In NSSF v. Bonta, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Schopler has granted a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the enforcement of California’s AB 1594 law that exposes firearm industry members to lawsuits in California for activities outside the state of California. The ruling by Federal Judge Schopler enjoined the enforcement of California AB 1594, the so-called “Firearm Industry Responsibility Act”. In 2023 the NSSF sued to challenge the law and moved for an injunction. In granting the injunction, Judge Schopler found that AB 1594 is likely unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
“We are thankful the court enjoined the state from suing members of the firearm industry under this unconstitutional law that attempts to use the real threat of liability on commerce beyond California’s borders and impose its policy choices on its sister states”, stated NSSF Senior VP and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. CLICK HERE for more details of NSSF v. Bonta legal case.
NSSF Opposes Unconstitutional California Firearm Industry Liability Law
NSSF argued that California’s firearm industry liability law is preempted by the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was passed with bipartisan support in Congress and subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. The PLCAA was specifically enacted to stamp out frivolous lawsuits sought by activist politicians, gun control lawyers and greedy trial lawyers seeking to bankrupt the lawful firearm industry by blaming them and their lawfully-sold and non-defective products for the violence and harm caused by criminals who misuse firearms to commit their crimes.
“It’s no surprise California’s rabidly antigun General Assembly would pass and Governor Gavin Newsom would sign into law a blatantly unconstitutional attack on the lawful firearm industry instead of looking in the mirror to see how their own policies are leading to historic levels of criminal violence and endangering law-abiding and innocent Californians every day,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “NSSF will not stand by and allow the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans … to be trampled upon while criminals committing acts of violence are handled with kid gloves by soft-on-crime prosecutors. California’s industry liability law is in blatant defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and is preempted by the PLCAA.”
Among other provisions, California AB 1594 bans the manufacture, sale and marketing of firearms the state deems “abnormally dangerous”. It allows civil lawsuits against a firearm industry member to be filed by the Attorney General, any municipality and any person who claims to have suffered harm from the misuse of a legal, lawfully sold firearm by a remote third party. The law unconstitutionally invades the sovereignty of sister States by directly regulating lawful commerce occurring entirely outside the state of California in violation of the Commerce Clause and the United States’ system of federalism. The law also violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) enacted by Congress in 2005 to stop just these sorts of frivolous lawsuits against members of the industry.
The NSSF argues that AB 1594 also directely linfringes on the Second Amendment and chills First Amendment rights by restricting protected free-speech advertising of Constitutionally-protected products that are lawfully made and sold — even when that advertising takes place outside of California’s borders.
Share the post "NSSF Wins Injunction Against Unconstitutional California AB 1594"
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 National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is challenging California’s firearm industry liability law, AB 1594, passed in 2022 and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The law, which goes into effect on July 23, 2023, encourages civil suits against the firearm industry for the illegal actions of criminals with guns. This law is an affront to the U.S. Constitution and is an attempt to circumvent the will of the U.S. Congress when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The litigation, NSSF v. Bonta, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The NSSF now seeks a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of AB 1594 as challenges to the unconstitutional law progress through the courts.
NSSF Files Motion to Enjoin Unconstitutional California Firearm Industry Liability Law
The NSSF filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in its legal challenge, NSSF v. Bonta, seeking to enjoin California’s firearm industry liability law, AB 1594. The unconstitutional law permits and encourages civil suits against members of the firearm industry for the damages/injuries caused by the actions of criminals. The law goes into effect next month on 7/23/23.
NSSF’s motion argues that California’s firearm industry liability law is preempted by the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was passed with bipartisan support in Congress and subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. The PLCAA was specifically enacted to stamp out frivolous lawsuits sought by activist politicians, gun control lawyers and greedy trial lawyers seeking to bankrupt the lawful firearm industry by blaming them and their lawfully-sold and non-defective products for the violence and harm caused by criminals who misuse firearms to commit their crimes.
“It’s no surprise California’s rabidly antigun General Assembly would pass and Governor Gavin Newsom would sign into law a blatantly unconstitutional attack on the lawful firearm industry instead of looking in the mirror to see how their own policies are leading to historic levels of criminal violence and endangering law-abiding and innocent Californians every day,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “NSSF will not stand by and allow the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans … to be trampled upon while criminals committing acts of violence are handled with kid gloves by soft-on-crime prosecutors. California’s industry liability law is in blatant defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and is preempted by the PLCAA.”
In addition to the firearm industry liability provision, California’s AB 1594 bans the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms the state deems “abnormally dangerous” regardless of if they are commonly-owned. It allows civil lawsuits against a firearm industry member to be filed by a person who has suffered harm in California, the Attorney General, or even city or county attorneys for the harm caused by the criminal misuse of a firearm by a remote third party. The law unconstitutionally invades the sovereignty of sister states by directly regulating lawful commerce occurring entirely and wholly outside the state of California in violation of the Commerce Clause and the United States system of federalism.
NSSF’s challenge explains that AB 1594 is a law that was drafted prior to the Bruen decision and signed just weeks AFTER the Supreme Court published the landmark ruling. Rather than re-examining the legislation to ensure AB 1594 complied with Supreme Court precedent, California legislators ignored the Supreme Court’s decision and pushed AB 1594 through defiantly.
The NSSF argues that AB 1594 not only infringes on Second Amendment rights but chills First Amendment rights by restricting advertising of Constitutionally-protected products that are lawfully made and sold — even when that advertising takes place outside of California’s borders.
Share the post "NSSF Seeks Injunction Against Radical California AB 1594 Law"
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is challenging California’s firearm industry liability law, AB 1594, passed in 2022 and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The law, which goes into effect on July 23, 2023, encourages civil suits against the firearm industry for the illegal actions of criminals with guns. This law is an affront to the U.S. Constitution and is an attempt to circumvent the will of the U.S. Congress when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The litigation, NSSF v. Bonta, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The NSSF now seeks a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the unconstitutional law as challenges to AB 1594 progress through the courts.
“California’s General Assembly and Governor Newsom made a spectacle of defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision when this bill was passed and enacted,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This law is openly hostile to the firearm industry and also defiant to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution. Governor Newsom [seeks] to exert California’s radical gun control agenda across the United States. NSSF will defend our Constitutionally-protected industry against the broadsides of this extremist agenda.”
NSSF’s challenge explains that AB 1594, misleadingly titled the “Firearm Industry Responsibility Act,” is a law that was drafted prior to the Bruen decision and signed just weeks after the Supreme Court published the landmark ruling. Rather than re-examining the legislation to ensure it complied with Supreme Court precedent, Gov. Newsom forged ahead, challenging the ruling when he signed it.
The law bans the manufacture, sale and marketing of firearms the state deems “abnormally dangerous” regardless if they are commonly-owned. It also encourages civil lawsuits by a person who has suffered harm in California, the Attorney General, or city or county attorneys against a firearm industry member for the harm caused by the criminal misuse of a firearm by a remote third party. This is expressly prohibited by PLCAA. The law unconstitutionally invades the sovereignty of sister states by directly regulating lawful commerce occurring entirely and wholly outside the state of California in violation of the Commerce Clause and our system of federalism.
The NSSF argues that AB 1594 not only infringes on Second Amendment rights but chills First Amendment rights by restricting advertising of Constitutionally-protected products that are lawfully made and sold — even when that advertising takes place outside of California’s borders.
California’s AB 1594 is clearly unconstitutional on several fronts.
Share the post "NSSF Challenges CA Law Promoting Lawsuits vs. Gun Makers"
In recent years, the California Legislature has passed a series of laws restricting the rights of California gun owners. The latest example of anti-gun legislation will hit gun owners in their pocketbooks….
If you want to practice your marksmanship in California from now on, get ready to open your wallet and pay the taxman. With the passage of AB 211, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California shooters who use paper targets at indoor ranges will have to pay a fee for every hole they put in paper — literally. This new law, codified in the California Penal Code, states that commercial gun ranges must collect a charge of $0.38 per shot, as established by holes made in approved paper targets. This fee, the “Target Tax”, can be raised in the future at the discretion of the California Dept. of Justice.
Here’s how it will work, starting June 1, 2023, when the new Target Tax law goes into effect at California indoor ranges. First, all shooters must purchase California DOJ-approved paper targets (you may no longer bring your own). When you purchase a certified target at an indoor range, your name and the number of targets you have purchased will be recorded in a state database. Then, after your shooting session, the targets must be scanned, with the number of shot holes recorded. A charge of $0.38 per scanned hole will be added as a line item for your range session, along with the DOJ target-processing fee of $5.00 per target.
With 30 holes, the new California target tax on this left target would be 30 x $0.38 or $11.40. Conversely, the tax on the target on the right would be just 38 cents, because there is only one hole, though five shots went through the same hole. Obviously, exceptional marksmanship skills can help reduce your target tax liabilities.
California Targets Must Be Culturally Tolerant and Non-Discriminatory
AB 211 also includes a series of provisions which specify the types of targets which may be purchased. First, as you might expect, all targets must be printed on recycled paper. Second, no target may contain any “hate speech” or “micro-aggressions”. Third, while targets may still show human silhouette-style outlines, any targets which depict a protected minority type or non-binary gender type are forbidden. Likewise, any target that shows discernable culture, religion, or national origin are forbidden. So, a target showing a bearded male wearing a turban would be forbidden. If you had such a target, the range owner would be required, under AB 211, to confiscate it. Shown below are two types of targets that would be illegal in California under AB 211. NOTE: It is unclear whether a zombie target would be allowed, if the Zombie is unknown gender, ethnicity, or culture.
Share the post "New California Law Taxes Targets — Fee Due for Each Shot Hole"
