The U.S. Supreme Court on April 28 declined to hear a challenge to the restrictive California law prohibiting gun shows on publicly owned property.
In 2022, the California legislature passed a law forbidding all gun shows on public property. In response, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and others, including gun show promoter B&L Productions Inc., filed a lawsuit challenging the ban.
“The state has been regulating gun show operations almost out of existence, and more restrictive than brick-and-mortar retail gun shops or even internet sales,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said at the time the lawsuit was filed. “Now the California Senate Bill 256 ban amounts to a total deprivation of rights under the color of law, including the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under the law.”
After a district court ruled the law to be constitutional, on appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that the challenged statutes do not infringe on B&L’s constitutional rights.
The court found that the statutes solely restrict non-expressive conduct—contracting for the sale of firearms—and are not subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Additionally, the court ruled that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover B&L’s proposed conduct.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and signaled that it would appeal.
“The three-judge panel clearly did not understand the connection between First Amendment and Second Amendment rights,” the organization wrote in a statement. “CRPA will continue to protect the despised gun culture and fight back against an overreaching government that seeks to limit disfavored fundamental rights and discriminate against certain groups of people on state property.”
In a brief filed urging the Supreme Court to consider the case, SAF stated: “Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must prove that a ban on Second Amendment commerce is part of an enduring historical tradition. Rejecting Petitioners’ Second Amendment claims, the Ninth Circuit abandoned the straightforward test set forth in Bruen and instead applied an interest-balancing ‘meaningful constraint’ test.”
The brief also asked an important question: “Our Constitution vests final judicial review in only one Supreme Court, all other courts being subordinate. If those subordinate courts are defying that Court, can there be a more compelling reason to grant a petition for certiorari?”
Ultimately, despite both SAF, CRPA and the National Rifle Association (NRA) petitioning the Supreme Court to consider the case, justices chose to leave the ban in place. That’s unfortunate for California’s gun owners, prospective gun owners, gun show promoters and liberty itself.
Is it time to consider requiring Californians to pass immigration to enter the United States. ?
The ruling goes in favor of the Blatant Discrimination Inherent with Centuries of Gun Control…While History Confirms the aforementioned discrimination is fact those supposedly on point Defending the 2A always fail to mention it. If the History of Gun Control was not brought to the attention of the court then who really is to blame for the Blatent Discrimination?
GREAT
Nice
great
In the likelihood of a circuit split within the decade yes. Doesn’t help those in the 9th now but only so many ways to twist this kind of logic as new judges get confirmed going forward.
SCOTUS must still be napping! This does not make sense on/at any level.
SCOTUS must still be napping! This does not make sense on/at any level.
SCOTUS must still be napping! This does not make sense on/at any level.
SCOTUS must still be napping! This does not make sense on any level.
SCOTUS must still be napping! This does not make sense on/at any level.
Meanwhile, the Maryland AR-ban case was continued again to the next conference. Everybody seems to think that the Court is waiting for some other case to come up, but nobody seems to know what that case is. It may be the California case Duncan, a mag ban case, but I noticed today that a petition for cert from another state has been filed raising the same issue.
Despite what we would like to believe, because of the very clear and comprehensible rulings of Macdonald, Heller, Bruin, and Miller, the high court has absolutely no interest in making their rulings stick when the lower courts and anti-2nd amendment state governments simply ignore the rulings completely and make up some little side step.
I honestly do not know what it will take to make our government do what the people want. Every year I think its just going to have to comedown to “muskets off the wall”.
“I honestly do not know what it will take to make our government do what the people want.”
Courts of law should never consider what “the people” want, only what the law dictates/means (and not what it might mean on any given day). Legislators are the only actors who should be considering the meaning/outcome of laws.