Categorized as: Legislative Updates

NYSRPA v. Bruen – Supreme Court Rules in Favor of the Second Amendment

Apple Valley Gun Club

Article by: Michel and Associates

SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF SECOND AMENDMENT – OH GLORIOUS DAY!

June 23, 2022-The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the long awaited NYSRPA v. Bruen case. Until this opinion, it had been 10 years of waiting for the Supreme Court to take up another Second Amendment case after the seminal Heller case which guaranteed the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Now, in this latest case the Court has once again sided with the Constitution and millions of gun owners who have been under the oppressive thumb of politicians passing unconstitutional laws. Basically states like California and New York were restricting your foundational rights and they got caught.

The NYSRPA case deals with two basic issues:
1) the issuance of concealed carry permits under a regulatory “proper cause” regime (CCW)
2) the standard under which a Second Amendment case is reviewed in court

The first issue is easy, the Supreme Court made it very simple. New York and the other states that have a “good cause” requirement for issuing a CCW are unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of gun owners. Justice Alito in a concurring opinion stated “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller ex[1]plained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628.” This what our attorneys at Michel & Associates have been arguing for decades! The California Attorney General admitted in a statement that the California process for issuing CCWs was unconstitutional under this ruling, even as Governor Newsom began threatening gun owners with new punishment and new laws because of the ruling. We will challenge those just like we did this one and we will win!

The second issue is one of standard of review. While we did not get the strict scrutiny that we hoped for, we did get a test that is devastating to most government claims that their laws can infringe on the rights of the people. In the past courts have used a two step balancing test for all Second Amendment claims. This typically viewed the Second Amendment claims in a lesser light and gave the government the ability to trample the rights of law abiding citizens. The Court here said “The Second Amendment ‘is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,’ and it ‘surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms’ for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17. Justice Tomas went on to say “The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.”

Basically the Court concluded that all Second Amendment cases should be viewed under a test of history and tradition and with an eye towards what historically existed as a restriction on the Second Amendment when the 2nd and 14th Amendments were passed. Governments now must bear the burden of proving that whatever restriction they want to place on your rights was a restriction when the Second Amendment came into being. This is a huge burden on the government and not one that will be easily met!

Michel & Associates, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Law Center have been fighting these types of unconstitutional laws for decades–and we have been winning! Now we look to the next line of cases that are currently lined up at the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court and addressing some of the marks against the Second Amendment that states like California have had the opportunity to make over the years. Stay tuned as the Second Amendment Reckoning is just getting started.

Michel & Associates

June 2022 Legislative/Litigation Report

Apple Valley Gun Club

June 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Legislation

Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

This bill would require 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 bill was introduced and read the first time on 2 February, 2022. It has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. Failed in Education committee on first vote, but reconsideration was granted. April 7, from committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and re-referred to committee on Education. Passed by the Senate. Referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety, 6/2.

 Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

Since the “no gun shows on state property” bill last session was eventually amended to only apply to Orange County, this is a new one to again try to make the ban statewide. This bill has been fast-tracked.  Passed by the Senate. Amended, referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety, 6/2.

Assembly Bill 311 Firearms: Del Mar Fairgrounds

Prohibit guns shows and sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Passed by the Assembly and referred to the Senate. Senate Appropriations Committee voted “do pass”. Received a “do pass” from Committee on Public Safety. Referred to Appropriations Committee, 6/1.

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. Referred to Senate Committee on Public Safety 6/1.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms: prohibited places

This bill would prohibit the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition at the Ventura County Fair and Events Center. Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Referred to Senate Committee on Public Safety 6/1.

Senate Bill 1327 Firearms: private rights of action

This bill would create 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. This bill was introduced in the Senate February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to committees on Judiciary, Public Safety, and Appropriations. Moved from Judiciary Committee with “do pass”. Passed on with a “do pass” recommendation by the Public Safety Committee on April 26. PASSED by the Senate and referred to the Assembly.

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. Referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety, 5/27.

Assembly Bill-1594 Firearms: civil suits.

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms. This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices. Referred to the Judiciary Committee. Amended and moved from Judiciary Committee with a “do pass” and re-referred to Appropriations Committee where it also received a “do pass”. Amended and passed. Ordered to the Senate, 5/26.

Senate Bill 1386 Firearms: concealed carry licenses

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would instead require the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun.

Introduced by Senator Melendez on February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to the Public Safety Committee and set for hearing April 5, but hearing was cancelled at the request of the author.

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

 

Litigation

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 petion for Rehearing and/or Rehearing En Banc was granted 5/18.

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. Distributed for conference of 5/26.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster is being considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. This case has been distributed for conference on 5/19.

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”. Information has already been given to UC Davis.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

May 2022 Legislative/Litigation Report

Apple Valley Gun Club

May 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Focus for May:

AB-1227, An act to add Section 25402.14 to the Public Resources Code, relating to energy. Part 16 (commencing with Section 36001) to Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to firearms, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

This bill was introduced, allegedly, to amend the building codes to “save energy” by having more reflective roofs, thereby reducing A/C power consumption during the summer.

It was gutted and replaced with language implementing a tax on firearms, precursor parts and ammunition. In California as long as they keep the bill number the legislature can amend everything else and not have to start the process over.

This bill was amended to impose an excise tax of 10% on handguns and 11% on long guns, precursor parts, and ammunition, to begin July 1, 2023. This tax will be in addition to any other tax or fee imposed by the state, county, or city. It is patterned after the Pittman-Robertson Act federal excise tax which is already in place. The bill states that the Pittman-Robertson Act has been called a good thing by the NRA and National Shooting Sports Foundation because of the positive conservation use of the moneys raised. The money from the excise tax imposed by this bill “shall be deposited in the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund, established pursuant to Section 36005.

Note that color and emphasis was copied from the actual bill. The wording pasted into AB-1227 is the entirety of “AB-1223, Firearms and ammunition: excise tax”. That bill was introduced in February of 2021 and did not advance past the committee stage.

Legislation

Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

This bill would require 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 bill was introduced and read the first time on 2 February, 2022. It has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. Failed in Education committee on first vote, but reconsideration was granted. April 7, from committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and re-referred to committee on Education. The Senate Education Committee voted five to one on April 25 to recommend a “do pass” and re-referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. At an Appropriations Committee hearing on May 9 this bill was placed in the Suspense file.

 Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

Since the “no gun shows on state property” bill last session was eventually amended to only apply to Orange County, this is a new one to again try to make the ban statewide. This bill has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. A hearing was held March 8 in the Public Safety Committee, who voted 4 to 1 to forward with a “do pass” recommendation and referred to the Appropriations committee. April 4, heard before the Appropriations committee and placed in suspense file.

 

 

Assembly Bill 311 Firearms: Del Mar Fairgrounds

Prohibit guns shows and sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Passed by the Assembly and referred to the Senate. Currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense file.

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. Amended and recommended “do pass” from Public Safety Committee. Referred to Appropriations Committee and currently is in that committee’s Suspense file.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms: prohibited places

This bill would prohibit the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition at the Ventura County Fair and Events Center. Referred to the Public Safety Committee. Moved from the Public Safety Committee with “do pass” and referred to Appropriations Committee. Appropriations Committee had their first hearing and referred the bill to the suspense file.

Senate Bill 1327 Firearms: private rights of action

This bill would create 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. This bill was introduced in the Senate February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to committees on Judiciary, Public Safety, and Appropriations. Moved from Judiciary Committee with “do pass”. Passed on with a “do pass” recommendation by the Public Safety Committee on April 26. Referred to the Appropriations committee and is currently in that committee’s Suspense file.

AB-1594 Firearms: civil suits.

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms. This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices. Referred to the Judiciary Committee. Amended and moved from Judiciary Committee with a “do pass” and re-referred to Appropriations Committee, where it currently sits in that committee’s suspense file.

Senate Bill 1386 Firearms: concealed carry licenses

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would instead require the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun.

Introduced by Senator Melendez on February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to the Public Safety Committee and set for hearing April 5, but hearing was cancelled at the request of the author.

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

Litigation

Jones v Bonta: Today (May 11) a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the California age-based firearm 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. Details next month.

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.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster is being considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. This case has also been distributed for review to the justices and will be considered for certiorari.

Doe v Bonta is a new lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations”. Information has already been given to UC Davis.

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

April 2022 Legislative/Litigation Update

Apple Valley Gun Club

April 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Focus for April: ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F

At the President’s direction, the ATF is issuing new regulation on Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, Final Rule 2021R-05F.

In brief, this regulation change changes some definitions and provides some new definitions.

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” was a removed and replaced to address “technological advancements and judicial developments” since the definitions were originally set forth in 1968 and 1971. The new definition identifies only one part of a firearm to be the “frame” or “receiver” that requires a serial number. It is the part that provides housing or a structure for one specific, primary fire control component of weapons that a projectile.

The rule change grandfathers in existing classifications of frames or receivers and allows them to be marked in accordance with existing requirements. Partially complete, disassembled, or non-functional frames or receivers, including parts kits, that the ATF did not classify as frames or receivers prior to the rule are not grandfathered and will need to be re-evaluated.

The rule also amends the definition of “firearm” to “clarify when a parts kit is considered a firearm”.

This rule also adds definitions for “complete weapon”, “privately made firearm (PMF)” and “readily”.

Federal Firearm Licensees will be required to retain their records until they discontinue their business or licensed activity.

The changes take effect in August.

To see the official summary: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver/summary

Legislation

Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

This bill would require 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 bill was introduced and read the first time on 2 February, 2022. It has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. Failed in Education committee on first vote, but reconsideration was granted. April 7, from committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and re-referred to committee on Education. Set for a hearing before Public Safety Committee on April 26.

To read SB906

 Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

Since the “no gun shows on state property” bill last session was eventually amended to only apply to Orange County, this is a new one to again try to make the ban statewide. This bill has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. A hearing was held March 8 in the Public Safety Committee, who voted 4 to 1 to forward with a “Do pass” recommendation and referred to the Appropriations committee. April 4, heard before the Appropriations committee and placed in suspense file.

To read SB915

Assembly Bill 311 Firearms: Del Mar Fairgrounds

Prohibit guns shows and sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Passed by the Assembly and now in process in the Senate.

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. Amended and recommended “do pass” from Public Safety Committee. Referred to Appropriations Committee.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms: prohibited places

This bill would prohibit the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition at the Ventura County Fair and Events Center. Referred to the Public Safety Committee. Moved from the Public Safety Committee with “do pass” and referred to Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 1327 Firearms: private rights of action

This bill would create 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. This bill was introduced in the Senate February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to committees on Judiciary, Public Safety, and Appropriations. Moved from Judiciary Committee with “do pass”. Set for hearing in Public Safety Committee on April 26.

AB-1594 Firearms: civil suits.

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms. This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices. Referred to the Judiciary Committee. Amended and moved from Judiciary Committee with a “do pass” and re-referred to Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 1386 Firearms: concealed carry licenses

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would instead require the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun.

Introduced by Senator Melendez on February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to the Public Safety Committee and set for hearing April 5, but hearing was cancelled at the request of the author.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms

This bill would remove the microstamping requirement for a firearm to be included on the handgun roster and would remove the requirement for the department to remove 3 firearms from the roster for each new firearm added. Introduced January 24 and may be heard February 24. Referred to the Public Safety Committee. Moved from the Public Safety Committee with “do pass” and referred to Appropriations Committee. Referred to Appropriations suspense file.

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

Litigation

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.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster is being considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. This case has also been distributed for review to the justices and will be considered for certiorari.

Doe v Bonta is a new lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations”. Information has already been given to UC Davis.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

March 2022 Legislative/Litigation Update

Apple Valley Gun Club

March 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Focus for March:

Starting July 1, 2022, anyone purchasing “precursor parts”, which may be made into a firearm, will have to purchase them from, or conduct private transfers through, a state licensed dealer. Residents of California will not be able to bring precursor parts obtained in another state into California; they must be delivered to a licensed dealer. There will be specific licenses for precursor parts dealers. Precursor parts may also be purchased from a state licensed firearm or ammunition dealer. The process requires an eligibility check essentially the same as currently used for ammunition. There is no waiting period.

Precursor parts may not be transferred to anyone under 21, starting July 1. Anyone prohibited from owning a firearm will also be prohibited from owning precursor parts.

California Penal Code section 30400 to 30425

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=10.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=1.5.&article=1.

There has been a lot of confusion and bad information about what constitutes a “precursor part”, due to other bills which would have included a lot more parts, but did not pass. The bill that passed and established the definition includes only partially finished receivers, frames, and equivalent, which are finished 80% or less.

Note that a receiver or frame more than 80% complete (finished lower, stripped lower, finished frame, etc.) is considered a firearm under state and federal regulations and there will be no change in their purchase.

California Penal Code section 16531 says:  

(a) As used in this part, “firearm precursor part” means a component of a firearm that is necessary to build or assemble a firearm and is described in either of the following categories:

(1) An unfinished receiver, including both a single part receiver and a multiple part receiver, such as a receiver in an AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm. An unfinished receiver includes a receiver tube, a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver, a metallic casting, a metallic forging, and a receiver flat, such as a Kalashnikov-style weapons system, Kalashnikov-style receiver channel, or a Browning-style receiver side plate.

(2) An unfinished handgun frame.

(b) The Department of Justice, consistent with this section, shall provide written guidance and pictorial diagrams demonstrating each category of firearm precursor part specified in subdivision (a).

(c) Firearm parts that can only be used on antique firearms, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 16170, are not firearm precursor parts.

(d) A firearm precursor part is not a firearm or the frame or receiver thereof. A firearm precursor part that is attached or affixed to a firearm is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 30400) of Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 or Section 18010.

California Penal Code Section 16531

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=16531

Firearm Precursor Part Identification Guide

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ppdg-doc-inc-ref-bof-pub-0022.pdf

Legislation

Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

This bill would require 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 bill was introduced and read the first time on 2 February, 2022. It has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. Set for hearing March 23.

To read SB906

 Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

Since the “no gun shows on state property” bill last session was eventually amended to only apply to Orange County, this is a new one to again try to make the ban statewide. This bill has been fast-tracked to the Senate Education and Public Safety committees. A hearing was held March 8 in the Public Safety Committee, who voted 4 to 1 to forward with a “Do pass” recommendation and referred to the Appropriations committee.

To read SB915

Assembly Bill 311 Firearms: Del Mar Fairgrounds

Prohibit guns shows and sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Passed by the Assembly and now in process in the Senate.

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.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms: prohibited places

This bill would prohibit the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition at the Ventura County Fair and Events Center. Referred to the Public Safety Committee.

Senate Bill 1327 Firearms: private rights of action

This bill would create 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. This bill was introduced in the Senate February 18, and fast-tracked the same day. Referred to committees on Judiciary, Public Safety, and Appropriations.

AB-1594 Firearms: civil suits.

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms. This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices. Referred to the Judiciary Committee.

 

Senate Bill 1386 Firearms: concealed carry licenses

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would instead require the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun.

Introduced by Senator Melendez on February 18, and fast-tracked the same day.

Assembly Bill 1769 Firearms

This bill would remove the microstamping requirement for a firearm to be included on the handgun roster and would remove the requirement for the department to remove 3 firearms from the roster for each new firearm added. Introduced January 24 and may be heard February 24. Referred to the Public Safety Committee.

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

Litigation

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.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster is being considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. This case has also been distributed for review to the justices and will be considered for certiorari.

Doe v Bonta is a new lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations”. Information has already been given to UC Davis.

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

February 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Apple Valley Gun Club

Focus for February

Senate Bill 906: School safety: mass casualty threats: firearm disclosure

This bill would require the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to develop model content for use by local education agencies related to a threat or perceived threat of an incident of mass casualties at a school. Using the model content, this bill would have the local agency require 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. The bill would also require the school to include information related to the safe storage of firearms in the annual notification provided to the parents or guardians of a pupil. If a school official is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat of an incident, the bill requires an immediate report to law enforcement. The education agency is required to conduct an investigation, including a review of the parent or guardian’s disclosure form, and a search of the pupil or pupil’s property if there is a reasonable suspicion that a gun or other evidence will be found. This bill was introduced and read the first time on 2 February, 2022.

Remember that last year the “red flag” laws were amended to add school officials to those who have standing to request a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” and have guns “temporarily” confiscated.

To read the bill:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=20212022SB906

Legislation

Senate Bill 915 Firearms: state property

Since the “no gun shows on state property” bill last session was eventually amended to only apply to Orange County, this is a new one to again try to make the ban statewide.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=20212022SB915

Assembly Bill 1223: Firearms and ammunition: excise tax
No action was taken by the deadline for the third reading and this bill died on February first. This would have applied 10% and 11% excise taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition.

Regulation
The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) has issued a rule that requires gun retailers to carry storage or safety devices for any gun they offer for sale. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule was published May 26, 2016. This rule was published in the Federal Register 4 January and became effective 3 February, 2022. This is implementing regulation for language in the budget bill passed in 1999. The ATF rule includes modern muzzle loading black powder firearms in the definition for “antique and replica” firearms.

The rulemaking document:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/2022-01-04/pdf/2021-28398.pdf

Updates

The ATF rule changing the definitions of what constitutes a gun will likely be issued in June and the ATF rule on pistol braces will likely be issued in August.

Note: the Los Angeles city council has introduced a proposed ordinance patterned after the ordinance in San Jose that requires gun owners to pay fees and carry insurance.

Litigation

In January a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Los Angeles and Ventura county orders shutting down gun stores and shooting ranges were unconstitutional. Completely denying access to firearms and ammunition is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment. The court said that considering gun related businesses to be non-essential was not appropriate. The county orders were issued in March of 2020, in response to the COVID pandemic.

An amicus brief was filed this week on behalf of thirteen states and the District of Columbia supporting the lawsuit by Mexico against a number of US gun manufacturers and distributors. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is one of the signers.

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 filed with the Supreme Court.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster is being considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”. This case has also been distributed for review to the justices and will be considered for certiorari.

Doe v Bonta is a new lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations”. Information has already been given to UC Davis.

Respectfully submitted,
David Smith

January 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

Apple Valley Gun Club

Focus for January: California Assembly Bill 1594

AB-1594 is the beginning of the plan rolled out by Governor Newsom to allow third parties to sue members of the gun industry and make lawsuits against them generally easier to file. This appears to be an avenue to circumvent the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA).

More legislation is expected to be introduced to take this further. Updates to follow.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) has proposed a regulation that would require gun retailers to carry storage or safety devices for any gun they offer for sale. This could be safes, trigger locks, etc. This is another ATF proposed rulemaking that is not based on any change in legislation. This could increase costs for FFLs, and open the potential for more regulatory action. The notice also includes an ATF proposal to include modern muzzle loading black powder firearms in the definition for “antique and replica” firearms.

Litigation

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, know currently as “Duncan v Bonta”, challenged the ban of possession of large capacity magazines that was approved by California voters in Prop 63. The ruling issued November 30, 2021, overturns the ruling of the U.S. District Court of Southern California that was issued by Judge Roger Benitez. Judge Benitez’ ruling was stayed after a period known as “Freedom Week”. Estimates run up to a million large capacity magazines being purchased during that week, which will remain illegal due to this ruling by the 9th Circuit.

Enforcement of the ban was stayed since it is expected the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a temporary stay for 150 days but will be extended if a petition is filed with the Supreme Court.

Other cases, including Rupp v Bonta, challenging the California Assault Weapons ban was pended to Duncan v Bonta, but the three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard that case has indicated it will be pended to the Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Renna v Bonta on the California handgun roster will be considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court for the first time this Friday, 1/14. Four justices are needed for the court to hear a case.

Bianchi v Frosh has been appealed to the Supreme Court and will also be considered. This suit challenges the Maryland ban on “assault weapons”.

Doe v Bonta is a new lawsuit filed by the NRA to block the release of gun owner’s personal information to UC Davis and other, unspecified, “research organizations”.

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

December 2021 Legislative Report

Apple Valley Gun Club

December 2021 Legislation/Litigation Update

Focus for December:

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, know currently as “Duncan v Bonta”, challenged the ban of possession of large capacity magazines that was approved by California voters in Prop 63. The ruling issued November 30, 2021, overturns the ruling of the U.S. District Court of Southern California that was issued by Judge Roger Benitez. Judge Benitez’ ruling was stayed after a period known as “Freedom Week”. Estimates run up to a million large capacity magazines being purchased during that week, which will remain illegal due to this ruling by the 9th Circuit.

Manufacture, importation, and transfers of large capacity magazines have been banned by Penal Code section 32310 (A) since January 1, 2000. In 2016, Proposition 63 added subsection (C) which bans possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. That subsection was to take effect July 1, 2017, but was stayed pending the outcome of this lawsuit.

Enforcement of the ban was stayed as part of the court actions in Duncan v Bonta, but with the Appeals Court ruling that stay may be lifted. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee they will agree to hear it.

Another case, Rupp v Bonta, challenging the California Assault Weapons ban was pended to Duncan v Bonta, but the three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard that case has indicated it will be pended to the Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

For the exact wording of the large capacity magazine ban:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawcode=PEN&sectionNum=32310

For the definition of “large capacity magazine under the California Penal Code:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawcode=PEN&sectionNum=16740

Note that manufacture, import, transfer, or possession of large capacity magazines is banned under California Penal Code section 32310, the enforcement of the ban on possession has been temporarily stayed.

Potential Legislative Action

California Governor Gavin Newsom has stated that he wants the legislature to pass a law patterned after the Texas Abortion law, but applying to “assault weapons, ghost guns, and ghost gun parts”. This would allow private citizens to sue anyone who makes or sells those items, and allows the person who sues to collect a minimum of $10,000 from the lawsuit. This is currently only a talking point, but it could be introduced when the legislature is back in session.

Respectfully submitted,
David Smith