Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch in CA

[mhendo]

Case #1: Silvester v. Attorney General [del]Harris[/del] Becerra

Supreme Court denies cert, with Clarence Thomas dissenting.

[Bone]

@mhendo

Case #1: Silvester v. Attorney General [del]Harris[/del] Becerra

Supreme Court denies cert, with Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Ahh, you beat me to it, good show. That issue is dead for a while now.

[watchwolf49]

The Thomas dissent seems to focus on whether the 10-day waiting period works to curb violence or not … rather than how onerous the law is to exercising the right to own a gun …

Thanx to all for these updates …

[Bone]

@Bone

Oral arguments at the federal appellate level are scheduled for March 16, 2017, nearly 3000 days since the case was first filed and over 2 years since the appeal was filed.

Case #2 Pena v. Lindley ruling from the 9th circuit yesterday. Essentially holding that the Roster in CA is okay because it only regulates commercial sales and not possession. Apparently according to the 9th circuit, CA can ban all commercial sales if it wishes because that doesn’t burden possession. Never mind the fact that without purchase there can be no possession. They did not address the non-existent technology required in CA.

This one can’t go to SCOTUS fast enough.

[SamuelA]

Can you post somewhere a summary for the present 2018 state of all 5 cases? Or at least the ones that have finally been decided?

My personal views are that if the empirical evidence says that more guns == more preventable deaths, then we should do what the evidence says. Either way. From what I have heard, the majority of credible evidence seems to support the view that in fact more guns does result in more total deaths, so that’s my view at present.

But with all that said, I don’t like how in this case the state can just violate it’s own laws and then we have to wait years for a court to stop them from doing that. Either the laws get applied, with higher laws like constitutional rights trumping lower ones, or they don’t.

[Bone]

Regarding Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Harris - This case was filed in 2014 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. I think this one is a slam dunk but you never know. It seems ridiculous that images of handguns are banned at all based on 1st amendment grounds, but on top of that rifles are perfectly fine which makes no sense.

@Bone

While today we have an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction of enforcement of the CA law that prohibits the display of handgun advertising, the court did say the following:

Even though the court initially found that the plaintiffs were likely to win, they did not choose to grant a preliminary injunction which was very odd to me at the time. They held that there was likely ongoing violations of the first amendment in Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Attorney General Harris, but inexplicably let it continue. Well today, a federal district court struck down California law that banned handgun signs and advertising by gun dealers:

Although the bulk of the Government’s argument focuses on suicide, the Government still maintains, as it did in the preliminary injunction stage, that § 26820 also directly advances California’s interest in reducing handgun crimes. (ECF No. 52 at 23–24.) The Government still, however, has not produced evidence that § 26820 reduces impulsive handgun purchases and that this reduction in turn leads to less impulsive handgun crime, beyond what California’s ten-day waiting period already provides. In the absence of evidence and with no common-sense relation, the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating that § 26820 directly and materially advances that interest. In sum, the Government fails to show that § 26820 has any effect on handgun suicide or crime.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bone

Regarding Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Harris - This case was filed in 2014 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. I think this one is a slam dunk but you never know. It seems ridiculous that images of handguns are banned at all based on 1st amendment grounds, but on top of that rifles are perfectly fine which makes no sense.

If only everything the government did had to make sense…

Anyway, commercial speech is afforded somewhat less protection than your speech. That said I would be surprised if California prevails on this one. Seems they have to show a “substantial” government interest and show that this law advances that interest. Not sure they can do that here.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has often acknowledged this constitutional protection, the Supreme Court’s decisions have recognized the “‘common sense’ distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech.” (Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 455-56, 56 L. Ed. 2d 444, 98 S. Ct. 1912 (1978) (citing Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771 n.24, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)).

These distinctions have led the Court to conclude that “the Constitution . . . affords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression.” U.S. v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 125 L. Ed. 2d 345, 61 U.S.L.W. 4759, 4761 (1993) (citing Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477, 106 L. Ed. 2d 388, 109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989), Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Com., 447 U.S. 557, 563, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980), and Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456)).

In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:

“[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.”

This four-part analysis endured to this day as the constitutional benchmark in commercial speech cases.

SOURCE: Advertising and the First Amendment

[Bone]

As it currently stands, CA has already lost. Only if they appeal would they have a chance at prevailing at a higher court. This is a slam dunk and I’m sure Gura would appreciate more attorney fees.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

The NRA just got fantastic news from a former Supreme Court justice

Will we see more of these cases in SCOTUS?

Will we see a more aggressive 2nd amendment civil rights to strike down all arbitrary and unjustified infringements?