California State Flag

Sacramento, CA -(AmmoLand.com)- Attorneys for two civil rights groups opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” gun control ballot initiative, two Emmy Award-winning filmmakers, a San Diego-based civil rights activist, and a candidate for Congress filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Eastern District of California federal court to prevent enforcement of California Government Code section 9026.5, a statute that bans the use of Assembly video footage in political advertisements. [ED: Plaintiffs want to publish TV ads opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All Act” gun control ballot initiative and pending gun control bills but cannot due to California law criminalizing use of Assembly video footage for political purposes.]  A violation of section 9026.5 is a misdemeanor crime that carries penalties of . . .

up to 1 year of jail time and a $1,000 fine per occurrence. Today’s request for a temporary restraining order in Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al., v. California Attorney General Kamala Harris may be heard as early as next week.

The brief filed in support of the plaintiffs’ request argues that “[section 9026.5] has chilled Plaintiffs’ exercise of core political speech and inhibited the free-flow of discussion about public issues” and that “discussion of public issues is integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”

“This is really a straightforward case about one of the most fundamental rights we have,” said Brandon Combs, the chairman of the Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee PAC. “Our Republic depends on the freedom to speak freely about political issues and elected politicians, especially those that could drastically affect other fundamental rights like the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

As the plaintiffs’ brief notes, “The Assembly carries on the legislative business on behalf of the citizens of California and it creates video footage that captures those proceedings. California cannot restrict its citizens from sharing that footage with fellow citizens in furtherance of their fundamental speech rights.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.

A copy of the petition for temporary restraining order for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpcsadc-v- harris-tro- brief.

A copy of the complaint for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpcsadc-v- harris- complaint.

———-

About FPCSADC:

Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee (FPCSADC) is the official pro- gun grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative. FPCSADC was formed days after Newsom announced his intention to put his gun control scheme on the November 2016 ballot and has been fighting against the initiative since its inception. More information about FPCSADC can be found at https://www.fpcsadc.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a grassroots, nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

More information about FPC can be found at www.firearmspolicy.org.

 

Recommended For You

24 Responses to Firearm Policy Second Amendment Defense Committee Seeks Restraining Order to Use CA Assembly Video Footage to Oppose Gunpocalypse

  1. At least someone out there is fighting the good fight, I fear much won’t come of it however. 35 years later and kalifornia über alles still rings true. For anybody over 50 it’s a dead kennedys song. Funny, same governor today as there was back then hmmm.

  2. Is anyone surprised that California, the place rights go to die, is also actively suppressing the first amendment (no less when it pertains to politicians)?

    • I will argue that whenever you have a super majority of the Left or Right you get stupid laws period.

      The issue is that people who vote are voting for their team to win without regard of how stupid that person they are voting for happens to be. This is how we get super majorities, bad politician and thus stupid laws. Some where along the way, substantive issues are lost.

      • I absolutely agree! Both political parties suck! Both are full of liars, crooks, and kooks ! Both have been shredding the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights for sometime now…Both political parties have been throwing the American citizenry under the bus…Both Political parties have looted and pillaged Social Security…And stolen our money that we the people put into this fund.

        • It’s actually worse than that. There is only one party, that of the state. They have applied labels and use these things as distractions, but they all work for the same goal, against the people.

  3. Seriously, it’s illegal in California for citizens to use politicians’ own on the record words and actions against them? I can’t even begin to think of what possible justification the supporters of a law like that could come up with.

    • I would go one step further in this, I believe there should be nothing that the state does that is legal to keep from the people. There should be no need to present FOID requests for example, that they delay and redact and obstruct. It should be illegal for them to not make all deliberations and any discussions, emails, texts, anything from us.

      Look for example what they do every day – use alternate non government email accounts (IRS), fake email servers, hold meetings in Starbucks, etc. This is nothing but them plotting to work against us.

      This should be obvious to everyone, I think.

      • NitL I’m reasonably sure you meant FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), not FOID, the stupid card that Illinois requires of its gun owners. Autocorrect probably bit you there, but I still want to use this as an excuse to point the people who wrote the rules requiring the FOID should have been told to FOAD.

    • Just like recording an (unwanted) interaction between yourself and a police officer in Massachusetts is “illegal wiretapping.” As Aesop advised us, “Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”

  4. Haters gonna hate. Ciminals gonna Criminal. Politicians gonna….oh crap all one in the same.

    The left Loves free speech – NOT- you can call Bush a Nazi and carry signs with his face in a Hitler Do and mustache but refer to a lefty policy as nazi like.

  5. You can’t show videos of politicians in a taxpayer-funded forum acting like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo. Because that would embarrass the monkeys.

  6. Well, going all Clintonian … it depnds on what the definition of “use” is.

    What if they “use” a reenactment? Maybe a dramatic reading, by sock puppets?

    What about ads that point (link) to existing video footage? Maybe link in at the exact moment you refer to.

    What about a Monty Python sryle conversation about what you can’t say or use?

    “Well, I have a transcript here, so we can be sure not to use any of it…”

    “Oh, I see why he wouldn’t want to be seen saying that. That’s daft.”

    How many news cycles and free ads do you get by making the restriction the issue? “What don’t they want us to see?” is way more sinister than any clip.

  7. The strange thing to me is this kind of law hasn’t been tossed on Constitutional grounds long ago, except of course evil politicians who naturally wish to hide their horrific behavior from the public.

    • The California law that makes it illegal to use video of Assembly proceedings is obviously, blatantly unconstitutional. What is going to be really interesting, however, will be the verbal gymnastics that the courts will spew forth to uphold the ban since the plaintiffs want to use that video in furtherance of gun rights.

      If the plaintiffs wanted to strike the ban in order to save whales in the Pacific Ocean, the courts would immediately strike down the ban. Because the plaintiffs want to strike down the ban in order to save gun rights, the courts will uphold the ban.

      Any bets that the courts’ decisions will uphold the ban when there is a “compelling government interest” or “public safety” at stake?

      • No weird arguments needed. This law only codifies decorum that had been de facto law for many years.
        Even without this law, it was always very questionably legal to quote politicians.
        As for one party, as long as Republicans like Trump scare all minorities, Ca will be Democrat without a contest.
        Wilson turned off Ca Latinos with 187 and the State that brought us Reagan will be Democrst for at least the next 50 years.

  8. “The plaintiffs are represented by … and Eugene Volokh…”

    Somebody get this mensch on Trump’s SCOTUS short list. PLEASE.

  9. Wow, the new website works now. I tried it out as soon as it was rolled out that first morning and I was like……uh, keep trying boys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *