March 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

March Focus

Nguyen v Bonta, is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order is still to be drafted and has been stayed 30 days to facilitate an appeal. This is a very positive step on a long path.

Two particularly troublesome bills!

SB 1160, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms: annual registration of firearms.

Existing law requires the sale or transfer of any firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law requires a licensed firearms dealer to record specified information regarding each firearm sale or transfer and to submit that information to the Department of Justice. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain keep and maintain this and other specified information relating to firearms within the state. This bill would require every firearm in the state, except those specifically exempted, to be annually registered with the department. The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry. The bill would require the department to establish and maintain a system for the annual registration of firearms and would require the department to make registration information available to other law enforcement agencies, as specified. The bill would require the department to make reasonable efforts to notify firearms dealers, firearm owners, and the general public regarding registration requirements.

This bill would specify that registration shall not be deemed evidence that the registrant is lawfully permitted to own or possess the registered firearm nor that they are the lawful owner of the firearm. The bill would also, consistent with existing federal law, prohibit the use of certain federal records in establishing or enforcing the registry. This bill would prohibit possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of which would be punishable as an infraction.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing April 2.

AB 3067, as introduced, Gipson. Residential property insurance: firearms.

Existing law generally regulates residential property insurance, including homeowners’ insurance and renters’ insurance.

Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms. Existing law requires persons who obtain firearms to have familiarity with those firearms, including the safe handling and storage of firearms. Existing law requires a purchaser or receiver of a firearm to hold a valid firearm safety certificate.

This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature beginning on January 1, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report.

Referred to Committee on Insurance.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

 

Legislation

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms: safety devices.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of ²/₃ of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

AB 3014, as introduced, Irwin. Restrictions on firearm possession.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition.

This bill would additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon if the person is admitted to a mental health facility and the mental health professional who is treating the person determines that the person is a danger to themself or others and requires the professional to report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of the person, as specified. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement agency to temporarily confiscate any firearm or other deadly weapon that the person possesses while the person is admitted, as specified. Existing law requires the confiscating law enforcement agency to initiate a petition in the superior court within 30 days of the person being released from the facility for a hearing to determine whether the return of the firearm or other deadly weapon would be likely to result in endangering the person or others, as specified.

This bill would additionally allow a mental health practitioner to report the identity of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon to a district attorney and would additionally authorize a district attorney to file the petition to determine if the person should continue to be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing March 19.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing March 19.

AB 851, as amended, McCarty. Firearms. Firearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

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

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

This bill would authorize the City of Sacramento to establish a pilot program that would, until January 1, 2029, declare a specified area of the city to be a gun free zone. The bill would, in addition to any other applicable offense, make possession of a firearm within this area punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would provide specified exemptions.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would, upon completion of the pilot program, require the city to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1047, as amended, Maienschein. Firearms purchase notification registry.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to a registry that would advise friends and family members a licensed behavioral health clinician of the person’s attempt to purchase a firearm during the 10-day waiting period. The bill would, at the time of registration, require the registrant to add up to 5 list the email addresses of family or friends address of a licensed behavioral health clinician and would require the department, as soon as practicable but within the 10-day waiting period, to provide notice by email to the provided addresses address that the registrant is in the process of purchasing a firearm, the registrant voluntarily added their name to the registry, and the purpose of the registry is for a third party to potentially intervene and prevent the registrant from purchasing a firearm.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

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

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

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

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

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

This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list.

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

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity as part of a “gun-buyback” program be sold or destroyed.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation prohibiting the resale of confiscated firearms and firearms obtained through buyback programs, in whole or in part, in California.

May be heard in committee March 17.

SB 8, as amended, Blakespear. Firearms liability insurance.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm, as specified, to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop a written test required for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate. Existing law makes the violation of specified requirements with regard to firearms a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2025, require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, 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.

The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate under rule 56.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. Existing law, with additional exceptions, makes it a crime to, among other things, overwork, cruelly beat, or overload an animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing April 2.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices and is properly engaged so as to render it inaccessible by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

January 29, 2024, passed by the Senate (Ayes 27, Noes 9). Ordered to the Assembly and held at desk.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.

Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature to require persons who obtain firearms to have a basic familiarity with those firearms including the safe handling and storage of those firearms. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature not to require a firearm safety certificate for the mere possession of a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop and periodically update a study guide and written test for a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires an applicant to pass the written test to obtain or renew a firearm safety certificate. Existing law authorizes a fee of $25 to obtain or renew a firearm safety certificate. Existing law provides that a firearm safety certificate shall expire 5 years after the date of issuance.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, prohibit a person from possessing a firearm without the possession of a valid, unexpired firearm safety certificate. A violation of this prohibition would be punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 60 days after arriving in the state. The bill would allow a person with an expired certificate a 60-day grace period in which to renew the certificate. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify certificate holders in a timely manner when their certificates are expiring.

February 29, 2024, referred to the Committee on Public Safety. Set for a hearing April 2.

SB 1038, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.

(1) Existing law, as enacted by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm that the person owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 5 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, as specified.

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act.

This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a person to report the loss or theft within 2 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

(2) Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

This bill would require the department to inspect the 25 firearm dealer locations in the annual report that are the source or origin of the most firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified.

(3) Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements, that every dealer keep a record of electronic or telephonic transfers of firearms.

This bill would require a firearm dealer to annually certify their inventory to a local law enforcement agency in their jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would authorize a city attorney or county counsel to impose a civil penalty on a person who violates this provision in the amount of $3,000 per day for the first violation, $5,000 per day for a 2nd violation, and $10,000 per day for a 3rd and subsequent violation, as specified.

(4) Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, a firearm dealer to report an acquisition of a firearm to the Department of Justice, as specified.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, remove specified exceptions to those provisions.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committees on Public Safety and Judiciary. Scheduled for hearing March 19.

AB 1507, as introduced, Gallagher. Firearms: state property.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other things, requiring transactions of firearms to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law generally makes a violation of the requirements relating to the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor.

Existing law, except as specifically exempted, prohibits an officer, employee, operator, lessee, or licensee of the 32nd District Agricultural Association, as defined, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the OC Fair and Event Center, as specified.

Existing 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, as specified.

This bill would additionally exempt events hosted by a youth sport shooting organization, a youth hunting organization, or a nonprofit conservation organization.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1982, as amended, Mathis. Firearm safety certificate: exemptions.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate, with specified exemptions, including active or honorably retired members of the armed forces, as specified, where individuals in those organizations are properly identified. Under existing law, proper identification includes the Armed Forces Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that the individual is an active or honorably retired member of the armed forces.

This bill would additionally include the Veteran Health Identification Card issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs as proper identification for the above provisions.

February 16, 2024, re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

January 25, 2024, passed by the Assembly (Ayes 56, Noes 6). In Senate and assigned to Committee on Rules.

SB 1472, as introduced, Limón. Firearms: determination of eligibility.

Existing law prohibits specified persons from purchasing or possessing a firearm including persons convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanor offenses, persons subject to certain court orders, and persons with certain mental health determinations. Existing law requires a person purchasing or receiving a firearm to undergo a background check to determine that they are not so prohibited. Existing law also provides a procedure by which a person may request a determination of eligibility from the Department of Justice before attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that law.

February 29, 2024, referred to Committee on Rules.

SB 587, as introduced, Roth. Firearms.

Existing law requires any person producing or operating a gun show, as specified, to obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice. Existing law prescribes various requirements and prohibitions regarding the operation of a gun show. Existing law provides that the provisions regulating gun shows to not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to a law enforcement agency, as specified.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that exemption.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

AB 2691, as introduced, Quirk-Silva. Firearms.

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

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

May be heard in Committee March 16.

 

Litigation

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel has been scheduled for March 19, 2024.

Miller v Bonta was heard by the US District court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger Benitez, who again found elements of California’s “assault weapons” restrictions unconstitutional. On October 28, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of that decision. Currently the restrictions in California Penal Code section 30515 remain in effect. The three-judge panel set to hear this case has pended it to the Duncan v Bonta case which will be heard by an “En Banc” panel of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit. Duncan v Bonta deals with a different second amendment topic but may set precedent on how to decide second amendment cases in the Ninth Circuit.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case will be returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction. The district court has not yet acted on the case, and we are waiting for a hearing date or issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith