January 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update
January Focus
A letter from Sheriff Dicus: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/SB2-Letter-from-the-Sheriff.pdf?x20231
Information on SB2 from SB Sheriff’s Department: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/Senate-Bill-2-Information.pdf?x20231
May v Bonta challenging the “sensitive places” provisions of SB2, resulted in a Preliminary Injunction. At a hearing December 20, Judge Cormac J. Carney, of the US District Court for the Central District California has enjoined the state from enforcing the new provisions that would have severely restricted concealed carry. The injunction was stayed by the Motions Panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then the stay was lifted by the Merits Panel. Some of the “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 are not in effect due to the injunction.
Emergency Regulations Implementing SB2
The proposed Emergency Regulations include new requirements for the instructors who can teach the mandatory training for CCW, both new applications and renewals. NRA, USCCA and other organizations who train and certify firearms instructors are no longer acceptable to the DOJ for CCW training. Basically, only trained police instructors will be recognized. The proposed text is copied below.
Another provision requires the issuing agent to verify that the CCW applicant is the recorded owner of all firearms listed on their license. Previously, for example, a husband and wife could list the same firearms on both of their licenses. Starting January 1, only the recorded owner may list a specific firearm.
- 4410. CCW DOJ Certified Instructor Qualifications and Applications.
(a) CCW DOJ Certified Instructor applicants must have a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE) issued pursuant to Penal Code section 26710 and California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 4030 et seq.
(b) Applicants must be at least 21 years old. Applicants shall provide a copy of a valid California driver license or California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, demonstrating the applicant is 21 years of age or older. Applicants with a federal non-compliant California driver license or identification card shall also comply with section 4045.1.
(c) Initial and renewal applications must be completed and submitted on the Concealed Carry Weapon Program DOJ Certified Instructor Application, Form BOF 1034 (Orig. 01/2024), hereby incorporated by reference. Initial applicants must submit a copy of their training certification from one of the following:
(1) Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California-Firearm Training Instructor;
(2) Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State of California Firearms Instructor or Rangemaster; or
(3) Authorization from a State of California accredited school to teach a firearm training course.
(d) Within six months before submitting their application, initial and renewal applicants must pass a live-fire shooting qualification course on a firing range.
- 4431. Reviewing the Automated Firearms System.
(a) For purposes of Penal Code section 26162, the licensing authority shall review the Automated Firearms System (AFS) to determine if the CCW license applicant is the recorded owner of the particular pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person reported in the application for a CCW license or the application for the amendment to a CCW license.
(b) The serial number of the firearm and the CCW license applicant’s name, date of birth, and identification number (from California driver license, California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, social security card, or military identification) must match an entry in one AFS record. [Edited for length.]
Link to Emergency Regulations on the Attorney General web site:
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ccwl
Litigation
B&L Productions, INC., d/b/a Crossroads of the West v Newsom
In the United States District Court for the Central District of California on the 30th of October, Judge John W. Holcomb issued a Preliminary Injunction against the state enforcing a ban on gun shows found in California Penal Code sections 27573 or 27575.
The 32nd District Agricultural Association must make available the next available date for a gun show and must allow the Plaintiff Crossroads of the West to reserve dates for gun show events (and to hold such events) at the Orange County Fairgrounds as the 32nd DAA would any other event promoter who has previously held events at the Orange County Fairgrounds.
Defendants request to stay Judge Holcomb’s order pending appeal was denied.
Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did and was granted a stay. A hearing has been scheduled in March, 2024.
Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster was remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Bruen.
On March 31 the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of California, has issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. In addition, the judge ruled that the “one on/three off” provision is unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(7). The injunction was stayed to allow the state time to appeal, and an appeal has been filed.
Boland v Bonta is a lawsuit challenging the California handgun roster imposed as part of the Unsafe Handgun Act.
Judge Cormac J. Carney, of the US Central District Court for California on March 20 issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(6).
Judge Carney stayed his order 14 days to allow the state to appeal. The appeal was filed, but only appealed the injunction against the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. The finding in the injunction against microstamping was not appealed. The Ninth Circuit did order a stay of this preliminary injunction with regard to the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect but did not stay the injunction against enforcing microstamping.
Note that these preliminary injunctions did not strike down the roster; they only said specific criteria were unconstitutional. Since these are preliminary injunctions the cases have not been completed or decided on the merits. These two preliminary injunctions do mean that two judges have ruled, among other things, that it is likely the plaintiffs (our side) will prevail when the cases are complete.
Miller v Bonta and Rhode v Bonta still awaiting a decision in Judge Benitez’ court.
Miller v Bonta is the challenge to the “assault weapon” ban, and Rhode v Bonta is the challenge to the state requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.
Judge Benitez indicated that he wants to see these cases completed at the trial court level in a timely manner. He questioned the value of the state bringing in testimony from experts in “history and tradition” and rejected this testimony. The judge indicated that he was not sympathetic to the state trying to delay the process or confuse any of the issues.
Respectfully submitted,
David Smith
