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!

August 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

August Focus–Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

The original bill would have required the parents or guardians of a pupil to disclose whether any firearms are located at the home of the pupil and to answer questions about the ownership, storage, and accessibility by the pupil of the firearms. This provision was amended out of the bill before it was passed.

This law requires, on or before July 1, 2023, the State Department of Education, in consultation with relevant local educational agencies, civil rights groups, and the Department of Justice, to develop model content that includes, at a minimum, content that informs parents or guardians of California’s child access prevention laws and laws relating to the safe storage of firearms. The law requires, commencing with the 2023–24 school year, local educational agencies maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to, informed by the model content, include information related to the safe storage of firearms in an annual notification provided to the parents or guardians of pupils. The law requires a school official whose duties involve regular contact with pupils in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, as part of a middle school or high school, and who is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat to immediately report the threat or perceived threat to law enforcement, as provided. The law requires, with the support of the local educational agency, the local law enforcement agency or schoolsite police, as applicable, to immediately conduct an investigation and threat assessment, as specified. The law requires the investigation and threat assessment to include a review of the firearm registry of the Department of Justice and, if justified by a reasonable suspicion that it would produce evidence related to the threat or perceived threat, a schoolsite search.

This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Governor, and takes effect July 1, 2023.

Legislation

 Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

This law, except as exempted, prohibits a state officer or employee, or operator, lessee, or licensee of any state-owned property, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on state property. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Governor, and goes into effect January 1, 2023.

Assembly Bill 311 Firearms: Del Mar Fairgrounds

Prohibit guns shows and sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Governor, and took effect immediately.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms: prohibited places

This law prohibits the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition at the Ventura County Fair and Events Center. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Governor, and takes effect January 1, 2023.

Senate Bill 1327 Firearms: private rights of action

This law creates a private right of action for any person against any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, or causes to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale, or gives or lends any firearm lacking a serial number required by law, assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, or firearm precursor part, subject to certain exceptions, as specified. There is a provision that anyone who sues the state or local government for declaratory or injunctive relief regarding a gun law or regulation, essentially to block new gun laws, will be liable for the government’s legal expenses for the lawsuit if unsuccessful. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Governor, and took effect immediately.

Senate Bill 1384 Firearms: dealer requirements.

This bill would require a licensed firearm dealer to have a digital video surveillance system, burglary alarm system, and keyless entry system on their business premises, as specified, and would require that dealer to carry a policy of general liability insurance, as specified. The 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. PASSED by the Senate and referred to the Assembly. Amended in the Assembly 6/23. Awaiting third reading and concurrence with amendments.

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. Awaiting third reading and concurrence with amendments.

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 and currently at the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Referred to suspense file on 8/2.

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 Assembly and currently at the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Referred to suspense file on 8/3.

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 3, placed in suspense file

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

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.

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.

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. 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