The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law last June, but some cities in the Golden State still have identical statutes in place. That list includes Los Angeles and Inglewood, and today the Firearms Policy Coalition and California Gun Rights Foundation, along with gun owner Thomas Lopez, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the gun rationing laws.
Under the ordinances, no one is allowed to purchase more than one handgun every 30 days. After the Ninth Circuit struck down the state law, Democrats enacted a new “3-in-30” statute that took effect back in April. That law, too, seems just as devoid of any historical tradition as the “1-in-30” scheme, but it will have to be challenged separately.
In the meantime, though, there’s simply no justification for any municipality to keep its own “1-in-30” law in place, which should make Lopez v. Los Angeles a legal slam dunk for FPC and its fellow plaintiffs.
In Nguyen v. Bonta, the Circuit struck down California’s statewide 1-in-30 Ban as facially unconstitutional, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms and to acquire them without meaningful constraint, and that no historical tradition of firearms regulation supports a categorical ban on the frequency of purchases by law abiding citizens. The local ordinances challenged here impose the same prohibition on the same conduct for the same reasons. They fail under the same analysis.
The Defendant jurisdictions enacted their 1-in-30 Bans years before the State adopted its own version of the restriction. The Ninth Circuit’s invalidation of the state law did not automatically repeal these local ordinances. These Bans remain on the books and enforceable. Defendants have given no indication they intend to stop enforcing them. Plaintiffs—one who wishes to purchase multiple handguns and membership organizations whose members share that same desire—bring this action to ensure that the Constitution’s command reaches these local enactments as well.
In addition to taking on these local ordinances, Lopez is also being used as a vehicle to challenge California’s “fee-shifting” provision, which can be found in Section 1021.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. As the plaintiffs write:
Section 1021.11 is an unconstitutional attempt by the State ofCalifornia to deter citizens and firearms advocacy groups—through a novel, one-way fee-shifting penalty—from accessing the courts to litigate claims over firearms regulations.
… The statute allows government defendants to recover attorney’s fees and costs if they prevail on any claim, even if plaintiffs prevail on others, while denying plaintiffs prevailing-party status altogether. It also authorizes a separate state-court collection action within three years and purports to permit enforcement even if a court has already held the statute invalid or preempted. In substance, Section 1021.11 is designed to deter firearms-related civil-rights litigation by threatening asymmetric and potentially ruinous fee liability.
Now-retired U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently enjoined the fee-shifting provision in Milller v. Bonta, and Attorney General Rob Bonta declined to challenge that part of Benitez’s ruling on appeal. The injunction, though, does not apply statewide. If FPC and its partners are successful with this litigation, a similar injunction would prevent the fee-shifting scheme from being enforced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as well as the Southern District.
The fee-shifting law is, as Judge Benitez held, a violation of the First Amendment by unfairly seeking to punish those who use the courts to overturn unconstitutional gun laws. FPC also argues that California’s provision is preempted by federal statute and the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Given the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down the state’s “1-in-30” law, I think there’s a good chance that Los Angeles and Inglewood will simply repeal their local ordinances instead of trying to defend them in court. That, in turn, might moot the challenge to the fee-shifting provision, but if that is the case then I’m (sadly) confident that California Democrats will provide FPC and others will plenty of other opportunities to challenge the provision in the future.
Editor’s Note: Groups like FPC are working across the country to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legal successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
