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

July 2022 Legislation/Litigation Update

July Focus: Assembly Bill 2571: An act to add Chapter 39 (commencing with Section 22949.80) to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to firearms, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

This law prohibits a firearm industry member, as defined, from advertising or marketing any firearm-related product, as defined, in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The law also prohibits a firearm industry member from using, disclosing, or compiling a minor’s personal information if it is intended to market or advertise a firearm to that minor, as specified. The legal analysis from CRPA indicates holding or advertising gun related events for youths may be prohibited by the new law also, and AVGC has suspended youth programs as a result. The law imposes a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation of these provisions, and would authorize a person harmed by a violation to bring suit to recover any damages suffered, as specified. The law makes each copy or republication of marketing or advertising prohibited by these provisions a separate violation. Signed by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on June 30, 2022. This law became effective immediately.

Note that CRPA has filed suit to block this law.

Legislation

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 law specifies 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. Signed by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on June 30, 2022. This law became effective July 1, 2023.

AB-1621 Firearms: unserialized firearms.

This law requires any person in possession of an unserialized firearm to apply to the department for a unique mark of identification and to affix that mark to the firearm before January 1, 2024. This law, commencing on January 1, 2024, explicitly prohibit the possession or transfer of a firearm without a serial number or mark of identification. This law authorizes a new resident of the state to, within 60 days after arrival in the state, request a unique mark or identification for any unserialized firearm that is otherwise valid to possess in the state. This law also prohibits the possession, sale, transfer, or use of specified firearms manufacturing equipment, with exceptions for specified entities, including the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Guard, and law enforcement, as specified. Signed by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on June 30, 2022. This law became effective July 1, 2023.

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. There are numerous other provisions in SB-918, as amended, and more details will be provided in next month’s report.

Passed in the Assembly, amended in the Senate, and currently at the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

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 passed by both houses of the legislature, and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

 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 make the ban statewide. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

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, and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

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. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature, and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

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. 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, and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

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.

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.

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

Rupp 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 vacate the dismissal and prepare for trial.

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. This would uphold Judge Benitez’ ruling that the California Assault Weapon bans are unconstitutional.

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 is complicated and in process. I hope to understand what is going on and report on this next month.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

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.

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 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 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 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

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