Jump to content


Photo

Federal Court Strikes Down California Law Banning Gun Signs


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 12 September 2018 - 07:35 AM

Read more: https://www.calgunsf...s#ixzz5QtVu6GpJ 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

SACRAMENTO, CA –-(Ammoland.com)- Today, federal Judge Troy Nunley ruled that a California law banning licensed gun dealers from displaying handgun-related signs or advertising is unconstitutional and violates their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Becerra, is supported by Second Amendment civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as well as industry association California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, banned gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. “But,” the court held today, quoting from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

While the law completely banned handgun-related signs, the “Plaintiffs could display a large neon sign reading ‘GUNS GUNS GUNS’ or a 15-foot depiction of a modern sporting rifle, and this would be permissible,” Judge Nunley explained in his order, highlighting how unreasonable and under-inclusive the law was. And even after four years of litigation, “the Government has not demonstrated that § 26820 would have any effect on handgun suicide or violence.”

The government defended the law on the theory that it “inhibits people with ‘impulsive personality traits’ from purchasing a handgun,” but Judge Nunley held that this cannot justify restricting free speech rights: “[T]he Supreme Court has rejected this highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech, holding that the Government may not ‘achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers.’” “California may not accomplish its goals by violating the First Amendment. . . . § 26820 is unconstitutional on its face,” Judge Nunley concluded.

“This is an important victory for our clients and for the First Amendment,” said lead counsel Brad Benbrook. “Judge Nunley decided that the State could not justify its censorship of our clients, and we are delighted with the opinion. As the Court explained today, the government cannot censor commercial speech in a paternalistic effort to keep citizens from making unpopular choices – or choices the government doesn’t approve – if they are told the truth.”

“Under the First Amendment, the government may not restrict speech on the theory that it will supposedly lead a few listeners to do bad things, or even to commit crimes,” explained Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. “The Supreme Court has held this in the past, and has indeed often struck down restrictions on supposedly dangerous commercial advertising—including advertising for products that some people abuse, such as alcohol. It’s good to see the district court recognizing that the First Amendment has no gun advertising exception.”

“Today, the Court correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns protected under the Second Amendment,” commented CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “People have a fundamental, individual right to buy handguns and licensed dealers have a right to tell people where they can lawfully acquire those handguns. Today’s ruling means that the government cannot prevent people, or gun dealers, from talking about constitutionally protected instruments and conduct.”

“This decision will serve as a reminder that firearms dealers have First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights, even in California,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “The bottom line is that a state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right. We are delighted to offer financial support of this case.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group as well as Professor Volokh. They expect that today’s order in the long-running lawsuit, which was filed in 2014, will be appealed by Attorney General Becerra to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

A copy of the order can be viewed at https://www.calgunsf...rifle-v-becerra.

 

“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#2 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 12 September 2018 - 09:00 AM

Good


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#3 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,058 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 12 September 2018 - 09:23 AM

I cannot believe a judge on the west coast just referred to an AR as a "modern sporting rifle."


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#4 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,248 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 12 September 2018 - 10:13 AM

Since its not inclusive enough California will just ban more signage and use a broader reason as justification. Thats what I would do, yup.

Edited by Davey, 12 September 2018 - 10:15 AM.


#5 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 12 September 2018 - 10:56 AM

I cannot believe a judge on the west coast just referred to an AR as a "modern sporting rifle."

My jaw is on the floor...


Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#6 FarmHand357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 12 September 2018 - 09:49 PM

 

I cannot believe a judge on the west coast just referred to an AR as a "modern sporting rifle."

My jaw is on the floor...

 

 

Mine too


Punish the crime, not the freedom

#7 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 13 September 2018 - 03:09 PM

I cannot believe a judge on the west coast just referred to an AR as a "modern sporting rifle."

My jaw is on the floor...

 

Agreed !  This judge's vocabulary use leads me to think that he might be a gun owner as well.  If so, more power to him! :clap:


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#8 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,142 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 13 September 2018 - 09:40 PM

In related news, more sane lawmakers are drafting legislation prohibiting leftists from voting, on the premise that it "inhibits people with stupid political beliefs from dragging the rest of us down the toilet with them."

#9 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,459 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 16 September 2018 - 10:57 AM

In related news, more sane lawmakers are drafting legislation prohibiting leftists from voting, on the premise that it "inhibits people with stupid political beliefs from dragging the rest of us down the toilet with them."

 

There's something to that landowner thing...


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#10 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 16 September 2018 - 08:19 PM

In related news, more sane lawmakers are drafting legislation prohibiting leftists from voting, on the premise that it "inhibits people with stupid political beliefs from dragging the rest of us down the toilet with them."

 

There's something to that landowner thing...

 

OR, as Heinlein theorized in "Starship Troopers", only veterans could become citizens.  Hhmm??


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#11 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 16 September 2018 - 08:26 PM

Ya, Heinlein was a great author.  

 

It is my belief that a majority of people, despite what they may say, don't really want freedom, they want to be taken care of.  And a lot of people, talk about "their rights" but then they try to co-opt politicians to go violate other people's rights and they delude themselves into thinking that they control the politicians and not the other way around.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users