September 14th 2023In June of 2022, the Democrats in California’s legislature passed AB 2571. This piece of legislation imposed massive fines on any communication regarding shooting sports or firearms that might be “attractive” to minors. California Governor Gavin Newsom happily signed this poorly-drafted, blatantly anticonstitutional piece legislation. As predicted, AB2571 had a devastating impact on California youth sports and firearms programs. Thankfully, AB2571 (as codified by California Business and Professions Code 22949.80), has been challenged in court. We are happy to report that the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined AB 2571, and found it likely unconstitutional on many levels. The 9th Circuit sent the case to the District Court, where the plaintiffs would seek an injunction against the application of this horrendous and ill-conceived law. 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 not shown that prohibiting all truthful advertising related to firearms is tailored enough to advance the state’s goal of preventing firearms and gun violence among minors. California has failed to meet its burden of justifying the proposed speech restriction. [Plaintiff] will likely prevail on the merits in its First Amendment claim.” California has many tools available to combat illegal firearm use and violence in the state’s youth. It cannot ban truthful advertisements about lawful firearm usage among adults and minors, unless it can prove that such an invasion of the First Amendment will substantially further the state’s interests in curtailing illegal and violent use by minors. California’s law is overly extensive and does not achieve its stated goals, given that minors can use firearms for hunting, shooting and other lawful activities under adult supervision. We conclude that? 22949.80 is unconstitutional in light of the First Amendment. We therefore REVERSE the district courts denial of the preliminary injunction, and REMAND the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”Here is a report by the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released a decision [September 12 2023] on the CRPA’s appeal of AB 2571. This law prohibited the marketing of firearms to minors by members of California’s firearm industry. It also banned youth shooting sports, youth shooter publications, hunting and the recruitment of shooting teams in California. The law affected thousands of children and the safe, responsible youth shooting programs that they participate in. AB 2571, which was amended quickly to try to mitigate the most obvious impact on youth shooting sports programs did not make it less unconstitutional. The law was confusing to those who work with youth shooters. CRPA, Second Amendment Foundation and Junior Sports Magazine joined forces with California Youth Shooting Sports Association (CYSA), Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports (RCYCS), Gun Owners of California and The CRPA Foundation to challenge this unconstitutional legislation in court. Plaintiffs moved quickly for an injunction to stop the law, so that youth could continue working on their marksmanship while the case is litigated. The lower court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary order, so they appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2023, oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. The court today ruled that the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and reversed the decision of the lower court. It noted that “because California allows minors under supervision possess and use firearms to hunt and for other lawful activities,” Section 22949.80 regulates speech about lawful activity that is not misleading. The court also ruled that the law does not “directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests” in reducing gun crime and the illegal use of firearms for minors. The record did not show that a California minor ever bought a firearm illegally, even if it was because of an advertisement. The court ruled that the law was “more expansive than necessary” because it included truthful ads about the legal use of firearms by adults and minors. “Judge VanDyke wrote separate to emphasize that laws such as section 22949.80 which attempt to use coercive powers of the state in order to eliminate a particular viewpoint from public discourse deserve strict scrutiny. Chuck Michel, CRPA’s President/General Counsel, said, “This is the outcome that we were hoping for, even though it does not conclude the case.” “Newsom’s attempts to eliminate youth hunting, shooting, and the next generations of Second Amendment supporters… have been stopped once again. This is yet another example of the legislative overreach by politicians and their willingness to violate constitutional rights. “The Ninth Circuit panel reversed denial of the preliminarily injunction and sent it back to the district court to continue proceedings in accordance with its decision. This means that youth shooting programs can continue to operate as usual for the time being. It takes time before an appellate decision becomes final. The lower court still has to make a final ruling on the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Watch for more information about the District Court’s ruling soon.
Similar PostsTags: AB 25, AB Challenge, Gavin Newsom (Newsom), Unconstitutional Laws, Youth Shooting Programs
