In June 2022 the Democrats in the California legislature passed an insane piece of Legislation, AB 2571, which imposed massive fines for any communication about the shooting sports or firearms which might be “attractive to minors”. This poorly-drafted and blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation was happily signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom. As predicted, AB 2571 had an immediate and devastating effect on California youth firearms training and sports programs.
Thankfully, AB 2571 (as codified in California Business and Professions Code §22949.80) has been challenged in the courts. We are pleased to note that the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has examined AB 2571 and found that it is likely unconstitutional in many ways. The 9th Circuit then sent the case back to the District Court where the plaintiffs will pursue an injunction to block application of this horrendous, ill-conceived statute. The Ninth Circuit specifically held that AB 2571 attacked constitutionally-protected commercial speech:
“California’s advertising restriction likely imposes an unconstitutional burden on protected speech. The state has made no showing that broadly prohibiting certain truthful firearm-related advertising is sufficiently tailored to significantly advance the state’s goals of preventing gun violence and unlawful firearm possession among minors. Because California fails to satisfy its burden to justify the proposed speech restriction, [Plaintiff] is likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claim.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth. But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors. But given that California allows minor[s] to use firearms under adult supervision for hunting, shooting, and other lawful activities, California’s law does not significantly advance its purported goals and is more extensive than necessary. In sum, we hold that § 22949.80 is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and we thus REVERSE the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Big Win on AB 2571 Case
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision [September 12, 2023] in the CRPA’s challenge to AB 2571, the law that prohibited the marketing of firearms and related products by members of the firearm industry to minors in California.
The law was signed last year as an “emergency” piece of legislation, and it completely stopped youth shooting sports, youth shooting publications, hunting, and shooting team recruitment in California. It affected thousands of kids and the safe and responsible youth shooting programs they participate in and benefit from. AB 2571 was quickly amended to try to mitigate some of the most obvious impacts on youth shooting sports programs, but that amendment did not make the law any less unconstitutional. And, in many ways, it made the law more confusing for those working with youth shooters.
CRPA, Second Amendment Foundation, Junior Sports Magazine, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Gun Owners of California, and The CRPA Foundation joined together to challenge the unconstitutional law in court. Plaintiffs quickly moved for an injunction against the law so that programs, sponsorships, and youth working on their marksmanship skills could continue while the case was litigated. The lower court denied our request for a preliminary injunction, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before a three-judge panel in June of 2023. Today, the court ruled that the District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was wrong and reversed the lower court’s decision.
The court noted that “because California permits minors under supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting and other lawful activities, Section 22949.80 facially regulates speech that concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.” The court also held that the law “does not directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests in reducing gun violence and the unlawful use of firearms by minors. There was no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad.” Finally, the court held that the law was “more extensive than necessary because it swept in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike.”
Judge VanDyke wrote separately to emphasize that laws like section 22949.80, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny.
“Although this does not end the case, this is the outcome we were hoping for”, said Chuck Michel, CRPA President/General Counsel. “Newsom’s efforts to eliminate youth shooting activities, hunting, and the next generation of Second Amendment advocates … has been stopped again. This is another example of legislative overreach and the politicians’ willingness to trample on constitutional rights.”
The Ninth Circuit panel reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and sent the issue back down to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its decision. For all of those youth shooting programs out there, this means keep doing what you are doing for now. It takes time for appellate decisions to become final, and the lower court must still issue a final decision on the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
NOTE: Organizations affected by this law should continue operating their programs the same way — as if AB 2571 is in place. Watch for more information on the ruling from the District Court soon.
Share the post "9th Circuit Rules Challenge to California AB 2571 Can Proceed"
The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) has issued an ammunition safety advisory to all users of M1 Garands, M1903s, and M1903A3 rifles. Ammunition that is loaded beyond 50,000 Copper Units of Pressure (CUP) and using bullets weighing more than 172 grains should be limited to modern rifles, and NOT USED in old military rifles aged 70+ years.
After this warning was issued by the CMP, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) provided further safety recommendations for owners or older firearms:
CRPA Ammunition and Older Firearms Guidelines
Many of us have either purchased or inherited firearms in excess of 25 years of age. The issue … noted as an example by the Civilian Marksmanship Program in regards to certain ammunition leads as they apply to the M1 Garand is not isolated to that particular firearm. The CRPA… has seen similar issues exposed with other [older] firearms when using modern loads. We strongly advise you to check with the manufacturer for recommended load limitations before purchasing modern ammunition for an older firearm.
CRPA also recommends these safety procedures:
— Have a gunsmith check your older firearm for safety prior to using it.
— Take a reloading class to help develop a safe load for your older firearm.
— Inspect older ammunition for defects such as a green patina or rust build up on the cases or crystallization on the projectiles. If defects are observed, the CRPA suggests disassembling the ammo into components for proper recycling and disposal.
Storage of Ammo for Older Rifles
The CRPA also cautioned that you should be cautious about older ammo that may be decades old, including old milsurp ammunition. The CRPA advises:
1. Store ammunition in a cool, dry, location where little temperature fluctuation occurs.
2. If storing ammunition in an air/watertight ammo can, utilize water absorbent silica packs and place packs in the can with the ammunition.
3. Conduct periodic checks every 12-24 months and replace the silica packs as needed.
CRPA Notification provided by EdLongrange
.
Share the post "CMP Warns Against High-Pressure Loads in Garands and 1903s"
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has received disturbing reports that many gun owners are receiving text messages on their personal phones claiming that there is an immediate deadline to get a CCW from their County Sheriffs office, along with a link to an application form. Be warned, this is a FRAUD, a SCAM. Do NOT click on the link — it could be used to steal valuable personal information.
CRPA has been advised by numerous Sheriff’s offices that there is a nationwide text message scam targeting citizens with CCW permits.
Those targeted by this scam have received text messages alerting them that their permit needs to be renewed or changed and offers a link to provide the user’s information.
This fraud is happening not just in CA, but other states as well. These text messages are being sent randomly from phone numbers to people across the entire nation.
DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
It appears this latest attack on gun owners is a sinister, illegal attempt to obtain their personal information. If you receive a text message like this, CRPA advises you to DELETE the MESSSAGE from your phone and BLOCK the number from which it was sent. You may have to go to the call history to see the number.
For updates on this text scam issue, you can subscribe to email alerts by visiting the CRPA.org website. The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), founded in 1875, is a nonprofit, donor-supported organization with tens of thousands of members throughout California. CRPA’s membership is comprised of a cross-section of the general public including competitive marksmen, recreational shooters, hunters, shooting instructors, attorneys, and law enforcement officers.
Share the post "Readers — Watch Out for Phone Text Scams about CCW Permits"
Earlier this week, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), filed a motion requesting an injunction against enforcement of California’s recently implemented ammunition sale/purchase laws. The injunction motion is part of the Rhode v. Becerra case filed in April of 2018. That lawsuit challenges California’s new ammo sale regulations which went into effect July 1, 2019. Lead Plaintiff and Olympic Shooter Kim Rhode and other Plaintiffs have asked the court to block the new ammunition-purchase laws on Constitutional grounds, and because of myriad practical issues with the new ammo sale controls.
Basically this burdensome new law requires filling out multiple forms, paying fees, and securing Birth Certificates or other proof of citizenship (which, of course, is NOT required for voting in California).
The NRA-ILA states: “The entire system has been shown to be an [unconstitutional] excessive burden on law-abiding gun owners with little to no law enforcement value. California ammunition retailers were given little if any guidance from the state explaining the procedures for processing ammunition sales, amounting to mass confusion throughout the state.”
We talked to Californian (and lead Plaintiff) Kim Rhode at SHOT Show. The Olympic Gold Medalist explained to us that she can no longer mail-order the high-quality shot shells she uses in Olympic and World Cup competition, and she is not able to find that ammo in California retail stores. This limits her ability to practice in California.
If the court grants the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, it will prohibit California from enforcing its confusing and burdensome ammunition sales restrictions while the Rhode case is fully litigated. A hearing on the motion for injunction is scheduled for August 19th, 2019. A decision is expected sometime thereafter.
The CRPA would also like to thank the following California ammunition retailers who supported Monday’s filing by providing declarations regarding the effect California’s ammunition sales restrictions have had on their businesses:
Turner’s Outdoorsman (27 CA locations)
LAX Ammunition OC (Huntington Beach)
Norco Armory (Norco)
Foothill Ammo (Shingle Springs)
Guns, Fishing and Other Stuff (Vacaville)
Royal Loan (San Diego)
Mosquito Creek Outfitters (Placerville)
Discount Gun Mart (San Diego and Santee)
The lawsuit is also supported by out-of-state retailers who are banned from shipping ammunition directly to California citizens, based on the provisions of the new legislation. These include Able’s Ammo (Texas), and Ammunition Depot (Florida).
Stand and Fight in California
Visit the NRA-ILA California Stand and Fight web-page for updates on the Rhode v. Becerra case as well as other issues impacting Second Amendment rights in California.
Share the post "CRPA Seeks Injunction to Halt California Ammo Restrictions"
Would you like to help lead the fight for gun rights in the Golden State? Then read on. The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) is now seeking a full-time Field Rep with a salary of $45,000 per year. With 42,000 members statewide, the CRPA is the largest and oldest pro-Second Amendment/Pro-Hunting organization headquartered in California.
The Field Representative job is an exciting, challenging position that takes you out of the office. You’ll get paid to travel all around California spreading the “good news” about the CRPA at shooting competitions, gun shows, sporting goods stores, and ranges. The Field Rep holds a key position. You will be the primary “point man” for the CRPA at many events statewide.
CRPA Protects and Defends Second Amendment and Hunting Rights in California. Since its founding in 1875, the CRPA has been the guiding force in the development and coordination of statewide shooting championships. In addition, the CRPA serves as the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The CRPA coordinates an aggressive legislative advocacy and effective litigation programs.
Position Title: Field Representative
Location: CALIFORNIA (Extensive ongoing travel, throughout the state)
Salary: $45,000 Annually, plus company vehicle, benefits, expense reimbursement, lap top computer, and cell phone.
Education – An A.A., A.S., or higher degree in public relations, communications, political science, business or public administration, criminal justice or a related field is desirable.
Position Key Characteristics: Under the general direction of the Executive Director, incumbent serves as the sole Field Rep. for the CRPA. Incumbent’s primary focus is membership development and making the CRPA name, goals, and objectives widely known by the public. Incumbent must possess a strong knowledge of shooting sports, firearms, and hunting activities. This position requires frequent ongoing travel and working days, unusual hours, evenings, and most weekends. This position will write a monthly column in our publication and provide staff support to the CRPA Volunteer Development Committee and the CRPA Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Committee. Incumbent must be mature, professional, and possess excellent communication skills both verbally and in writing.
To Apply: Call CRPA at 1-800-305-2772 or email contact@crpa.org and ask for the CRPA application packet, including supplemental questions, emailed to you. Recruitment Closing Date: THE COMPLETED CRPA APPLICATION PACKET MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN TUESDAY, August 13, 2013 – 4:00 PM (No postmarks).
NOTE: This is an “at will” position and only one year of funding for this position has been secured at this time. Future funding will be based on the contribution this position makes to the CRPA.
Share the post "California Rifle & Pistol Association Seeks Field Rep"
Gun owners who live or do business in California should strongly consider purchasing this 320-page book. California gun laws are complex and confusing. There are over 800 California state statutes regulating the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession, and use of firearms. There are thousands of overlapping federal laws regulating firearms that apply in California. And there are hundreds of administrative regulations, local ordinances, and California Department Justice Firearms Bureau written and unwritten policies that also apply.
On top of the already byzantine regulatory scheme, on January 1, 2012 California firearm laws were completely reorganized and re-numbered. Because of the complexity of the laws, and the recent statute number changes, inadvertent gun law violations by well-intentioned citizens are increasingly common. In the politicized legal environment of California “gun-control” laws, the consequences of even an inadvertent violation can be severe.
With all the overlapping regulations, it’s no wonder that confusion runs rampant among California gun owners, as well as among police, prosecutors, and judges. To protect yourself, you need to know the law. This book will help. California Gun Laws tells you how to legally buy, own, transport and possess firearms, and explains how you get your firearms or firearm rights back if they are taken away. The book warns about common legal “traps” that may ensnare California firearm owners.
Author Profile:C.D. (Chuck) Michel is an attorney with 20 years of experience representing the National Rifle Association (NRA) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), as well as firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and gun owners, Michel has been litigating civil and criminal firearm cases since 1991, many of which were high profile and attracted state and national media attention.
Share the post "New Book on California Gun Laws Released"
Despite last-minute efforts by their authors to secure passage, three proposed California laws restricting gun rights went down to defeat yesterday in Sacramento. Tuesday, August 31st, was the final day this year’s session of the California Legislature could pass new laws.
The fight went all the way to the midnight deadline for passage, but AB 1810, AB 1934, and AB 2358 were defeated — at least for this year. As the clock ticked down to midnight, the bills’ sponsors could not secure enough votes to pass the bills. In a state where Democratic Party legislators have rammed through anti-gun bills year after year, this is a significant victory for firearms rights. All three of these bills posed a fundamental threat to the rights of gun owners.
AB 1810 — Mandatory Registration of Long Guns
If enacted, Assembly Bill 1810 would have required registration of rifles and shotguns in the same way handguns are now registered in California. Under current law, the information collected at the time of purchase of a rifle or shotgun (serial number, make, and model) is destroyed after the background check is completed. AB 1810 would have required that the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, as well as the identifying information of the purchaser, be recorded and kept on file by the California Department of Justice.
AB 1934 — Prohibition of Open Carry of Unloaded Handguns
AB 1934 would have deleted provisions of current California law that allows an unloaded firearm to be carried openly in a belt holster. With some important restrictions, “Open Carry” remains legal in many areas of California. Organized “open carry” gatherings by Second Amendment supporters drew media attention, putting this issue in the limelight. Anti-gunners simply could not tolerate the idea that someone could carry a firearm in public places without going to jail. AB 1934 would basically place the entire state “off-limits” to open carry, eliminating a long-standing right in California.
AB 2358 — Collection of Information on Ammunition Purchasers
AB 2358 would have required that ammunition vendors provide detailed information on ammo sales to local law enforcement if required by city or county ordinance records. In addition to records of the date and type of ammo purchased, AB 2358 would force ammunition vendors to give police the names, address, and other personal information of all ammo purchasers. AB 2358 would have also allowed uncontrolled expansion of city and county ordinances requiring handgun ammunition vendors to transmit all information collected relating to sales of handgun ammunition and some rifle cartridges to local law enforcement agencies.
We applaud the California Legislators who voted against these three bills. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a change in the Golden State — perhaps inspired by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right of ALL Americans to keep and bear arms. We also commend the work of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, whose staffers organized opposition to AB 1810, AB 1934, and AB 2358. For all friends of the Second Amendment, and for all Californians involved in the shooting sports, this is a time to celebrate.
Share the post "Three Anti-Gun Bills Defeated in California Legislature"
AB 962, a new law restricting ammo sales, was passed by the California Legislature last Friday and sent to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. If not vetoed by the Governor, this bill could have a major negative effect on the shooting sports in the Golden State. AB 962, authored by Assemblyman De León (Dem. Los Angeles) was narrowly passed on a strict party line vote, on the last day of the Legislative session.
New Law Targets Pistol Ammo But Would Also Embrace Rifle Ammunition
AB 962 will restrict the sales of pistol ammunition. Unfortunately, the restriction will include common rifle ammo such as .22LR, .22 Magnum, and .223 Rem, because these cartridges are also used in pistols. If codified into law, commencing February 1, 2011, AB 962 would require handgun ammunition vendors to obtain a complete profile on ammo-purchasers including: residential address, phone number, Driver’s License number, birth date, and signature. In addition, ammo buyers must provide a thumbprint when purchasing pistol ammunition. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
In addition, AB 962 could effectively prohibit online or mail-order sales of pistol ammunition to California residents. This is because, according to the Leg. Counsel’s Digest, “delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.”
The good news is that AB 962 was amended to eliminate the provision that would criminalize the “sale or transfer” or more than 50 rounds of pistol ammunition per month. Had that clause survived, it would have a chilling effect on all youth training programs because rangemasters, scout leaders, or shooting coaches could be jailed for handing out more than one box of rimfire ammo.
Nonetheless, AB 962 is a terrible piece of legislation. Unless Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes AB 962, Californians will no longer be able to mail-order most rimfire ammo, all centerfire pistol ammo, and a potentially large selection of rifle ammunition. We can’t tell you exactly what kinds of rifle ammo would be embraced by AB 962, because the bill relies on the vague definitions of CA Penal Code Section 12323(a): “‘Handgun ammunition’ means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person… notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.”
The California Rifle and Pistol Assn. (CRPA) is asking ALL California gun owners to contact Gov. Schwarzenegger immediately and urge him to VETO AB 962. You can send an email via the Governor’s home page at www.gov.ca.gov/interact. (Type your name and email address, select Gun Control under the “Choose Your Subject” menu, hit “Submit” — then write your message.) You can also call or send a fax to the Governor’s office (Phone (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160). Gov. Schwarzenegger has until October 11, 2009 to sign, approve without signing, or veto bills passed by the Legislature.
Share the post "California Legislature Approves Restriction on Ammo Sales — Bill Goes to Governor"
Big Win on AB 2571 Case
CRPA has been advised by numerous Sheriff’s offices that there is a nationwide text message scam targeting citizens with CCW permits.
The NRA-ILA states: “The entire system has been shown to be an [unconstitutional] excessive burden on law-abiding gun owners with little to no law enforcement value. California ammunition retailers were given little if any guidance from the state explaining the procedures for processing ammunition sales, amounting to mass confusion throughout the state.”
The CRPA would also like to thank the following California ammunition retailers who supported Monday’s filing by providing declarations regarding the effect California’s ammunition sales restrictions have had on their businesses:
Would you like to help lead the fight for gun rights in the Golden State? Then read on. The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) is now seeking a full-time Field Rep with a salary of $45,000 per year. With 42,000 members statewide, the CRPA is the largest and oldest pro-Second Amendment/Pro-Hunting organization headquartered in California.
Author Profile: C.D. (Chuck) Michel is an attorney with 20 years of experience representing the National Rifle Association (NRA) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), as well as firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and gun owners, Michel has been litigating civil and criminal firearm cases since 1991, many of which were high profile and attracted state and national media attention.
Despite last-minute efforts by their authors to secure passage, three proposed California laws restricting gun rights went down to defeat yesterday in Sacramento. Tuesday, August 31st, was the final day this year’s session of the California Legislature could pass new laws. 
AB 962, a new law restricting ammo sales, was passed by the California Legislature last Friday and sent to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. If not vetoed by the Governor, this bill could have a major negative effect on the shooting sports in the Golden State. AB 962, authored by Assemblyman De León (Dem. Los Angeles) was narrowly passed on a strict party line vote, on the last day of the Legislative session.
In addition, AB 962 could effectively prohibit online or mail-order sales of pistol ammunition to California residents. This is because, according to the Leg. Counsel’s Digest, “delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.”
