LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
Brought To You By Club Member, David Smith
***David Smith is not an attorney licensed to practice law in California and may not give legal advice or accept fees for legal advice***
June Legislation/Litigation Update
Legislation
Assembly Bill 3058, to change storage requirements in a vehicle, has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety committee.
Assembly Bill 3071, to require lead free ammunition at shooting ranges, has been suspended and then referred to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. This bears close scrutiny.
There are several bills advancing to modify the “Red Flag Law” and provide training to law enforcement on implementing Red Flag Orders.
After the AVGC meeting on Wednesday, the California Assembly passed anti-gun bills AB 2362 and AB 2847. The bills will now move to the Senate for further consideration.
AB 2362, sponsored by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (D-66), authorizes the Department of Justice to levy monetary fines of up to $1,000 on licensed firearms dealers for minor technical violations. This bill is an obvious attempt to drive dealers out of business for inconsequential violations.
AB 2847, sponsored by Assembly Member David Chiu (D-17), revises the criteria for handguns to be certified for sale by requiring a microstamp in one place on the interior of the handgun (current law requires two imprinting locations). The bill also requires the removal of three certified handguns from the roster for each new handgun added. It should be noted that no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the handgun roster since microstamping was imposed in 2013.
Next week the Senate Appropriations Committee will move bills off the suspense file and to the floor. Anti-gun SB 914 will be eligible for a vote.
SB 914, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), limits when a hunting license satisfies the requirements for purchasing a long gun for those under 21 by requiring the license to be currently valid. This means an individual who has purchased a license for an upcoming season will not satisfy the requirements of the bill. Additionally, SB 914 narrows the exemptions of loans of long-guns to minors and raises the fees the California Department of Justice can charge for eligibility checks on certain ammunition purchases and precursor parts.
Litigation
In Rhode v Becerra, challenging California’s ammunition sales restrictions, on April 24 the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that vacated the Prop 63 requirements for background checks and ammunition dealers licensing, etc. The judge ruled that the restrictions as an unconstitutional infringement, and an unconstitutional restriction on interstate purchases. Later on April 24 the 9th District Court of Appeals issued an Emergency Stay on the Preliminary Injunction, pending appeal. The case is now pending before the 9th Circuit, and background checks, limit on internet purchases, interstate purchases, etc. are back in place.
Duncan v Becerra, challenging California’s ban of magazines holding more than ten rounds, is still pending a decision from a three judge panel of the 9th circuit.
Miller v Becerra, challenging the California “Assault Weapon” ban is still pending a new hearing date before the US District Court for the Southern District Of California. This case was scheduled for a hearing March 19, but delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
The Supreme court decided the NYC rifle and pistol case was moot, due to New York City changing their ordinance after the court granted certiorari (said they would hear the case). The ordinance only allowed a licensed gun owner to take their firearm outside their home to go to one of six designated ranges in the city. They could not take the firearm out of their house to go anywhere else.
This opened the way for some other cases that were delayed pending that case to move forward. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will likely hold an En Banc hearing on a lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s “may issue” concealed carry law. The Hawaii law is so restrictive that they effectively do not issue concealed carry permits.
The US Supreme Court does have ten other second amendment cases under consideration, and may decide shortly to hear one or more of them. There is an expectation that the court will hear one or more, and use the case to clarify the application of previous rulings.
The cases they are considering:
is a challenge to California’s microstamping law and handgun roster, which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns, but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state.
is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns.
..and all deal with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit, while takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland.
challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license, while takes on the Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.
David P Smith
NAR 78668, TRA 15803, L2
Amateur Extra, W6DPS, VE and Registered Instructor
https://www.qsl.net/w6dps