November 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update Litigation

The California Legislature and US Congress are not in session.

B&L Productions v Newsom

In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.

CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.

The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places:

• Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Public Libraries
• Amusement Parks
• Zoos and Museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
• Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the

It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.

The CRPA, et al, have filed an appeal for an En Banc review of the partial reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.

Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.

Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)

This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference to determine if the case will be granted certiorari by the Supreme court, to possibly be heard during the current term.

Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos

The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Defendants appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the court has granted certiorari, with the case to be heard in the term that began October 7.

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal October 8. Note that this is not a Second Amendment case and may have little or no effect in California.

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 firearm in thirty days limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed pending appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel. Oral arguments were held August 14. The three-judge merits panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that they would uphold the trial court ruling that the one in thirty rationing is unconstitutional. The panel further vacated the stay on that ruling imposed by the Ninth Circuit motions panel. At the time this report is published the ruling

has not been issued, but due to the stay being vacated it is currently legal to purchase as many firearms as you can afford. After the three-judge panel issues their final ruling, the state may appeal to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit Court accepts an appeal for an En Banc review the ruling of the three-judge panel would be vacated and an eleven-judge panel would re-hear the case. At that time, they could reinstate the stay of the trial court ruling and we would be back to the one firearm purchase in thirty days limit.

United States v Duarte

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents on “the left coast” was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.

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 was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.

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 ruled the district court erred 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 was returned to the district court to reconsider 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 on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court ordered briefs be filed by September 13, 2024. We are waiting for further action.

Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith