[ol]
[li]Silvester v. Attorney General Harris[/li]10 day waiting period. Here is a thread discussing the district court opinion
What it is: Federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period (as applied to law-abiding gun licensees/known gun owners). Even if a person already legally possesses a firearm, they are still subject to the 10 day waiting period.
**Current Stage: **Plaintiffs won the case at the trial court. Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris has appealed her loss to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, before the case proceeds at the Ninth Circuit, Senior District Court Judge Ishii must first rule on two pending motions by Harris. (One to extend the time DOJ has to comply with the order from 6 months to 12 months, and another to stay the order pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal.)
Next step: Defendant’s motions have been briefed by both sides and both motions will be decided by Judge Ishii, we expect soon. After he rules on those, the case will continue on appeal at the Ninth Circuit.
Bottom line: At the end of this case, either the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court will decide what “infringe” means in the context of laws that severely burden, but do not necessarily outright ban, the exercise of core Second Amendment rights by law-abiding people.
[li]Pena v. Lindley[/li]Handgun Roster. We’ve had several threads that discussed this issue tangentially. Here is the longest one in the Pit. Here is another. CA maintains a list of handguns that are “not unsafe”. Only handguns from that list may be sold in the state new from dealers. To get on that list, the state has various tests that each handgun must pass. Things like a drop test where the handgun is dropped from a set distance to determine if it will discharge. One of the requirements that was recently added was a requirement to microstamp. This technology doesn’t current exist so in effect this has banned the sale of all new model handguns in CA. Not to mention, this law results in identical handguns being legal or illegal based on which were submitted for testing, so a model that is a particular color is permissable, but a different color is not.
What it is: Federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s handgun “roster” and microstamping requirements.
**Current Stage: **On October 2, plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority with the district court, pointing out the winning decision in Silvester v. Harris. Previously, both sides filed supplemental briefing on July 7 per the court’s order. Both sides have moved for summary judgement, and all mandatory and supplemental briefing ordered by the court has been submitted.
Next step: Awaiting decision by Federal District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller.
Bottom line: Are gun control laws – like California’s handgun “roster” and microstamping requirements – that limit access to arms in common use for lawful purposes unconstitutional? We think so, and this case will provide us with the answer from the courts.
[li]John Doe v. Attorney General Harris[/li]1 handgun per 30 day period.
What it is: State law challenge to CA DOJ’s enforcement practice of denying a “1-in-30” handgun purchase limit exemptions to gun buyers that possess both a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) and ATF FFL03 (“Curio and Relic”) license. This is somewhat of a more esoteric argument - mostly a rules argument on how administrative process was followed. Currently a person is limited to one handgun purchase in a 30 day period. Most people don’t run into this, but collectors, or those purchasing at shows or gifts for others do.
Current Stage: Plaintiffs are conducting limited discovery. Following that, the case will move forward on motions.
Next step: Completion of discovery and filing of motion(s).
Bottom line: Can state agencies like the DOJ make up policies as they go, especially when those policies directly conflict with the express written text of the statutes? And, even if they somehow could, did DOJ’s rulemaking follow the Administrative Procedures Act?
[li]Vargas v. LA Sheriff Scott (formerly Lu v. Baca)[/li]CCW Pre-application Policies
What it is: State law challenge to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department policies and practices that require carry license (“CCW”) applicants to pay costs, complete additional forms, and face additional time delays beyond what is allowed under the Penal Code.
**Current Stage: **Plaintiff won at the trial court, but Los Angeles has appealed. Their opening brief is expected to be filed at the Second District Court of Appeal for the by the end of November.
Next step: Briefing by both sides at the Court of Appeal must be completed and then a hearing date will be set for oral arguments, which should take place sometime in 2015.
Bottom line: Can carry license issuing authorities require applicants to jump through unnecessary, burdensome hoops and comply with restrictive rules that go beyond the system established by the Legislature? We think the state law is quite clear here, but Los Angeles (and others) think they can get away with such behavior. Notably, published Court of Appeal decisions are binding on all trial courts throughout the state; unless the California Supreme Court (or another district of the Court of Appeal in a different case) decides to weigh in, this case should resolve some of the “pre-application” problems faced by Californians who want to exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense in public with loaded, operable handguns.
[li]Richards v. Prieto[/li]Self Defense as “good cause” for CCW. This case was decided on the same grounds as Peruta which was discussed here.
**What it is: **Federal Second Amendment challenge to Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto’s application of a “heightened good cause” standard for carry license (“CCW”) applicants.
Current stage: Following the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta v. Gore decision this past February, the same panel of Ninth Circuit judges ruled that the Richards plaintiffs (including CGF) prevailed on the same grounds against Yolo County’s practice of requiring more than “self-defense” for the “good cause” requirement.
Next step: The Ninth Circuit rejected Harris’s motion to intervene in Peruta. This case will likely request en banc review along with a sister case out of Hawaii in Baker. The 9th circuit then must decide whether to take either one, both, or neither of these cases for review. Pending that outcome, there is still an avenue to get to SCOTUS.
Bottom line: The Ninth Circuit’s Peruta decision got it right, just as it did when it correctly decided Richards. However, even if the decisions ‘stick’ here in the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court will ultimately need to weigh in and resolve the right to bear arms in the context of subjective and discretionary regulatory schemes like California’s “good cause” and “good moral character” requirements that are enforced by sheriffs and municipal police chiefs. Otherwise, large segments of the United States (including residents of highly populated states like New Jersey, New York, and Maryland) will continue to go disenfranchised of their right to carry for self-defense while others, including residents of California, will have access to at least some manner by which to exercise the right.[/ol]
I’m most interested in #2, #4, and #5. With #5 being the most important. I think all should be decided in favor of plaintiffs based on the reasoning above.
And an honorable mention to Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Attorney General Harris. This case was just filed and is a 1st amendment challenge to CA Civ Code 26820 which bans the display of handguns advertising the sale or transfer thereof which is visible from outside a store. In other words, gun stores can’t show images of handguns. Rifles are perfectly legal, but a handgun is a no no. Here is a Volokh articleon the case, for which Volokh is one of the attorneys. I think this one is a slam dunk but you never know. It seems rediculous that images of handguns are banned at all based on 1st ammendment grounds, but on top of that rifles are perfectly fine which makes no sense.
