Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

California Legal Update | October 2018

This report provides an overview of just some of the efforts the National Rifle Association of America and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., are taking to protect the rights of California gun owners. Although litigation plays an extremely important role in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms, NRA and CRPA are heavily involved in many other tremendous and equally important endeavors throughout California and across the nation.

As has been and always will be the case, NRA and CRPA invest enormous amounts of resources to protect the Second Amendment at all levels of California’s government, including all 58 counties, all 482 municipalities, and all state and local agencies tasked with enforcing the myriad of complex and ever expanding gun laws. 

Firearms Litigation Report

The litigation report provides a brief overview and update on NRA and CRPA’s recent litigation efforts in California, including amicus and consulting support in other firearm related cases. 

Local Ordinance Project Report

The Local Ordinance Project (“LOP”) is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA to research and actively monitor all of California’s local jurisdictions to oppose any proposed ordinance, law, or policy that threatens Second Amendment Rights. LOP efforts include developing and working with a network of professionals, citizens, local government officials, and law enforcement professionals to effectively oppose local threats to California gun owners.

Opposition campaigns typically include the preparation of opposition or pre-litigation demand letters, grassroots coordination, public information campaigns, and, in some cases, appearances at city council hearings. In many instances, these efforts have prompted local governments to vote down proposals or pull them from consideration. LOP efforts also serve as the foundation for NRA and CRPA litigation efforts against municipalities that enact anti-gun legislation.

Regulatory Matters Report

NRA and CRPA are also heavily invested in firearm law enforcement issues through their Regulatory Counsel efforts, which monitors the California DOJ and local law enforcement's interpretations of California firearm laws on a daily basis. 

Ongoing efforts include drafting regulatory comment letters, providing legal support to NRA and CRPA lobbyists, drafting NRA and CRPA member alerts, and providing advice to NRA and CRPA members. Regulatory Counsel also collaborates with overlapping litigation, legislative, and regulatory matters to effectively oppose improper actions and incorrect interpretations of California law by state and local agencies.

Regulatory Counsel is responsible for many of the recently published webinars available on the CRPA’s website which provide gun owners with a comprehensive analysis of recently enacted legislation and the recently proposed “assault weapon” regulations from the California DOJ.

Hunting Matters Report

Closely related to Regulatory Counsel are NRA and CRPA’s efforts to monitor and respond to issues impacting hunters throughout California. These efforts include developing strategies and taking action when necessary before the Legislature, the Fish & Game Commission, local municipalities, and other various regulatory agencies.

Hunting Regulatory efforts are also dedicated to pushing back against rabidly anti-hunting forces such as the United States Humane Society, and to improve policies impacting hunters in California to effectively promote and defend the right to hunt in California.

Range Matters Report

Last but not least, NRA and CRPA continually monitor environmental, land use, and design and safety issues that heavily affect shooting ranges and areas in California and throughout the nation. 

NRA and CRPA’s range assistance efforts include regular range evaluations and meeting with Club Boards to strategize and assist with coordination of defense campaigns against “not in my backyard” efforts from environmental non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies, and municipal governments.

Click on the case name below to reveal more information about the case status and what's next.

California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters

  • Rhode v. Becerra: Challenge to California's Ammunition Sales Restrictions

    Case StatusThe 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: Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, to which the State has filed a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the case will soon proceed to the discovery phase of litigation. 

  • Rupp v. Becerra: Challenge to California’s “assault weapon” restrictions

    Case StatusThe 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. 

     

  • Duncan v. Becerra: Challenge to California's ban on standard capacity magazines

    Case StatusThe 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.

     

  • Villanueva v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ’s recently enacted “assault weapon” registration regulations

    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.

  • Flanagan v. Becerra: Challenge to California and Los Angeles' Firearm Carry Restrictions Prohibitting Both Open and Concealed Carry

    (Formerly Flanagan v. Harris)

    Case StatusThe 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.

     

  • Gentry v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ's Use of DROS surplus to fund APPS

    (formerly Gentry v. Harris)

    Case StatusPlaintiffs 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.

     

     

  • Parker v. California: Vagueness challenge to AB 962's "handgun ammunition" sales registration requirement and mail order ban

    Case StatusIn 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.

California and 9th Circuit Amicus and Consulting Support

  • Pena v. Lindley: California Handgun Roster

    Case StatusThe 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.

  • Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Becerra: 1st Amendment challenge to handgun ad prohibition

    (formerly Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Harris)

    Case StatusIn 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. Cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed in the district court. 

    What's Next: Awaiting a decision from the District Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • NSSF v. Pleasant Hill: FFL zoning ordinance

    Case StatusThe case has been settled.

    What's Next: The City has agreed to pay NSSF over $400,000 in legal fees.

  • NSSF v. California: State Court challenge to California's microstamping requirements

    Case StatusIn 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.

    What's Next: NSSF in July 2018 petitioned the California Supreme Court to rehear the case. A decision on that petition is currently pending.

National Cases with California Interest

  • Kolbe v. Hogan: Challenges Maryland's ban on “assault weapons” and 10+ round magazines

    Case StatusOn 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.

     

  • Grace v. District of Columbia: Challenges Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW permit

    Case StatusOn 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.

     

Local Advocacy Project

  • Arcata City Council Mandatory Lock Storage and Reporting

    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.

     

  • Santa Clara County Gun Shows

    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 5th 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.

  • Healdsburg FFL Zoning Ordinance

    Description: In March 2018, the Healdsburg Planning Commission held a public discussion regarding a comprehensive FFL zoning ordinance for the city.

    LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposed zoning ordinance. July 23, 2018 there was no action on agenda. Next meeting August 6, 2018.

    Current Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring City Council agendas for any updates.

  • Del Mar Fairgrounds Moratorium on Gun Shows

    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.

  • Ventura County Fair Board Considers Gun Shows

    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.

  • Cow Palace Gun Shows

    DescriptionAt 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: As of the date of the of this publication, the legislation still awaits action by Governor Brown.

  • El Cerrito CCW Fees

    DescriptionUnder the City’s “Master Fee Schedule,” residents applying for a CCW must pay a local processing fee of $961, well in excess of the $100 statutory maximum for such fees.

    LOP Response: Submitted pre-litigation demand letter seeking repeal of the City’s excessive application fee.

    Current Status: In November, attorneys for El Cerrito agreed with the NRA and CRPA that the current fee violates the statutory $100 cap. On the April 17, 2018 meeting agenda the fee was adjusted to $100. 

  • San Jose Anti-Gun Ordinance Package

    DescriptionIn September 2016, Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Raul Peralez introduced an anti-gun package for discussion and referral to the City Council.

    LOP Response: On October 17, 2017, the City Council discussed a proposed mandatory locked-storage ordinance. NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal, and submitted a letter of opposition

    Current Status: The City Council ultimately voted 6-5 in favor of adoption, but not before serious questions were raised about the precise language of the ordinance as highlighted by NRA and CRPA’s opposition letter. 

  • Orange County CCW Applications

    DescriptionMany 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.

  • Cupertino Anti-Gun Ordinance Package

    DescriptionOn January 12, the Cupertino Public Safety Commission held an open discussion on several proposed anti-gun measures.

    LOP Response: Alerted members to attend the Public Safety Commission meeting. Submitted opposition letter informing the Commission of the proposal's serious legal problems not adequately discussed in staff reports.

    Current Status: The Commission ultimately failed to reach a consensus, but the proposal could still come before the City Council at any time. 

  • Orange County Fair Grounds

    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.

  • Statewide Public Record Requests

    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.

  • City of Morgan Hill

    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: NRA and CRPA Attorneys submitted a letter in advance of actual ordinance language being introduced to inform city of the problems with the proposal. July 18, 2018 there was no action on agenda. Next meeting is August 22, 2018.

    Status: Next meeting will be in June. Continuing to monitor.

  • City of Milpitas

    Description: Holding a safety summit for the community on June 2nd as a spin off from the one held by Santa Clara County.

    LOP Response: Monitoring. June 19, 2018 meeting received a report on the safety summit which focused on mental health, safety in places of worship, firearms, and safety in the workplace.

    Status: Next meeting is August 7, 2018 and August 21, 2018.

  • City of Sunnyvale Age Restrictions on Purchasing a Firearm

    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.

  • County of Humboldt Shutting Down Public Lands for Shooting

    Description: In June a proposal from the County Sheriff was brought to the Board of Supervisors to consider shutting down access to shooting lands in a riverbed in the County.

    LOP Response: CRPA drafted comments in opposition to shutting down access to these lands. At the July 24, 2018 meeting the ordinance was passed on second reading and has since been enacted.

    Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring.

  • City of Saratoga

    Description: Possible mandatory lock storage ordinance. Video of June 20th council meeting with comments from supporters and council members here.  At the Jun 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.

Regulatory Matters

  • CA DOJ's "Bullet-Button Assault Weapon" Regulations July 2017

    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.

  • CA DOJ’s Rejected Expansion of “Assault Weapon” Definitions

    DescriptionIn 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.

  • CA DOJ's Proposed "Ammunition Vendor Licensing" Regulations

    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.

  • CA DOJ's Proposed Firearm Safety Device and Handgun Testing Regulations

    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.

  • CA DOJ's Proposed "Ghost Gun" Regulations

    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.

  • CA DOJ Proposed Certificate of Eligibility (COE) Regulations

    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.

  • CA DOJ Proposed Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Entry System Regulations

    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.

  • Use of Non-REAL IDs for Firearm Purchases

    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.

  • Public Record Requests

    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.

  • New California Gun Laws

    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.

     

  • Assistance for California Members

    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. 

  • Implementation of Prop 63

    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.

  • DOJ Website Errors

    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.

  • Assistance to Gun Clubs and Youth Groups

    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.

     

  • California’s Firearm Violence Research Center

    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.

     

Hunting Regulatory Matters

  • Coalition Building & Uniting Hunting Groups to Promote and Protect Hunting Rights

    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.

  • Potential Legal Challenges to Regulations Restricting Hunting Right

    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.

  • Monitoring anti-hunting forces

    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.

  • Increasing Support for Hunting Rights Throughout California

    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.

  • Membership Alerts

    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.

  • Anti-hunting Regulations

    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.

  • Opposing HSUS Predator Policies

    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.

  • Hunting Related Legislation

    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, Governor Brown signed AB 2151 into law, thereby reducing the costs of hunting for California’s youth. Governor Brown also vetoed SB 1487, an underhanded attempt to restrict African hunting by California residents.

Range Matters Report

  • Stormwater runoff

    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. 

  • Non-conforming “Use Status” and “Use Intensification”

    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.

TRENDING NOW
Out of Style: Levi’s Fawns Over Shannon Watts in Pantmaker’s Latest Gun Control Effort

News  

Friday, May 17, 2019

Out of Style: Levi’s Fawns Over Shannon Watts in Pantmaker’s Latest Gun Control Effort

At the National Retail Federation’s 2018 convention in New York City, Levi Strauss & Co. Brand President James Curleigh told those assembled that the multinational pants manufacturer intends to be the “most relevant lifestyle brand.” Evidently, part ...

Illinois Committee Passes Bill to Increase Cost of FOID 1000

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Illinois Committee Passes Bill to Increase Cost of FOID 1000

On May 21st, the Illinois state House Judiciary Committee voted 12-7 to pass House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1966.  While it has not yet been scheduled for further action, the House may take it ...

Washington: Lawsuit Against I-1639 Proceeds After Motion To Dismiss Denied

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Washington: Lawsuit Against I-1639 Proceeds After Motion To Dismiss Denied

On May 20th, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected a motion by the government defendants to dismiss the lawsuit filed by NRA and the SAF against Washington’s gun control ...

Trump Administration, Other Pro-Gun Heavyweights Lend Support on Pending Supreme Court Case

News  

Friday, May 17, 2019

Trump Administration, Other Pro-Gun Heavyweights Lend Support on Pending Supreme Court Case

As NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox reported in March, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a challenge by an NRA state affiliate to a New York City gun control scheme that effectively prohibits lawfully ...

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Only What We Want Ye to Hear

News  

Friday, May 17, 2019

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Only What We Want Ye to Hear

Can we finally put the claim that “gun violence” research is underfunded to rest? The Bloomberg Professor of American Health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Daniel Webster, and his colleagues at the Hopkins ...

Gov. Abbott Signs NRA-Backed Tenants' Rights Bill

News  

Friday, May 17, 2019

Gov. Abbott Signs NRA-Backed Tenants' Rights Bill

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday for signing NRA-backed legislation that protects tenants’ rights by prohibiting “no firearms” clauses in residential leases.   

Retired Justice Stevens Continues Crusade Against Guns

News  

Friday, May 17, 2019

Retired Justice Stevens Continues Crusade Against Guns

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens does not believe a law-abiding citizen has a right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment, and he wants to make sure everyone knows it. He made his ...

California: Firearm Excise Tax Bill Fails to Meet Fiscal Deadline While Other Gun Control Bills Move Forward

Monday, May 20, 2019

California: Firearm Excise Tax Bill Fails to Meet Fiscal Deadline While Other Gun Control Bills Move Forward

Last week, the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees took up their respective suspense files ahead of the Friday, May 17, fiscal deadline. Some of the more egregious gun bills failed to meet the deadline including ...

Nevada: Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Granted Waiver From Deadlines

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Nevada: Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Granted Waiver From Deadlines

As previously alerted, yesterday was the deadline for legislation to pass out of the policy committee in the second chamber.  A waiver was granted for Assembly Bill 291, exempting the bill from the deadlines.  This waiver ...

Illinois: Committee To Receive FOID Cost Increase Legislation

Friday, May 17, 2019

Illinois: Committee To Receive FOID Cost Increase Legislation

On May 21st, the Illinois state House of Representatives Rules Committee will hear House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1966 and send it to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.  HA 1 to SB 1966 would ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.