California Legal Update | December 2018

Case Status: The case was filed on April 26, 2018, in response to Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235’s restrictions regarding the sale and transfer of ammunition in California. The lawsuit challenges these restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as a violation of the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

What's Next: The State filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the District Court. The case is now in the discovery phase of litigation.

Case Status: The case was filed on April 24, 2017, in response to SB 880 and AB 1135. It challenges California’s entire “assault weapon” ban as violating the Second Amendment and due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion to prevent the State from requiring individuals to provide the date they acquired their firearms and the name and address of the person from whom they acquired them, as a condition of registration, but that motion was denied on May 9, 2018.

What's Next: The case is currently in the discovery phase of litigation. 

Case Status: The case was filed in response to SB 1446 and Prop 63. It challenges California’s ban on the acquisition and possession of magazines over ten rounds. On June 29, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the newly enacted possession ban while the case is litigated. The State immediately appealed the injunction order. In July 2018, the Ninth circuit upheld the issuance of the injunction. 

What's Next: The case is currently pending a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which was argued in May 2018. If summary judgment is granted, the injunction will become permanent, but the State is likely to appeal.

Case Status: The case was filed on September 8, 2017, in response to California DOJ adopting regulations concerning newly classified “assault weapons” under SB 880 and AB 1135. It challenges the regulations under California’s Administrative Procedure Act because they were enacted without legislative authority and without any input from members of the public. 

What's Next: On May 30, 2018, the court issued an order upholding the regulations as valid. Plaintiffs will soon be filing an appeal in California’s 5th District Court of Appeal.

(Formerly Flanagan v. Harris)

Case Status: The case was filed on August 17, 2016, as a direct response to Peruta. It seeks to force the court to decide whether it is willing to uphold a complete prohibition on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In May 2018, the court issued a decision granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

What's Next: Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and the State has filed a petition to have the case heard initially by an 11-judge “en banc” panel along with the Young v. Hawaii lawsuit.

(formerly Gentry v. Harris)

Case Status: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the DROS fee is an invalid tax. On August 9, 2017, the district court issued a ruling granting Plaintiffs’ request to prohibit DOJ from using DROS fees to fund unrelated law enforcement efforts and requiring DOJ to perform its statutorily required review of the current $19 fee to determine whether it is “no more than necessary to fund” DOJ’s costs for processing DROS transactions.

What's Next: A final trial in this case is currently scheduled for January 18, 2019.

Case Status: In December 2016, because of Prop 63, the California Supreme Court dismissed its review of a Court of Appeal opinion affirming the trial court’s order striking down AB 962. The Court of Appeal’s decision is now the final opinion in the case, and Plaintiffs are seeking their attorneys’ fees against the State.

What's Next: The trial court partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees for work in the trial court. As a result, the parties are currently negotiating a total fee award.

Case Status: The federal district court upheld the Roster in 2015. Plaintiffs appealed, and oral arguments were held on March 16, 2017. NRA and CRPA filed an amicus brief in the case on July 27, 2015. On August 3, 2018, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Roster.

What's Next: Plaintiffs have requested additional time to file a petition with the United States Supreme Court to rehear the case, which is currently due December 31, 2018.

(formerly Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Harris)

Case Status: In July 2015, the district court denied a request to prohibit enforcement while the case proceeds. That decision was appealed, and in February 2016 the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s order within two weeks of oral arguments. However, following the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the district court issued a permanent injunction.

What's Next: As a result of the permanent injunction, California is now prohibited from enforcing its arbitrary and ineffective handgun ad ban.

Case Status: In December 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in favor of NSSF, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in the lower court. But in June 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed, upholding the trial court’s judgment in favor of the State. NSSF Petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider its opinion, but that petition was denied in August 2018.

What's Next: As a result of the California Supreme Court opinion, the case is now closed. Other potential challenges to California’s microstamping requirements are currently being considered.

Case Status: On February 21, 2017, an “en banc” panel of the 4th Circuit issued an opinion upholding Maryland’s ban that referred to America’s most popular types of rifles as “exceptionally lethal weapons of war.” Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, but that petition was denied on November 27, 2017.

What's Next: Although the “en banc” decision is now final, other lawsuits challenging similar restrictions (such as Rupp) are currently pending, and will provide another opportunity for the Supreme Court hear an “assault weapon” lawsuit.

Case Status: On July 25, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision declaring Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting D.C. from enforcing the requirement.

On September 28, the D.C. Circuit denied Washington D.C.’s request for rehearing.

What's Next: On October 5, 2015, Washington D.C.’s Attorney General decided to not petition the case to the United States Supreme Court. As a result, Washington D.C. is now effectively a “shall-issue” jurisdiction.

Description: In May 2018, the Arcata City Council considered new ordinance for gun safety which include mandatory lock storage and reporting of lost and stolen firearms.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA drafted responses in opposition to the ordinance based on constitutional issues and an inability of law enforcement to enforce these types of laws.

Current Status: There was no action for several months and on September 18th the Council voted to adopt the new ordinance.

Description: In March 2018, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel to draft an ordinance prohibiting gun shows on county-owned property. In May 2018 the Board proposed an ordinance on the agenda.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal. County Board of Supervisors is set to consider ordinance at June 5^th meeting. Adopted Ordinance No. NS-624.8-Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition on County Property.

Current Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring county agenda and further action.

Description: For months the Del Mar gun show has been under siege from groups seeking to end the show. On September 11, 2018 the Del Mar Fair Board of Directors voted to institute an up to one year moratorium on gun shows beginning in 2019 while they “study the safety” of the gun show.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA called on members and Second Amendment supporters to attend and have your voices heard. They wrote letters and provided testimony regarding the safe and lawful activity of the gun show for over 30 years.

Current Status: With the passage of the moratorium, NRA, CRPA, and other groups are looking to challenge this unconstitutional attack on your rights. Watch for more information as available.

Description: In May the Ventura County Fair Board considered contracts for upcoming gun shows in 2018 and 2018. They approved the remaining 2018 shows to move forward. At the September 25, 2018 Board meeting, in a room of more than 100 gun show supporters, they considered the future of gun shows at the Ventura Fair facility.

LOP Response:  This is a concerted effort by anti-gun groups to end gun shows in California. They are working with the national groups to make a statement that “we just don’t need” gun shows. NRA and CRPA are fighting against these groups and the false narrative. Over 100 members and supporters of the Second Amendment flooded the Board room and provided testimony and written comments to the Board.

Current Status: The Board set up an ad hoc committee of two members to look at the safety issues with gun shows even though there are none at the Ventura guns show. They will report back at their October Board meeting and consider further action. Contact the Board members and CEO and tell them you support keeping the gun show in Ventura.

Description: At the state level the California Legislature passed a bill that would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace state venue as part of the concerted effort by opposition groups.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA have drafted letters to Legislators and letters of opposition to the Governor encouraging a veto of such an ill-conceived piece of legislation that violates constitutional rights.

Current Status: Proposed legislation to stop gun shows at the Cow Palace was vetoed by Governor Brown, but anti-gun groups are still in full force trying to influence the Cow Palace Board. NRA and CRPA are monitoring and continue to send vital information to the Board on behalf of members and clients.

Description: Many Orange County residents to this day are still confused as to the specific requirements for obtaining a CCW in Orange County.

LOP Response: Prepared a comprehensive guide discussing the entire application process for obtaining a CCW in Orange County, including what is required to satisfy the Sheriff’s “good cause” policy.

Current Status: NRA and CRPA are working hard to bring "shall-issue" to California. In the meantime, CRPA will continue to provide gun owners with helpful guides on how they can apply for a CCW in their respective county of residence.

Description: For months the Orange County Fair Board has considered the future of gun shows at the venue.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to attend meeting and voice opposition. Submitted letters of opposition informing the Fair Board of the serious legal issues with discriminating against a segment of the population just because some do not like the legal activity.

Current Status: The Orange County Fair Board has agreed to move forward with gun shows at the venue at this time. NRA and CRPA will continue to monitor.

Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records in connection with any anti-gun efforts in California. Such efforts include proposed anti-gun ordinances, gun buyback programs, and other anti-gun regulatory enforcement issues.

LOP Response: Responses to these requests often yield valuable results, such as which members of a local government entity are working with anti-gun groups, sources of funding, and other important information.

Current Status: Ongoing. NRA and CRPA attorneys monitor and review thousands of pages of public records requests each month.

Description: City of Morgan Hill- recommend to draft ordinances on duty to report theft or lost firearms, safe storage ordinance while in home, prohibit possession of LCM, require permit to conduct retail sales

LOP Response: CRPA and NRA Attorneys submitted a letter in advance of actual ordinance language being introduced to inform city of the problems with the proposal. August 2018 there was no action on agenda. Next meeting is October 3, 2018.

Status: Even though the City was alerted to their unconstitutional actions and members at the meeting in opposition to the ordinance far outweighed those in support of it, the City moved forward with the Ordinance in November 2018. NRA and CRPA are looking at potential legal action against the city currently.

Description: In August 2018 the City of Sunnyvale passed an ordinance to prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a semi-automatic firearm.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA are monitoring the situation and reviewing the actions of the City Council as a possible violation of state law.

Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring. Nothing new as of this publication.

Description: Possible mandatory lock storage ordinance. Video of June 20^th council meeting with comments from supporters and council members here.  At the June meeting the Council approved the ordinance for a second reading at the next meeting.

LOP Response: CRPA and NRA submitted a letter to the City Council regarding the constitutional concerns with the proposed ordinance. Follow up letters were sent to the city.

Status: The Council’s website states that they are currently re-considering the ordinance. As of the September 19, 2018 there is no action on the agenda. NRA and CRPA will continue to monitor.

Description: The City Council directed the City Attorney office to draft an ordinance that would require all current and potential contractors to sign under affidavit their affiliation with NRA.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA will be submitting letters. The City Attorney will be releasing the draft ordinance in the next few weeks.

Status: Monitoring and alerts to members regarding agenda developments and upcoming meetings will be sent once available.

Description: The City Council suggested drafting Conditional Use Permits for a moratorium on new firearm businesses coming to the city.

LOP Response: There was no action by the City Council for several months until September 2018 when the Council finally passed a 45-day moratorium for zoning of new firearms businesses.

Status: Monitoring to see changes and for actions after the 45 days.

Description: The City Council discussed a proposed ordinance for mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

LOP Response: As of November 2018 there has been no further action.

Status: Continuing to monitor.

Description: Had in municipal code an ordinance that duplicated state law regarding reporting of lost and stolen firearms.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys drafted letters educating the city about conflict and preemption issues and requested that the ordinance be repealed.

Status: City of Palm Springs repealed the ordinance in October 2018.

Description: County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to ban recreational shooting on federal Bureau of Land Management land where the federal government currently allows.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys and members attended meetings, wrote numerous letters regarding the lack of authority the Board of Supervisors has over federal land usage, yet they still passed the ordinance.

Status: NRA, CRPA and others are working to have the ordinance repealed because there was never any federal approval for these actions.

Description: City Council passed ordinance for mandatory lock storage of firearms in the home.

LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys sent letters to the City in oppositions. At the meeting there were numerous attendees that spoke in opposition to the ordinance, however the City Council refused to listen to their community members.

Status: NRA CRPA continue to monitor.

Description: City Council held a public hearing for a 45-day moratorium on any new firearm and ammunition retailers opening businesses in the city.

LOP Response: Many spoke in opposition to the moratorium and several of the council members even expressed concern with attacking a lawful business in the community and that the city staff takes far too long to draft changes to the zoning code. Eventually the 45-day moratorium passed.

Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring the issue that will come back up on the January Board calendar.

Description: After several failed attempts, DOJ resubmitted “assault weapon” registration regulations without any substantive changes. OAL ultimately approved those regulations, which are now enforceable.

Regulatory Counsel Status: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposed regulations, but before NRA and CRPA attorneys could respond, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations. Prior NRA and CRPA comment letters can be viewed here, here, and here.

Current Status: NRA and CRPA attorneys filed the Villanueva lawsuit, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Description: In November 2017, DOJ submitted proposed regulations expanding the “assault weapon” registration definitions to apply in all circumstances, including enforcement of CA law.

Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys alerted members to the proposed regulation, and submitted a comprehensive opposition letter. A representative for NRA and CRPA also attended the public hearing to voice opposition.

Current Status: Following opposition from NRA and CRPA attorneys, DOJ voluntarily withdrew their proposal. As a result, there are currently no regulations defining terms used to identify “assault weapons” that can be used for enforcement of California law.

Description: In July 2017, CA DOJ submitted its anticipated regulations for the issuance of ammunition vendor licenses.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Alerted members to the proposal and provided members with information on how to submit comments on the proposal. NRA and CRPA also submitted a letter of comment.

Current Status: These regulations have now been adopted and are currently being enforced. Additional regulations regarding the background check requirements have yet to be introduced.

Description: In January 2018, DOJ proposed a number of regulations regarding the certification of laboratories for handgun and safety device testing, and additional regulations regarding minimum standards for gun safes.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in early March 2018.

Current Status: In July 2018, DOJ notified the public of proposed modifications to the regulations, opening up a second public comment period. DOJ must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.

Description: In January 2018, DOJ officially proposed its anticipated regulations regarding the serialization of home-built firearms pursuant to AB 857.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Alerted members to the proposal and submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in late March 2018. NRA and CRPA attorneys also hosted a webinar for gun owners on the new requirements in late June 2018.

Current Status: The regulations are now final and are currently being enforced.

Description: In March 2018, DOJ proposed a comprehensive set of regulatory changes to the initial and renewal application process for COE, which are now required for all employees of California licensed firearm dealers.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in April 2018.

Current Status: In July 2018, DOJ notified the public of proposed modifications to the regulations, opening up a second public comment period. DOJ must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.

Description: In March 2018, DOJ proposed regulatory changes to the process for transferring a firearm through DOJ’s DROS Entry System.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in May 2018.

Current Status: Awaiting further action by DOJ, who must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.

Description: In January 2018, the California DMV began issuing REAL IDs. But because non-REAL IDs have “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY” language, ATF and DOJ determined they could not be used to purchase a firearm.

Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys initially alerted members to the issue, and have since worked with ATF, DMV, and CA DOJ on a solution.

Current Status: In March 2018, ATF officially revised its policy to allow California residents with non-REAL IDs to purchase firearms.

Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records from CA DOJ and local law enforcement relating to internal agency policies and interpretations of CA firearm laws.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Recently, responses to these requests provided key financial analysis reports from CA DOJ and other state agencies regarding proposed firearm legislation. These reports were subsequently used in drafting legislative opposition letters and veto requests to the governor.

Current Status: Ongoing.

Description: Given California's continually evolving and complex firearm laws, many gun owners, manufacturers, and dealers are often left wondering how best to avoid being prosecuted for otherwise unintentional violations that can result in serious consequences.

Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA regularly work to provide Californians with up-to-date information on California laws, regulations, and policies regarding firearms to help gun owners avoid prosecution and retain their right to keep and bear arms.

Current Status: Ongoing. In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA produced several webinars on a variety of topics, including the loaning of firearms, the new “assault weapon” laws, the new ammunition sales laws, and the recently proposed “assault weapon” regulations.

Description: NRA and CPRA continually assist members with questions concerning California firearm laws.

Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA have a variety of resources available to members, including the ability to refer individuals to attorneys specializing in firearm laws.

Current Status: Ongoing. In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA attorneys continue to provide analysis of parts and configurations of firearms, and provide lectures and general advice to members of the public and law enforcement regarding changes in California gun laws. 

Description: Beginning January 1, 2018, courts will require those convicted of firearm prohibiting offenses to turn in/transfer firearms pursuant to Prop 63.

Regulatory Counsel Response: To better inform the courts and members of the public regarding this process, and in an effort to avoid confusion and inadvertent violations, NRA and CRPA prepared and submitted a letter of comment to the Judicial Council of California.

Current Status: Continuing to monitor the implementation of Prop 63 in the courts and the problems associated with its requirements.

Description: In January 2018, new laws regarding firearm warning labels that reference DOJ’s website took effect. DOJ’s website, however, is woefully out-of-date. 

Regulatory Counsel Response: In January, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a letter to the Attorney General highlighting the many inaccurate legal statements on DOJ’s website and the need for correction. 

Current Status: Ongoing.

Description: California law substantially regulates and restricts the acquisition, transfer, and loan of firearms. Firearm clubs and youth groups are particularly affected by these restrictions

Regulatory Counsel Response: Currently assisting these groups navigate CA’s requirements and advising how best to avoid unintentional violations of CA law.

Current Status: Ongoing.

Description: California granted $5 million to create the “California Firearm Violence Research Center.” The individual chosen to head this center is a known anti-Second Amendment advocate.

Regulatory Counsel Response: Continuing to monitor the center’s activities to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted on biased and unsubstantiated research.

Current Status: Ongoing.

Agency: N/A

Recent Action: Developed two full days of presentations for California hunting groups laying out a plan for addressing attacks on hunting rights in California.

Status: The groups unanimously agreed to form a coalition and develop a coordinated system to effectively and efficiently oppose and roll back anti-hunting regulations.

Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies

Recent Action: Prepare memoranda on viability of lawsuits challenging regulations; maintain ongoing list of potential legal challenges.

Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor current and potential legal challenges to timely and effectively intervene or file litigation as appropriate.

Agency: N/A

Recent Action: Disregarding the best science and specific findings, as well as state law, California placed the gray wolf on its endangered species list. The California Cattlemen’s Association filed suit challenging this decision. CRPA joined the lawsuit by filing an important amicus brief to assist the court in determining whether the listing of the gray wolf was arbitrary.

Status: CRPA’s amicus brief was accepted after successfully defeating a challenging for its introductions by the State. A decision on the merits of the case is currently pending.

Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies

Recent Action: Ongoing monitoring of lawsuits and activities of potential interest to hunting related matters in California. Regularly submit public records act requests for documents concerning efforts of anti-hunting groups. Analyze Fish & Game Commission meeting agendas and prepare lobbyists for addressing matters of interest at FGC & WRC meetings.

Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor various hunting related issues to allow for timely and effective intervention as necessary.

Agency: N/A

Recent Action: Developed and distributed computer presentations for distribution by coalition of hunting groups that outline the attacks hunters are facing. Presented to Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports regarding issues in California to garner support.

Status: Ongoing efforts to grow hunting rights coalitions and spread awareness.

Agency: N/A

Recent Action: Prepare alerts regarding new hunting rules and regulations and advise of NRA and CRPA efforts to promote and defend hunting rights in California.

Status: Ongoing.

Agency: Fish & Game Commission

Recent Action: Submitted petitions to allow archery hunters to carry side arms for self-defense.  

Status: The Commission has granted the petition and is expected to repeal the existing regulation prohibiting archery hunters from carrying sidearms with a valid CCW.

Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities

Recent Action: Ongoing efforts to prepare representatives for attendance at Wildlife Resource Committee hearings on predators. Presented at coyote management symposium regarding negative impacts of HSUS on predator management policies. Drafted manuscript explaining HSUS lies for publication in predator management circles. Grassroots organization to mobilize and direct local residents of cities with HSUS coyote policies.

Status: Ongoing efforts to challenge HSUS regarding non-lethal coyote policies in cities where pets and family members are being attacked. Working to broaden coalition of individuals opposed to HSUS policies in light of dangers to typical family households while informing industry members of predator management about opportunities to oppose.

Agency: California Legislature and Governor’s Office

Recent Action: Assist in developing pro-hunting legislation to preserve and promote the hunting sports in California, while also assisting in efforts to oppose anti-hunting measures.

Status: In 2018, California reduced the costs of hunting for California’s youth. Governor Brown also vetoed SB 1487, an underhanded attempt to restrict African hunting by California residents. Pro-hunting legislation is currently being developed and shopped to legislators for the 2019 session.

Recent Action: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has been inspecting shooting ranges and requiring sampling for potential lead contamination in storm-water runoff, utilizing drinking water standards.  This has the potential to set inappropriate precedent for regulating ranges for storm-water runoff.  

Status:  Ongoing efforts to assist ranges and engage the RWQCB to contest the validity of RWQCB’s actions. 

Recent Action: Counties are attempting to break shooting ranges’ grandfathering as a non-conforming use under county ordinances.  Once the grandfathered status of a range is broken through a use intensification argument or a subsequent local law requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the guise of health and safety concerns, compliance with current local laws is effectively impossible.

Status: Ongoing efforts to assist ranges in defending their grandfathered status is crucial in keeping these ranges open and operating.

California Legal Update | October 2018 

California Legal Update | August 2018 

California Legal Update | June 2018 

California Legal Update | April 2018

California Legal Update | January 2018

California Legal Update | December 2017

California Legal Update | October 2017

California Legal Update | August 2017

California Legal Update | June 2017

California Legal Update | April 2017