February 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update Rulemaking:

The California Department of Justice has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning Carry Concealed Weapons Licenses regulations. The Notice and other documents related to the action available at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ccwl. Please feel free to share this Notice with any interested parties.

This proposed rulemaking is basically to make the “Emergency Regulations” implementing SB2 to be made permanent. This doesn’t add anything not already in place, it just makes things permanent. Emergency Regulations expire without formal rulemaking. Major portions of SB2 are still being challenged in federal courts, and that lawsuit will not be affected by this rulemaking, see May v Bonta below.

Any person, or a representative authorized to speak on their behalf, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed action. Comments will be accepted until 5:00 pm on February 19, 2025. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:

Mail written comments:

Department of Justice

P.O. Box 160487

Sacramento, CA 95816

E-mail: BOFregulations@doj.ca.gov

Legislation US Congress:

A number of bills have been introduced in the United States Congress. I will update individual bills as, and if, they advance beyond the house where they are introduced.

California Legislature:

SB 15, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to conduct inspections of certain firearm dealers every 3 years in order to ensure compliance with specified requirements. Existing law requires inspections to include a sampling of between 25% and 50% of dealer records of each type. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a fee, up to $115, in order to cover various costs, including the costs of inspections.

This bill would instead require the department’s sampling of dealer records to include at least 25% of each record type. The bill would also authorize the department to periodically increase the inspection fee, as specified.

The bill would require the department to annually inspect the 10 firearm dealer locations, as specified, with the highest percentage of total sales that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime. The bill would require the department to conduct the inspections within 12 months of the release of its annual report unless the dealer location has been inspected within 6 months prior to the release of the report.

Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the department any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

The bill would also require firearm dealers, commencing January 1, 2028, to maintain inventory records, as specified, at their place of business in a manner prescribed by the department. The bill would additionally require firearm dealers to produce an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, certifying the accuracy of all records, upon request. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the department to keep a centralized list of all persons who meet the specified requirements of a dealer, licensee, or person licensed, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to remove various persons from this list, including those whose federal firearms license has expired or has been revoked.

The bill would additionally authorize the department to remove a person from the centralized list who has failed to comply with licensing requirements or who, among other things, failed to allow the department to conduct an inspection or failed to maintain accurate business hours with the department. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine and render a person ineligible for placement on the centralized list for 2 years from the date of removal from the list.

AB 68, as introduced, Essayli. School safety: armed school resource officers.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district or charter school to hire or contract with at least one armed school resource officer, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm to be present at each school of the school district or charter school during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus, phased in by certain grade spans, as provided.

By imposing an additional requirement on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 256, as introduced, DeMaio. Crimes involving firearms.

Existing law establishes that the state has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from crimes involving firearms. Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to crimes involving firearms.

AB 383, as introduced, Davies. Firearms: prohibition: minors.

Existing law prohibits a juvenile who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of specified serious or violent offenses from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony.

Existing law also prohibits certain others persons, including a person who is convicted of a felony offense, from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own and specifies the procedures to be used to relinquish those firearms or ammunition. Those procedures, among other things, require the court to provide specific instructions to the defendant and to assign the matter to a probation officer to investigate whether the defendant owns, possesses, or has under their custody or control any firearms, require a law enforcement agency to update the

Automated Firearms System to reflect any firearms that were relinquished to the agency pursuant to these procedures, and require a defendant to timely file a completed Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form. Existing law makes it an infraction for a defendant to fail to timely file that form.

This bill would expand the prohibition on juveniles subsequently owning or

possessing firearms until 30 years of age by making that prohibition applicable to juveniles who are adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of certain offenses relating to the possession of firearms or ammunition by a minor. The bill would also make those procedures to relinquish firearms or ammunition applicable to a juvenile who is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age. By expanding the scope of a crime and expanding the duties of local probation departments and law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified.

This bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a juvenile who is subject to the prohibition on owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age when the court has made a finding that the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law.

Litigation

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference and repeatedly relisted without action.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has held oral arguments on December 4.

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places, in addition to previous sensitive locations:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, filed an appeal for an En Banc review which was denied.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7. The Attorneys General of 16 states (including California) and the District of Columbia have filed and Amicus Curae brief supporting Mexico.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit

unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition

for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred in denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

January 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update January Focus

The California Department of Justice has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning Carry Concealed Weapons Licenses regulations. The Notice and other documents related to the action available at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ccwl. Please feel free to share this Notice with any interested parties.

This proposed rulemaking is basically to make the “Emergency Regulations” implementing SB2 to be made permanent. This doesn’t add anything not already in place, it just makes things permanent. Emergency Regulations expire without formal rulemaking. Major portions of SB2 are still being challenged in federal courts, and that lawsuit will not be affected by this rulemaking, see May v Bonta below.

Any person, or a representative authorized to speak on their behalf, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed action. Comments will be accepted until 5:00 pm on February 19, 2025. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:

Mail written comments:

Department of Justice

P.O. Box 160487

Sacramento, CA 95816

E-mail: BOFregulations@doj.ca.gov

Legislation US Congress:

HR38, National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Introduced in the House of Representative and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

California Legislature:

SB 15, as introduced, Blakespear. Gun violence prevention.

Existing law prohibits certain actions relating to the sale, possession, storage, and carrying of firearms. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a temporary gun violence restraining order prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm or ammunition if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person poses a significant danger of harm to themselves or to another person by having a firearm.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence prevention.

AB 68, as introduced, Essayli. School safety: armed school resource officers.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district or charter school to hire or contract with at least one armed school resource officer, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm to be present at each school of the school district or charter school during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus, phased in by certain grade spans, as provided. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Litigation

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference to determine if the case will be granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to possibly be heard during the current term. This case is scheduled for conference on January 10.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has held oral arguments on December 4.

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, have filed an appeal for an En Banc review of the partial reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal October 8. Note that this is not a Second Amendment case and may have little or no effect in California.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

December 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update December Focus: Laws taking effect January 1, 2025

Private Party Transfers are no longer exempt from the “1 in 30 days” limit. However, this regulatory limit has been enjoined by a federal court and is not currently being enforced. See Nguyen v Bonta in Litigation, below.

State Licensed Firearms Dealers will be required to give gun buyers a pamphlet from the state that “…explains the reasons for and risks of owning firearms.”

State “Dealer’s Record of Sale” (DroS) will have a new requirement for the purchaser to verify that they have inventoried the firearms registered to them within 30 days before purchasing another firearm.

Legislation, in the current Special Session

SB 15, as introduced, Blakespear. Gun violence prevention.

Existing law prohibits certain actions relating to the sale, possession, storage, and carrying of firearms. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a temporary gun violence restraining order prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm or ammunition if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person poses a significant danger of harm to themselves or to another person by having a firearm.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence prevention.

AB 68, as introduced, Essayli. School safety: armed school resource officers.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district or charter school to hire or contract with at least one armed school resource officer, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm to be present at each school of the school district or charter school during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus, phased in by certain grade spans, as provided. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Litigation

Goldstein v Earnest

The Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central District, has granted a motion for summary judgement which finds Smith and Wesson immune from liability under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The judge also ruled that aside from the PLCAA the case lacked evidence to support the claim that Smith and Wesson should have controlled the actions of the retailer, San Diego Guns. This case stems from the April 2019 attack on a Jewish worship ceremony at Chabad of Poway in which one person was killed and three injured. The individual who committed the attack was convicted and is serving a Life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference to determine if the case will be granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to possibly be heard during the current term. This case was scheduled for conference on December 13, but has been rescheduled.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for December 4.

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places”

provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, have filed an appeal for an En Banc review of the partial reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal October 8. Note that this is not a Second Amendment case and may have little or no effect in California.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

November 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update Litigation

The California Legislature and US Congress are not in session.

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, have filed an appeal for an En Banc review of the partial reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference to determine if the case will be granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to possibly be heard during the current term.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal October 8. Note that this is not a Second Amendment case and may have little or no effect in California.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling

has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court ordered briefs be filed by September 13, 2024. We are waiting for further action.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

October 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

October Focus

Ammunition Purchase Fee increase proposed

As authorized by Penal Code section 30370, subdivision (e), the Department’s current regulations established a $1.00 fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) and $1.00 fee for a COE Verification check. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §§ 4282, 4285.) This fee has not been sufficient to cover the Department’s operating costs for the ammunition authorization program.

Effective January 1, 2024, the Department is allowed to raise the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check to cover the reasonable regulatory and enforcement costs for operating the ammunition authorization program. (Pen. Code, § 30370, subd. (e).) The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00.

This rulemaking did undergo a 45-day public comment period. Any person or their authorized representative could submit written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closed at 5:00 pm on October 8, 2024. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff.

Official information: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ammofee

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, have filed an appeal for an En Banc review of the partial reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Legislation

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

This law, beginning on January 1, 2026, requires a person who possesses a firearm in a residence to keep the firearm securely stored when the firearm is not being carried or readily controlled by the person or another lawful authorized user. For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or secure gun safe that meets specified standards. This law makes a first and 2nd violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a 3rd or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. This law exempts unloaded antique firearms, as defined, or firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. This law requires the Department of Justice to seek to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. By creating a new crime, this law imposes a state-mandated local program.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or carries that firearm off-premises, as defined, to a public place or a school. Existing law exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises. This law removes these exemptions.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This law, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorizes the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. This law additionally requires that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. This law also requires any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This law provides a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. This law also provides a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this law imposes a state-mandated local program.

This law also requires the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. This law authorizes the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

(2) Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This law additionally allows the person to electronically submit these reports. This law also authorizes the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

(3) Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This law requires a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. This law requires the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. This law also authorizes the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This law requires the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The law makes other conforming changes.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This law, among other things, instead requires the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. A person subject to the firearms prohibition shall relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This law requires the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal.

This law provides that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this law expands the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This law additionally requires a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This law deems any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This law establishes, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This law further establishes, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This law requires the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

Passed By the legislature. Approved by the Governor September 24.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to be heard during the term that began October 7.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5^th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal October 8. Note that this is not a Second Amendment case and may have little or no effect in California.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court ordered briefs be filed by September 13, 2024. We are waiting for further action.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

September 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

September Focus

Ammunition Purchase Fee increase proposed

As authorized by Penal Code section 30370, subdivision (e), the Department’s current regulations established a $1.00 fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) and $1.00 fee for a COE Verification check. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §§ 4282, 4285.) This fee has not been sufficient to cover the Department’s operating costs for the ammunition authorization program.

Effective January 1, 2024, the Department is allowed to raise the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check to cover the reasonable regulatory and enforcement costs for operating the ammunition authorization program. (Pen. Code, § 30370, subd. (e).) The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00.

This rulemaking is undergoing a 45-day public comment period. Any person or their authorized representative may submit written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 pm on October 8, 2024. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:

• Mail written comments:

Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816

• E-mail: bofregulations@doj.ca.gov

Official information: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ammofee

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve) a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court ruling declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the rules for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California.

Legislation

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, require a person who possesses a firearm in a residence to keep the firearm securely stored when the firearm is not being carried or readily controlled by the person or another lawful authorized user. For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or secure gun safe that meets specified standards. The bill would make a first and 2nd violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a 3rd or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt unloaded antique firearms, as defined, or firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to seek to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or carries that firearm off-premises, as defined, to a public place or a school. Existing law exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.

This bill would remove these exemptions.

Passed By the legislature, presented to the Governor September 3.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

(2) Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This bill would additionally allow the person to electronically submit these reports. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

(3) Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This bill would require a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. The bill would require the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The bill would make other conforming changes.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(5) This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of ²/₃ of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

Passed By the legislature, presented to the Governor September 4.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

Passed By the legislature, presented to the Governor September 3.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Passed By the legislature, presented to the Governor September 3.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Passed By the legislature, presented to the Governor September 4.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

Passed by the Assembly and Senate. August 31 to engrossing and enrolling.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

Bianchi v Frosh

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to be heard during the term that begins October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5^th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will hear the government’s appeal during the session beginning October 7.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court has ordered briefs be filed by September 13, 2024.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

August 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update August Focus

U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) today introduced the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act. This bill would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.

As of July 1, 2024, California implemented a new 10-11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition to discourage the purchase of firearms and fund gun control programs. These added fees now double the tax on gun and ammunition purchases. Colorado, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, and New York have proposed similar taxes.

Risch and Issa are joined by U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Marsha Blackburn (R- Tenn.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Deb Fischer (R- Neb.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) in introducing the legislation.

The Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act has received support from the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and National Rifle Association (NRA).

Legislation

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, prohibit a the owner or other lawfully authorized user of a firearm from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearm safety devices and is properly engaged so that the firearm cannot be accessed by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires a firearm that is sold or transferred by a licensed firearms dealer, including a private transfer through a dealer, and any firearm manufactured in this state, to include or be accompanied by a firearm safety device, as specified.

This bill would instead require, beginning on January 1, 2026, the firearm to include or be accompanied by a lock box or safe, except as specified.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or carries that firearm off-premises, as defined, to a public place or a school. Existing law exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.

This bill would remove these exemptions.

Passed By the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. April 29, 2024, referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety. 6/11/2024 passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re- referred to the Committee on Appropriations. August 7, placed on suspense file.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

• Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

• Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This bill would additionally allow the person to electronically submit these reports. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

• Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This bill would require a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. The bill would require the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The bill would make other conforming changes.

• The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

• This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of ²/3 of the membership of each house of the

Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. August 5, referred to a suspense file.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate.

This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 120 days after arriving in the state and make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor.

May 21, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. August 7, placed on suspense file.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

May 23, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. July 3 passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. August 7, placed on suspense file.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state- mandated local program.

Passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. August 7, placed on suspense file.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity under specified circumstances, including as part of a “gun-buyback” program, be destroyed.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency that contracts with a third party for the destruction of firearms or weapons to ensure that the contract for those services prohibits the sale of any parts of, or attachments to, the firearm or other weapon, as specified.

The bill would also exempt from the destruction requirement, any firearm obtained through a “gun-buyback” program that is donated to a historical society, museum, or institutional collection, as specified.

Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. June 24, placed in suspense file.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above- described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application

of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. August 7, placed on suspense file.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

• Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

• Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. June 24, placed in suspense file.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

Passed by the Assembly. Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. August 5, referred to suspense file.

For information on bills in the California legislature:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon.

The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

Cargill v Garland

This was a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) “re- defining” bump-stocks to be equivalent to machine guns, and therefor subject to the same federal regulations. The court ruled that the ATF did not have authority to ban bump-stocks by changing a definition and that such a ban must be passed by Congress. NOTE: this was not a ruling based in the second amendment—the court held that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act by regulating bump-stocks without a legal basis. The court indicated that if Congress passes a bump-stock ban and the president signs it, it might be legal.

United States v Rahimi

This was a challenge to whether a gun violence restraining order (Red Flag Order) could restrict an individual’s second amendment rights if they had not been convicted of a crime. In an eight to one decision the court upheld the government’s ability to temporarily restrict gun rights if a court order finds the individual “poses a credible threat to the physical safety of a protected person”. Language in the opinion may alter the application of the legal tests laid out in NYSRPA v Bruen and Heller v District of Columbia.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will hear the government’s appeal during the next session.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve) a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a lower court order that prevented the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court ruling declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 have not taken effect due to the district court’s order, although he other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The court issued an order for supplemental briefs considering the Supreme Court decision in US v Rahimi, with briefs submitted July 12. We are waiting for a decision.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court has ordered briefs be filed by September 13, 2024.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal. Oral arguments are scheduled August 14.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

Click here to download July report.

June 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update July Focus

Jaymes v. Maduros is a new lawsuit challenging the 11% excise tax imposed by AB28. The Firearm Policy Coalition, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Rifle Association are backing the suit, saying the tax on firearms and ammunition is an infringement on Second Amendment rights of Californians.

Legislation

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, prohibit a the owner or other lawfully authorized user of a firearm from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearm safety devices and is properly engaged so that the firearm cannot be accessed by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires a firearm that is sold or transferred by a licensed firearms dealer, including a private transfer through a dealer, and any firearm manufactured in this state, to include or be accompanied by a firearm safety device, as specified.

This bill would instead require, beginning on January 1, 2026, the firearm to include or be accompanied by a lock box or safe, except as specified.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or carries that firearm off-premises, as defined, to a public place or a school. Existing law exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.

This bill would remove these exemptions.

Passed By the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. April 29, 2024, referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety. 6/11/2024 passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re- referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

• Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

• Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This bill would additionally allow the person to electronically submit these reports. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

• Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of

firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This bill would require a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. The bill would require the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The bill would make other conforming changes.

• The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

• This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of ²/3 of the membership of each house of the

Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate.

This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 120 days after arriving in the state and make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor.

May 21, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released

from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

May 23, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. June 3 referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state- mandated local program.

May 23, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity under specified circumstances, including as part of a “gun-buyback” program, be destroyed.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency that contracts with a third party for the destruction of firearms or weapons to ensure that the contract for those services prohibits the sale of any parts of, or attachments to, the firearm or other weapon, as specified.

The bill would also exempt from the destruction requirement, any firearm obtained through a “gun-buyback” program that is donated to a historical society, museum, or institutional collection, as specified.

May 9, passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above- described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

May 21, passed by the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. Passed by the Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

• Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

• Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

May 13, passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Passed by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

Passed by the Assembly. May 1, referred to Senate Public Safety Committee.

For information on bills in the California legislature:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

Cargill v Garland

This was a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) “re- defining” bump-stocks to be equivalent to machine guns, and therefor subject to the same federal regulations. The court ruled that the ATF did not have authority to ban bump-stocks by changing a definition and that such a ban must be passed by Congress. NOTE: this was not a ruling based in the second amendment—the court held that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act by regulating bump-stocks without a legal basis. The court indicated that if Congress passes a bump-stock ban and the president signs it, it might be legal.

United States v Rahimi

This was a challenge to whether a gun violence restraining order (Red Flag Order) could restrict an individual’s second amendment rights if they had not been convicted of a crime. In an eight to one decision the court upheld the government’s ability to temporarily restrict gun rights if a court order finds the individual “poses a credible threat to the physical safety of a protected person”. Language in the opinion may alter the application of the legal tests laid out in NYSRPA v Bruen and Heller v District of Columbia.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will hear the government’s appeal during this session.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve) a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a lower court order that prevented the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court ruling declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 have not taken effect due to the district court’s order, although he other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. We are waiting for a decision.

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. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case will be returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Boland V Bonta, a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Nguyen v Bonta, is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal. Oral arguments are scheduled August 14.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

Click here to download pdf of June 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update.