B&L Productions v Newsom - CA ban on gun sales at gun shows

[Euler]

The lower courts have litigated the case fully. Although the plaintiffs intend to file a petition for certiorari, they have not done so yet.

At the district level, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of CA's law banning the sale of firearms at gun shows on state property, but then the trial court dismissed the case. The state had appealed the preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to CA9. CA9 continued the preliminary injunction pending appeal. (There are some district details that I'm skipping.)

Ultimately, CA9 vacated the injunction and affirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs petitioned for an en banc rehearing, but were denied.

On September 30, plaintiffs applied to the US Supreme Court (Kagan) to stay the mandate to the trial court to vacate the injunction and to award costs to the state. (shadow docket)

Circuit Court opinion said:

...
In Case No. 23-55431, B&L challenged a ban on firearm sales at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. In Case No. 23-3793, B&L challenged bans on firearm sales (1) at the Orange County Fairgrounds and (2) on all state property.

Addressing the First Amendment challenges, the panel held that because the challenged statutes solely restrict nonexpressive conduct -- contracting for the sale of firearms -- they are not subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The statutes do not prohibit offers to sell firearms but rather bar the acceptance of such offers, which is what determines when a contract becomes binding. Accepting an offer, an act that formally consummates a business transaction, is nonexpressive conduct and is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Moreover, the challenged statutes apply to all vendors and, therefore, do not have the effect of "singling out" those gun show participants who wish to engage in expressive activity.

Addressing the Second Amendment challenges, the panel determined that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover B&L's proposed conduct -- namely, contracting for the sale of firearms and ammunition on state property. Moreover, B&L essentially conceded that the challenged statutes do not "meaningfully constrain" any individual's ability to keep and bear arms. B&L made no allegation that a ban on sales on state property would impair a single individual from keeping and bearing firearms, even after having an opportunity to amend its complaint.
...
We conclude that B&L has failed to establish that the Challenged Statutes violate its constitutional rights. The district court's dismissal of Case No. 23-55431 is AFFIRMED. The preliminary injunction granted in Case No. 23-3793 is VACATED. Costs shall be awarded to the State Defendants in both cases.

The wording in the circuit opinion is a bit misleading. Both docket numbers mentioned are appellate dockets, not district dockets.

[Glock43]

Am I off base, or does this case smell like Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner?  (Taxing of printer ink)

 

Minnesota - “our taxing of ink doesn’t infringe on your freedom of the press.”

California - “our eliminating firearm sales doesn’t infringe on your RKBA.”

 

 

 

[Euler]

On October 4, Kagan denied the application.

There should still be a petition for certiorari soon.

[Euler]

There was a petition in November.

On January 16, the Court requested a response from CA.

[Euler]

On January 21, CA requested an extension to respond.

On January 22, the Court granted an extension to respond from February 18 to March 20.

[ragsbo]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:54 PM, Euler said:

On January 21, CA requested an extension to respond.

On January 22, the Court granted an extension to respond from February 18 to March 20.

Need to stop these endless extensions! All they are is a stalling plot to drag it out longer when they know it is a weak case. Delays justice

[Euler]

Petition denied.