Previous Post
Next Post

2014 Variety Power Of Women Presented By Lifetime - Show

Last November four California gun dealers filed suit on First Amendment grounds against the nation’s best-looking attorney general over the state’s 1923 vintage law that prohibits gun retailers from displaying any image of a handgun that is visible from the street. Of course, Kamala Harris is busy running for the Senate seat soon to be vacated by the vacuous Barbara Boxer, so Golden State gunnies may not have her to kick around much longer. In the mean time, as the case winds its way toward a showdown before a federal judge, both sides are trading barbs and motions as they jockey for position. Here’s a press release that Calguns issued today . . .

California Gun Dealers Fire Back in First Amendment Lawsuit

March 6, 2015 (SACRAMENTO, CA) — A number of California firearm retailers are firing back in a federal civil rights lawsuit against Attorney General Kamala Harris and the State’s Department of Justice.

The case was filed last November after the DOJ cited a Tracy, California gun dealer for having pictures of handguns in his store’s windows in violation of Penal Code section 26820. Plaintiffs include Tracy Rifle and Pistol, Sacramento Black Rifle, Ten Percent Firearms, PRK Arms, and Imbert & Smithers.
The plaintiffs say that the law, passed in 1923, is a ban on constitutionally-protected speech — speech that the dealers believe is protected under the First Amendment.
In a recent court filing opposing the challenge, the Attorney General argued that “California has a substantial interest in decreasing handgun violence and [Penal Code] section 26820 directly advances that interest by dampening demand for emotion-driven impulse purchases of handguns.”
“Typically the government is less upfront about its desire to use speech restrictions for other policy goals,” attorneys for the gun dealers said in their reply brief.

CLICK HERE to help us fund this lawsuit!

The gun retailers’ brief went on to say that, “At bottom, the Attorney General thinks that people’s exercise of their Second Amendment rights is unwise and dangerous. As a result, the Attorney General would like people not to exercise those constitutional rights, much as the Virginia Legislature did in Bigelow v. Virginia…when it restricted advertising for abortions.”

The Virginia abortion advertising ban was struck down in 1975 by the United States Supreme Court.
“The Attorney General might prefer a world without handguns and an Orwellian ban on Second Amendment-related speech, but the Supreme Court has told us the government can’t use speech restrictions to chill the exercise of other fundamental rights,” commented Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearm industry association.
Tracy Rifle and Pistol owner Michael Baryla added: “The First Amendment prevents the government from muzzling citizens and businesses that government officials don’t approve of.  This speech ban should be struck down.”
Quipped Baryla, “Ms. Harris’ heavy-handed attacks on our free speech don’t seem like very ‘liberal’ policies to me at all.”
The plaintiffs’ pending motion for preliminary injunction against the statute is scheduled to be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Troy L. Nunley at 2 p.m. on March 12, 2015, in Courtroom 2 (15th floor) at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Case documents for Tracy Rifle and Pistol, LLC, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris, et al. can be viewed at

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. She’s a sexist bigot who’s trying to bully people out of their civil rights.

    • Yep. Two points.

      1. Male “progressives” like BHO get a pass on misogyny: “OK, so he’s a sexist pig. He’s right (and by right, I mean faaaaaar left) on women’s issues. So it’s all good.”
      2. No longer being 16 years old, I really don’t care if the woman trying to violate my constitutional rights is “hot,” I’m still gonna be mad.

      • +100
        Us OFWGs are constantly admonished to be inclusive in bringing folks of all genders, races, and whatever into the gun fold. Yet, members of the culture get all Pavlovian with the saliva whenever a photo of any reasonably attractive woman is posted on the site – and the behavior is seemingly promoted by the staff here.

        In fact, regardless of whether Obama made a fool of himself, I think it’s long past time for that offensive “best looking AG” meme to come to a screeching halt.

  2. Florida’s Bondi is way better looking and respects our rights. She will win the seat and work on stripping our rights nationally

  3. If the plaintiffs prevail, does that mean they can demand criminal prosecution of the Attorney General for deprivation of civil rights under color of law?

    We really need to find some way to get all of these politicians and bureaucrats to pay some serious penalties for this garbage.

  4. Well, perhaps here is an even better use of a CA LGS’s 1A rights. Suggested sign for window in lieu of picture of gun: “Kalifornia leftists: such wussies even a PHOTO of a gun scares them.”

  5. Meh. She’s deployment hot.

    Meaning she is hot compared to a few beastly looking females AGs or compared to all the other AGs…who are dudes.

    It’s like being hot by default.

  6. Doesn’t matter how hot she is when she wants to take my guns away.. To quote a great movie “ahh babe you got real ugly”

  7. Does if follow that if a mere picture of gun makes people go nuts and want to hurt their fellow humans, wouldn’t seeing one used in a movie make them even more so?
    Ban Hollywood! (And the hypocrite liberal actors that use them in their movies to make money)

  8. Well admit it, IF she wins the senate seat, for once the Demos will have a nice looking woman in office, instead of the usual manish, dried up old prunes they have always had, but she’s still a left wing commie.

    • Yeah, but watching her on TV with her mouth open (and the sound off) would be easier than Boxer or Feinstein.

  9. “California has a substantial interest in decreasing handgun violence and [Penal Code] section 26820 directly advances that interest by dampening demand for emotion-driven impulse purchases of handguns.”

    Only among emotion-driven impulse-purchasers who (a) Are exempt from Caliber-phobia’s 10-day waiting period, (b) Are willing to break the law by committing violent acts with a gun, but aren’t willing to break the law by going through legal channels to buy one, and (c) Can’t read a simple word like GUNS.

  10. If they win, they only get to advertise a limited number of handguns right?

    Because of micro-stamping(maybe) and authorized guns list (real life!) Besides Ruger(or was it Colt?) and S&W said they weren’t selling in CA, right?

Comments are closed.