February 2023 Legislation/Litigation Update

February Focus— California SB 2, as amended, Portantino. Firearms.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria including, among other things, the applicant is of good moral character and has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Under existing law, the required course of training for an applicant is no more than 16 hours and covers firearm safety and laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm.

This bill would require the licensing authority to issue or renew a license if the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license and the applicant is at least 21 years of age. The bill would remove the good character and good cause requirements from the issuance criteria. Under the bill, the applicant would be a disqualified person if they, among other things, are reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. This bill would add the requirement that the applicant be the recorded owner, with the Department of Justice, of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. This bill would change the training requirement to be no less than 16 hours in length and would add additional subjects to the course including, among other things, the safe storage and legal transportation of firearms. The bill would require an issuing authority, prior to that issuance, renewal, or amendment to a license, if it has direct access to the designated department system to determine if the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm. The bill would require an issuing authority without access to that system to confirm the ownership with the sheriff of the county in which the agency is located. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require a licensing authority to provide the applicant notice if a new license or license renewal is denied or revoked. If an application is denied or a license is revoked based on a determination that the applicant is a disqualified person, the bill would permit the applicant to request a hearing to challenge the license denial or revocation, and require the licensing authority to inform the applicant of the ability to seek a hearing. If a new license or license renewal is denied or revoked for any other reason, the bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate from a superior court within 30 days of receipt of notice of denial or revocation, and require the licensing authority to inform the applicant of the ability to seek a writ of mandate. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires an agency issuing a license described above to set forth specified information on the license, including, among other things, the licensee’s name, occupation, and reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon.

This bill would revise that information to include, among other things, the licensee’s driver’s license or identification number, fingerprints, and information relating to the date of expiration of the license, and would remove the requirement that the license detail the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon.

Existing law requires an applicant for a license described above to provide fingerprints, as specified. Existing law exempts an applicant from this requirement if they have previously applied to the same licensing authority and the applicant’s fingerprints have previously been forwarded to the department, as specified, and instead requires that authority to note data that would provide positive identification in the files of the department, on the copy of any subsequent license submitted to the department.

This bill would require the department to notify the licensing authority if the department is unable to ascertain, among other things, the final disposition of an arrest or criminal charge under state or federal law that would prohibit the person from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. The bill would require the licensing authority to instead collect the applicant’s fingerprint that would provide that positive identification in the files of the department, as specified. This bill would prohibit a license from being issued or renewed unless the department reports to a licensing authority that the applicant is eligible to possess, receive, own, or purchase a firearm.

Existing law requires a licensing authority to charge an additional fee in an amount equal to reasonable processing costs for a new license. Existing law also prohibits a licensing authority from imposing, among other things, a requirement or condition that an applicant pay additional funds or obtain liability insurance.

This bill would authorize a licensing authority to charge the additional processing cost fee for a license renewal and would permit the licensing authority to collect the first 50% of the fee upon filing of the application. The bill also removes the prohibition on licensing authority requirements for additional fees or liability insurance.

Existing law requires that licenses and applications for licenses be uniform throughout the state, and to be submitted upon forms prescribed by the Attorney General. When revising the standard application form for licenses, existing law requires the Attorney General to convene a committee to review and revise the existing application form. Existing law requires the Attorney General to develop a uniform license that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure throughout the state. Existing law also requires the committee to convene to review and revise the design standard for a uniform license.

This bill would authorize the Attorney General to revise the standard form for licenses and the design standard if the committee does not revise the form or issue a design standard within a specified time period.

Under existing law, it is a crime to bring a firearm into a state or local building, and makes it a crime to bring a loaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. Existing law exempts a licensee from that prohibition if, among other things, the licensee has a valid license to carry the firearm.

This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility, as defined.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone. Existing law defines a school zone as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. Existing law provides exceptions to that crime, including if a person with a valid concealed carry license who is carrying the firearm described in the license in an area that is not in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school and when a firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.

This bill would revise the exception for a person who has a valid concealed carry license to permit them to carry a specified firearm in an area that is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school, as specified.

Existing law requires a licensing authority to revoke a license to carry a firearm if the licensing authority is notified by the department or the licensing authority determines that a licensee is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law.

This bill would also require a licensing authority to revoke a license if, among other things, a licensee has provided inaccurate or incomplete information on their application for a new license or license renewal.

Existing law authorizes a licensing authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, manner, and circumstances when a licensee may carry a firearm capable of being concealed.

While carrying a firearm, this bill would prohibit a licensee from, among other things, consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance and from falsely representing that the licensee is a peace officer.

The bill would authorize the department to adopt emergency regulations to implement the concealed firearm licensing system, as specified.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Note: to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Legislation

California AB 28, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: gun violence protection tax.

Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would enact a tax to fund measures to protect against gun violence on firearms and ammunition.

California AB 29, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as misdemeanor or a felony, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have their name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not at elevated risk of suicide.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

California SB 8, as introduced, Blakespear. 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.

California SB 54, as introduced, Skinner. Firearms.

Existing law requires any firearm sold, transferred, or manufactured in this state to include certain firearm safety devices and the packaging of any firearm and any descriptive material that accompany any firearm to bear a label with a specified warning statement. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine on the first offense, a fine and prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state for 30 days on the second offense, and a permanent prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state on the third offense.

This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to these provisions.

California AB 92, as introduced, Connolly. Body armor: prohibition.

Existing law makes it a felony for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, or possess body armor. Existing law authorizes a person subject to that prohibition, whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor, to file a petition for an exception to the prohibition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the person seeks to possess and use the body armor, as provided.

This bill would repeal those provisions and instead make it a felony for a person to commit any violent felony while possessing a firearm and in the course of and in furtherance of that crime they wear body armor. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to purchase or take possession of body armor, unless they are employed in specified professions. The bill would additionally make it a misdemeanor for a person, firm, or corporation to sell or deliver body armor to any person not engaged in one of those professions. The bill would require a seller to verify that a transferee is from an eligible profession, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to expand the list of eligible professions if the duties of the profession may expose an individual engaged in the profession to serious physical injury that may be prevented or mitigated by the wearing of body armor, or if the duties of the profession are necessary to facilitate the lawful purchase, sale, or use of body armor.

California AB 97, as introduced, Rodriguez. Firearms: unserialized firearms.

Existing federal law requires a commercially produced firearm to be etched or otherwise inscribed by the manufacturer with a unique serial number. Existing state law prohibits the alteration, removal, or obliteration of that serial number. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a felony. Existing law also prohibits the transfer or possession of a firearm with a serial number that has been altered, removed, or obliterated. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor.

Existing law requires a person, other than a licensed manufacturer, who assembles or manufactures a firearm, or any person who possesses an unserialized firearm, to obtain a unique serial number from the Department of Justice and to inscribe that serial number on the firearm, as specified. A violation of this requirement is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would make the possession of an unserialized firearm or possession of a firearm with an altered, removed, or obliterated serial number punishable as a felony. By increasing the punishment for these crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

California SB 241, as introduced, Min. Firearms: dealer requirements.

Existing law prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer’s license.

This bill would require a licensee and any employees that handle firearms to annually complete specified training. The bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and implement an online training course, as specified, including a testing certification component.

California AB 36, as introduced, Gabriel. Domestic violence protective orders: possession of a firearm.

Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm while that protective order is in effect and makes a willful and knowing violation of a protective order a crime.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to extend that prohibition for an additional 3 years after the expiration of a protective order, unless the court finds the person to not be a threat to public safety.

California AB 27, as introduced, Ta. Sentencing: firearms enhancements.

Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action or to strike or dismiss an enhancement in the furtherance of justice. Existing law requires a court to dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.

This bill would also prohibit a court from dismissing a firearms-related enhancement, as defined.

California SB 243, as introduced, Seyarto. Sales and Use Tax Law: exemption: gun safety systems.

Existing state sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The Sales and Use Tax Law provides various exemptions from those taxes.

This bill would, until January 1, 2028, exempt from those taxes the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, a gun safety system, as defined.

Note: to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Litigation

A status conference on Miller v Bonta, Duncan v Bonta, and Rhode v Bonta was held 13 December in Judge Benitez’ court.

Judge Benitez indicated that he wants to see these cases completed at the trial court level in a timely manner. He questioned the value of the state bringing in testimony from experts in “history and tradition” and rejected this testimony. The judge indicted that he may combine the three cases and hold hearings on all three at once. The judge indicated that he was not sympathetic to the state trying to delay the process or confuse any of the issues.

Miller v Bonta is the challenge to the “assault weapon” ban, Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, and Rhode v Bonta is the challenge to the state requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to the California “1 in 30” law limiting purchases of handguns or center-fire semi-auto rifles to 1 in 30 days. The judge has asked for briefs regarding how this case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Boland v Bonta is a lawsuit challenging the California “Not-Unsafe” handgun roster. Following the first court date, the judge has requested supplemental briefs from both parties before ruling. The first brief is due in February and limited to 20 pages. The response briefs are due in March and are limited to 10 pages.

Rupp v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, had been pending the Bruen decision. This case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision. This case is now scheduled behind the Miller v Bonta case, which also challenges the “Assault Weapon Ban”.

Young v Hawaii challenges the state of Hawaii carry restrictions. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court.

Doe v Bonta is a lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations” due to SB 173. Information has already been given to UC Davis and accidentally released to the public. The honorable Larry Alan Burns, the United States District Court Judge hearing the case, has ordered supplemental briefs regarding the effects of NYSRPA v Bruen on the standard to be used in deciding this case.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster has been remanded back to the trial court. Currently calendared for March of 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

January 2023 Legislation/Litigation Update

January Focus— Some major news regarding gun control lawsuits!

A status conference on Miller v Bonta, Duncan v Bonta, and Rhode v Bonta was held 13 December in Judge Benitez’ court.

The judge, at a conference on December 12, required that the state defendants meet and confer regarding a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge specified what information is to be provided regarding each cited statue/law/regulation supporting the state’s position that there is historical precedent for the relevant gun control. Defendants may create a second survey covering a period following the first list. The survey list must be filed within 30 days of the conference and parties may file a brief, up to 25 pages, within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Briefs will be due no later than February 10, 2023.

Miller v Bonta is the challenge to the “assault weapon” ban, Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, and Rhode v Bonta is the challenge to the state requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.

A lawsuit filed against the “fee shifting” provisions of SB1327 that has been ruled on by US Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California. The “fee shifting” would have required anyone suing California or any local jurisdiction over Second Amendment rights be liable for the government’s legal fees if not completely successful. California Attorney General Rob Bonta notified the Governor and the court that the state Attorney General’s Office would not defend this law in court. Judge Benitez struck down the “fee shifting” part of the law as unconstitutional.

Legislation

California AB 28, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: gun violence protection tax.

Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would enact a tax to fund measures to protect against gun violence on firearms and ammunition.

California AB 29, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as misdemeanor or a felony, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have their name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not at elevated risk of suicide.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

California SB 2, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria including, among other things, the applicant is of good moral character and has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Note: this is expected to basically be a re-introduction of SB-918, but as a normal bill rather than an emergency bill. As a result, this should only require a simple majority to pass each house of the legislature. Currently there are no details of action in the bill, so watch for a “gut and replace”.

California SB 8, as introduced, Blakespear. 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.

California SB 54, as introduced, Skinner. Firearms.

Existing law requires any firearm sold, transferred, or manufactured in this state to include certain firearm safety devices and the packaging of any firearm and any descriptive material that accompany any firearm to bear a label with a specified warning statement. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine on the first offense, a fine and prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state for 30 days on the second offense, and a permanent prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state on the third offense.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

Note: to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Litigation

The Fifth District Court of Appeals has declared the ATF’s “bump stock ban” unconstitutional. The ATF “redefined” the meaning of a machine gun to include semi-auto firearms with devices that increase their rate of fire. The ban was previously upheld by the Sixth and Tenth Circuits. With a divergence between appeals courts, that usually means the Supreme Court will decide the issue.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to the California “1 in 30” law limiting purchases of handguns or center-fire semi-auto rifles to 1 in 30 days. The judge has asked for brief regarding how this case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Campos v Bonta is a suit challenging the DOJ extending the period for completing background check for firearms purchases. The DOJ has been taking more than 10 days to process without appropriate justification. The trial court ruled that the state could only extend the period for specific reasons, as listed in the statute. We are watching for pending appeals.

Boland v Bonta is a new lawsuit challenging the California “Not-Unsafe” handgun roster. This case is progressing through the federal court system.

Rupp v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, had been pending the Bruen decision. This case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision. This case is now scheduled behind the Miller v Bonta case, which also challenges the “Assault Weapon Ban”.

Young v Hawaii challenges the state of Hawaii carry restrictions. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court.

Jones v Bonta: A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the California age-based centerfire semi-automatic rifle purchase ban is unconstitutional and that “the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. The opinion states that the District Court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny. The trial judge has ordered briefs regarding how this case should proceed in light of the Bruen decision.

Doe v Bonta is a lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations” due to SB 173. Information has already been given to UC Davis and accidentally released to the public. The honorable Larry Alan Burns, the United States District Court Judge hearing the case, has ordered supplemental briefs regarding the effects of NYSRPA v Bruen on the standard to be used in deciding this case.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster has been remanded back to the trial court. Currently calendared for March of 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

November 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

November Focus— Amended AB2571 resulting from Junior Sports Magazines v Bonta

As a result of a CRPA backed lawsuit, a judge ordered several changes be made to AB2571, which was a bill intended to limit advertising and promoting guns and gun-related products to youth. CRPA has provided information about how these changes may affect youth programs.

The amendments to the AB 2571 expressly exempt from the ban speech offering or promoting, among other things, any sport shooting events or competitions. The amendments also exempt speech offering or promoting any firearm safety program, hunting safety, or firearm instructional course.

The amendments also exempt communications offering or promoting membership in any organization. So, groups like the Apple Valley Gun Club and NRA may be able to resume advertising and hosting youth sport shooting and training.

To be clear, this exemption is limited to promotion of such programs, not the speech that takes place at those events. So, while youth shooting organizations or teams may likely resume advertising, registering participants for, and hosting events, they should take precautions to ensure that no speech that might encourage recipients to buy any “firearm-related product” takes place. This means that no vendors or sponsors selling or advertising “firearm-related products” should be at any event. There should be no banners, posters, flyers, handouts, or other materials bearing the logos or promotional materials of makers or sellers of “firearm-related products” at events or classes. Coaches and trainers should not endorse any “firearm-related product” or suggest that their athletes (or their parents) purchase gear for competition. And there should be no logos or promotion of makers or sellers of “firearm-related products” on uniforms, shooting jerseys, or participant giveaways (e.g., t-shirts, bags, sunglasses, etc.).

The Board of Directors and officers are actively reviewing a return of youth programs to the Apple Valley Gun Club. Expect further communication in the near future.

Antonyuk v Hochul was filed against the New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff’s motion for a Preliminary Injunction was heard October 25 and was granted in part and denied in part. This means that the state of New York can continue to enforce portions of the CCIA, but not others, until there is further action. The CCIA was passed after the Supreme Court Bruen decision and took effect July1, 2022.

The district court judge’s injunction halted use of the language requiring the applicant to prove they are “of good moral character”.

The judge temporarily restrained the enforcement of requirements to:

• Provide the “names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse or domestic partner, and any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing full or part time in the applicant’s home”.
• Provide a list of social media accounts the applicant has currently or had during the past three years.

The judge also injoined parts of the expansion of “sensitive places”, while allowing other parts to stand.

This preliminary injunction will stay in place until the case is decided, unless the Second Circuit Court of Appeals blocks it.

While this deals with a New York state law, it illustrates potential court actions that may result from similar legislation in California.

Legislation

Following the Mid-Term Election, no legislative action is likely until the new federal and state legislators take office in January.

Note, to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Litigation

Vanderstock v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rule on unfinished receivers and frames, and specifically whether the ATF has authority to regulate things that are not a firearm. The US District Court in the Northern division of Texas has issued an injunction against the ATF enforcement of the new rule, 2021-05f.

The ATF has sent a letter to FFLs regarding Armalite lower receivers. Anyone buying, selling, owning, or otherwise interested in unfinished receivers should read this letter: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-september-2022-impact-final-rule-2021-05f-partially-complete-ar/download

Gunfighter Tactical v Bonta is a lawsuit filed against the “fee shifting” provisions of SB1327 has been filed and has been assigned to US Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California. The “fee shifting” can require anyone suing California or any local jurisdiction over Second Amendment rights be liable for the government’s legal fees if not completely successful. This case will be heard by Judge Roger Benitez, of the Southern District for California.

Moren v Liver deals with Massachusetts’ revoking the plaintiff’s firearm license and CCW permit. The plaintiff plead guilty to a non-violent, but CCW related, misdemeanor in the District of Columbia, which caused the state of Massachusetts to permanently revoke his license to purchase firearms. The First Circuit opinion said denying the right to purchase a firearm did not infringe, because there are other ways to obtain a firearm such as inheriting it. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded this lawsuit to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. First Circuit Court of Appeals must now reconsider their ruling in light of the Bruen decision direction.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to the California “1 in 30” law limiting purchases of handguns or center-fire semi-auto rifles to 1 in 30 days. The judge has asked for brief regarding how this case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Duncan v Bonta: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc panel overturned the district court ruling that found the California “Large Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional. Enforcement of the ban was stayed, pending disposition of a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit En Banc judgement and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district trial court, again to Judge Roger Benitez. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding how the case should proceed in light of the Bruen decision. Judge Benitez has also clarified that the stay on enforcement of the ban remains in effect until the case is finally resolved.

Campos v Bonta is a suit challenging the DOJ extending the period for completing background check for firearms purchases. The DOJ has been taking more than 10 days to process without appropriate justification. The trial court ruled that the state could only extend the period for specific reasons, as listed in the statute.

Boland v Bonta is a new lawsuit challenging the California “Not-Unsafe” handgun roster. This case is still awaiting scheduling by the court.

Rupp v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, had been pending the Bruen decision. This case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision.

Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, has been pending the Bruen decision. US District court for the California Southern District, judge Roger Benitez, had ruled the law unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated that ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding how the case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Young v Hawaii challenges the state of Hawaii carry restrictions. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court.

Bianchi v Frosh challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.

Jones v Bonta: A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the California age-based centerfire semi-automatic rifle purchase ban is unconstitutional and that “the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. The opinion states that the District Court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny. The trial judge has ordered briefs regarding how this case should proceed in light of the Bruen decision.

Doe v Bonta is a lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations” due to SB 173. Information has already been given to UC Davis and accidentally released to the public. The honorable Larry Alan Burns, the United States District Court Judge hearing the case, has ordered supplemental briefs regarding the effects of NYSRPA v Bruen on the standard to be used in deciding this case.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster has been remanded back to the trial court. Currently calendared for March of 2023.

Baird v Bonta challenges the California restrictions on open carry of firearms. The US District court denied a petition for an injunction, so the state can continue enforcing the open carry law.

Nichols v Newsom is a challenge to the California laws against open carry of a firearm. The US District Court ruled the law constitutional and an appeal was pending at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, following the Bruen decision has remanded the case back to the trial court.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

October 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

October Focus— Antonyuk v Hochul was filed against the New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was granted in part and denied in part. On October 12 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the Temporary Restraining Order, which means the state of New York can continue to enforce the CCIA until there is further action. The CCIA was passed after the Supreme Court Bruen decision and took effect July1, 2022.

The district court judge’s temporary order changed the language from requiring the applicant to prove they are “of good moral character” to requiring evidence to show they are not.

The judge temporarily restrained the enforcement of requirements to:

Provide the “names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse or domestic partner, and any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing full or part time in the applicant’s home”.

Provide a list of social media accounts the applicant has currently or had during the past three years.

Participate in an “in person meeting”.

The judge also temporarily restrained parts of the expansion of “sensitive places”, while allowing other parts to stand.

An appeal of the temporary restraining order has been filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A hearing on the actual injunction is scheduled for October 25.

Legislation

U.S. House Resolution 8741, Firearm Industry Fairness Act 

The Firearm Industry Fairness Act would tax firearm manufacturers that produce semiautomatic firearms or high-capacity magazines at a rate of 20% on all revenue—not just the revenue from the sales of those specific products.

The bill would use the tax revenue derived from these manufacturers to fund Community Violence Intervention programs to reduce gun violence and help victims.

Note that as an appropriations bill, the Senate filibuster rules do not apply, and this bill needs only a simple majority to pass the U.S. Senate. Currently in House Ways and Means Committee.

California Senate Bill 1384 Firearms: dealer requirements.

This law will require the firearms dealer to carry a policy of general liability insurance, as specified. This law will require a firearms dealer to have an extensive video surveillance system and maintain video recordings for a minimum of one year, and other security provisions. This law takes effect January 1, 2024. Passed by the Senate 5/14; passed by the Assembly 8/23. Approved by the governor on September 30.

California Assembly Bill 2552 Firearms: gun shows and events

This law increases signage requirements for gun show organizers, increases paperwork for gun show vendors, and bans the sale of black powder, unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and conversion kits designed to convert a handgun into a short-barreled rifle or assault weapon at gun shows. Vendors also will be prohibited from inciting or encouraging hate crimes. This law becomes effective July 1, 2023. Amended and passed in the Senate 6/28. Amended and passed by the assembly 8/23. Approved by the governor on September 28.

Note, to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Litigation

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit by the government of Mexico against US gun manufacturers that would have held the manufacturers liable for guns trafficked across the US/Mexico border to drug cartels. Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor in federal court in Boston cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), that shields gun makers from lawsuits over “the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products…by others when the product functioned as designed and intended”. An appeal is expected.

On the first day of their current session, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear appeals of the Trump Administration ATF’s ban on “bump stocks”. “Bump stocks” are a device that increases the fire rate of semi-automatic rifles. The US District Court for Utah and 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, which was implemented by the ATF without congressional action. In a separate law suit the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld the ban. The basis of these lawsuits was not only “bump stocks”, but the ATF unilaterally changing definitions to allow them to ban things without congressional action.

Vanderstock v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rule on unfinished receivers and frames, and specifically whether the ATF has authority to regulate things that are not a firearm. The US District Court in the Northern division of Texas has issued an injunction against the ATF enforcement of the new rule, 2021-05f.

The ATF has sent a letter to FFLs regarding Armalite lower receivers. Anyone buying, selling, owning, or otherwise interested in unfinished receivers should read this letter: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-september-2022-impact-final-rule-2021-05f-partially-complete-ar/download

Gunfighter Tactical v Bonta is a lawsuit filed against the “fee shifting” provisions of SB1327 has been filed and has been assigned to US Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California. The “fee shifting” can require anyone suing California or any local jurisdiction over Second Amendment rights be liable for the government’s legal fees if not completely successful.

Moren v Liver deals with Massachusetts’ revoking the plaintiff’s firearm license and CCW permit. The plaintiff plead guilty to a non-violent, but CCW related, misdemeanor in the District of Columbia, which caused the state of Massachusetts to permanently revoke his license to purchase firearms. The First Circuit opinion said denying the right to purchase a firearm did not infringe, because there are other ways to obtain a firearm such as inheriting it. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded this lawsuit to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. First Circuit Court of Appeals must now reconsider their ruling in light of the Bruen decision direction.

Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to the California “1 in 30” law limiting purchases of handguns or center-fire semi-auto rifles to 1 in 30 days. The judge has asked for brief regarding how this case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Duncan v Bonta: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc panel overturned the district court ruling that found the California “Large Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional. Enforcement of the ban was stayed, pending disposition of a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit En Banc judgement and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district trial court, again to Judge Roger Benitez. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding how the case should proceed in light of the Bruen decision. Judge Benitez has also clarified that the stay on enforcement of the ban remains in effect until the case is finally resolved.

Campos v Bonta is a suit challenging the DOJ extending the period for completing background check for firearms purchases. The DOJ has been taking more than 10 days to process without appropriate justification. The trial court ruled that the state could only extend the period for specific reasons, as listed in the statute.

Boland v Bonta is a new lawsuit challenging the California “Not-Unsafe” handgun roster. This case is still awaiting scheduling by the court.

Rupp v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, had been pending the Bruen decision. This case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision.

Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, has been pending the Bruen decision. US District court for the California Southern District, judge Roger Benitez, had ruled the law unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated that ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding how the case should be handled in light of the Bruen decision.

Young v Hawaii challenges the state of Hawaii carry restrictions. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court.

Bianchi v Frosh challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.

Jones v Bonta: A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the California age-based centerfire semi-automatic rifle purchase ban is unconstitutional and that “the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. The opinion states that the District Court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny. The trial judge has ordered briefs regarding how this case should proceed in light of the Bruen decision.

Doe v Bonta is a lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations” due to SB 173. Information has already been given to UC Davis and accidentally released to the public. The honorable Larry Alan Burns, the United States District Court Judge hearing the case, has ordered supplemental briefs regarding the effects of NYSRPA v Bruen on the standard to be used in deciding this case.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster has been remanded back to the trial court. Currently calendared for March of 2023.

Baird v Bonta challenges the California restrictions on open carry of firearms. The US District court denied a petition for an injunction, so the state can continue enforcing the open carry law.

Nichols v Newsom is a challenge to the California laws against open carry of a firearm. The US District Court ruled the law constitutional and an appeal was pending at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, following the Bruen decision has remanded the case back to the trial court.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

September 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

September Focus— U.S. House Resolution 8741, Firearm Industry Fairness Act 

The Firearm Industry Fairness Act would tax firearm manufacturers that produce semiautomatic firearms or high-capacity magazines at a rate of 20% on all revenue—not just the revenue from the sales of those specific products.

The bill would use the tax revenue derived from these manufacturers to fund Community Violence Intervention programs to reduce gun violence and help victims. Federal tax rates on firearms have not been updated in over 50 years.

From the bill author, representative Carolyn B. Malony (D, NY-12): “Currently, AR-15s are taxed at the same rate as an ordinary hunting rifle, even though they are far more dangerous and are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.”

Note that as an appropriations bill, the filibuster rules do not apply, and this bill needs only a simple majority to pass the U.S. Senate. Currently in House Ways and Means Committee.

Legislation

Senate Bill 1384 Firearms: dealer requirements.

This law will require the firearms dealer to carry a policy of general liability insurance, as specified. This law will require a firearms dealer to have an extensive video surveillance system and maintain recordings for a minimum of one year. Takes effect January 1, 2024. PASSED by the Senate 5/14. Passed by the Assembly 8/23. Awaiting the governor’s signature.

Assembly Bill 2552 Firearms: gun shows and events

This bill increases signage requirements for gun show organizers, increases paperwork for gun show vendors, and bans the sale of black powder, unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and conversion kits designed to convert a handgun into a short-barreled rifle or assault weapon at gun shows. Vendors also will be prohibited from inciting or encouraging hate crimes. Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Amended and passed in the Senate 6/28. Passed by the assembly 8/23. Effective July 1, 2023. Awaiting the governor’s signature.

Assembly Bill 1227 Firearms and ammunition: excise tax.

This bill, the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Act, would, commencing July 1, 2023, impose an excise tax in the amount of 10% of the sales price of a handgun and 11% of the sales price of a long gun, rifle, firearm precursor part, and ammunition, as specified. The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require that the revenues collected be deposited in the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. Passed in the Assembly. Was not passed by the Senate by the end of the session.

Senate Bill 505, as amended, Civil law: firearms liability and insurance.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2024, make a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incidence of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of their firearm. This bill would provide that strict liability does not apply if the owner of the firearm has reported their firearm to local law enforcement as lost or stolen prior to the damage, injury, or death. The bill would additionally require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, auto, or gun liability insurance policy specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death, injury, or property damage. This bill would require a person to keep written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored. By creating new requirements for firearm owners, violations of which would be punishable as misdemeanors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage. Passed in the Senate. Was not passed by the Assembly by the end of the session.

Senate Bill 918 Firearms

This bill has wide-ranging changes for firearms laws in California, including changing and new requirements for CCW holders.

It removes “Good Cause” and “Good Character” requirements for CCW. Under the bill, the applicant would not be a qualified person if they have engaged in a threat of violence, act of violence, or used unlawful physical force against another person or themselves, as specified.

This bill would add the requirement that the applicant be the recorded owner, with the Department of Justice, of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

This bill would change the training requirement to be no less than 16 hours in length and would add additional subjects to the course including, among other things, the safe storage and legal transportation of firearms.

This bill would authorize a licensing authority to charge additional processing fees for a license renewal and would permit the licensing authority to collect the first 50% of the fee upon filing of the application. The bill also removes the prohibition on licensing authority requirements for additional fees or liability insurance.

Existing law authorizes a licensing authority to require psychological testing for a new license or a license renewal. Under existing law, an applicant may be required to pay the actual cost of testing, not to exceed $150. This bill would increase the amount that an applicant may be required to pay to $200 and would allow that amount to be increased by the California cost of living, as specified.

Existing law prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility, as defined. This bill would expand that prohibition to include any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal or a public transit facility, as specified.

While carrying a firearm, this bill would prohibit a licensee from, among other things, consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Passed in the Assembly, amended in the Senate, and currently at the Senate Committee on Appropriations. August 30, failed on the assembly floor by one vote. August 31, failed again by one vote. The author of this bill has said it will be re-introduced at the earliest opportunity.

Note, to find current, reliable information on any bill before the California legislature you can go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

Litigation

Campos v Bonta is a suit challenging the DOJ extending the period for completing background check for firearms purchases. The DOJ has been taking more than 10 days to process without appropriate justification. The trial court ruled that the state could only extend the period for specific reasons, as listed in the statute.

Boland v Bonta is a new lawsuit challenging the California “Not-Unsafe” handgun roster. This case is still awaiting scheduling by the court.

Rupp v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, had been pending the Bruen decision. This case has been remanded back to the trial court.

Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the California Assault Weapon Bans, has been pending the Bruen decision. Now that the decision has been received a petition was filed to certify the trial court ruling and dismiss the appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding the case in light of the Bruen decision.

Duncan v Bonta: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc panel has overturned the district court ruling that found the California “Large Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional. The lawsuit challenges the ban of possession of large capacity magazines that was approved by California voters in Prop 63. Enforcement of the ban was stayed, pending disposition of a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit En Banc judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. Judge Benitez ordered both sides to file briefs regarding the case in light of the Bruen decision.

Young v Hawaii challenges the state of Hawaii carry restrictions. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court.

Bianchi v Frosh challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. The certiorari petition was granted, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit judgement, and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.

Jones v Bonta: A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the California age-based centerfire semi-automatic rifle purchase ban is unconstitutional and that “the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. The opinion states that the District Court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny. Response from Attorney General Bonta’s petition for an extension of time to file a petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing En Banc was granted 5/18.

Doe v Bonta is a lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations” due to SB 173. Information has already been given to UC Davis and accidentally released to the public. The honorable Larry Alan Burns, the United States District Court Judge hearing the case, has ordered supplemental briefs regarding the effects of NYSRPA v Bruen on the standard to be used in deciding this case.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster has been referred back to the trial court for rehearing. Currently calendared for March of 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

YOUTH MARKETING LAW UPDATE (AB 2571)

Source:  CRPA

Original article:  https://crpa.org/news/alert/ab-2571-court-battle-heats-up/

We know that many are anxiously awaiting a ruling from the federal district court in the CRPA’s Junior Sports Magazine v. Bonta case. This is the case challenging the state law prohibiting the marketing of firearms and firearm relate products or events where firearms may be used to anyone under 18 years old in California. This law was enacted under an emergency provision and took effect on July 1, 2022. The law has caused confusion and harm to many who work with youth in shooting sports and hunting education programs.

As soon as the law was signed by Governor Newsom, CRPA, GOC, and SAF with individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court, and then shortly thereafter they filed a Motion of Preliminary Injunction and an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time to stop the law from taking effect. The hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 22nd and we expected a ruling on the injunction from the court that day.

Late Friday afternoon, before the Monday hearing, however, the state asked to postpone the hearing because they are considering some amendments and revisions to the law. We opposed the request to postpone the hearing because (1) there is no guarantee when or if additional language will be adopted by the legislature, and (2) because the proposed language absolutely does NOT solve the constitutional and practical problems that this law creates for most junior shooting programs.

CRPA’s legal team immediately asked the court to not postpone the hearing and to rule in our favor on the injunction against the law as currently written. Any amendments to the law can be fought in court, if and when the new law passes. Unfortunately, the state will stop at nothing to try to keep this law from being challenged and the judge postponed the hearing on the injunction request anyway and set a status conference for September 12th so the court can consider any revisions to the law at that time.

We know you can’t wait that long! Our legal team is taking steps in the court of appeal to have the injunction request decided sooner. Individuals and organizations are experiencing constitutional harms right now! So, our lawyers are filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus directing the trial court to rule on the pending motion for preliminary injunction as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, clubs, organizations, groups, teams, and youth shooters are still subject to the current law and will be subject to the revised law if/when it passes. The revisions to the law were not drafted by a coalition of stakeholders, but by certain groups who lobbied the Governor’s staff to protect their specific special interests. The revisions to the law, if actually enacted, would only “help” that small group of gun owners. The amendments do NOT solve all the problems that the law creates for junior shooting and hunter education programs. And the amended law as proposed is still unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

As the court battle goes on, we will keep you updated with the latest information as it becomes available. Watch for a separate Information Bulletin from CRPA in the next couple days that will explain exactly what the revised law would and would not do. These are the types of games the state plays whenever we challenge their unconstitutional laws. These types of delays are not unheard of, but we know how much this law is impacting many in the 2A community. If you have not joined the fight yet, please consider joining the CRPA and donating specifically to this legal action at the link below.

Give generously to support our efforts!

Join CRPA Today!

Be Safe. Shoot Straight. Fight Back!