it is the right of all persons which the US respects. All persons who are legally in the US are protected by the Second Amendment. There is in fact a large group of legal resident aliens in the US who are not part of a horde of invading latinos and Muslims. Also there are a large number of latino and Muslim citizens that might interpret your comments as bigoted and a threat to their rights as citizens. I am a Christian and as a latino I don’t think a shilpit… Read more »
I don’t agree with what @EAM is saying, but I will fight for his right to say it. We need the 2A for that. It’s no wonder the Founders ordered the Bill of Rights the way they did.