Franklin Armory Title 1
Franklin Armory Title 1
Previous Post
Next Post

In a ruling issued Friday, September 8, Judge Daniel S. Murphy of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles affirmed that the damage claims in a lawsuit filed by Franklin Armory against the California Department of Justice (DOJ) are sufficient to proceed with litigation.

The civil case, Franklin Armory, Inc., et al. vs. California Department of Justice, et al, is a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed in conjunction with California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), which alleges a number of unlawful actions by the DOJ and Former Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, that prevented the sale of Franklin Armory’s Title 1® firearm and other types of firearms.

In his ruling, Judge Murphy permitted the negligent interference with prospective economic advantage claims to proceed, holding:

Plaintiffs have alleged facts to establish that Becerra failed to abide by the Penal Code’s mandate that records of “all firearms” transfers must include information such as the type of firearm. (See Pen. Code, § 28160(a).) As discussed above, the DES [Dealer Record of Sale Entry System] did not have a method to accurately identify Title I firearms. Plaintiffs allege that Becerra intentionally refused to reform DES to allow for the accurate identification of Title I firearms. Therefore, Becerra allegedly violated the Penal Code mandate that all required information must be reflected in a firearm transfer. This constitutes an independently wrongful act.

Other causes of action brought by Franklin Armory were deemed mooted by the Defendants’ compliance with Franklin Armory’s demands after filing the lawsuit, since “the DES was overhauled in October 2021 and now indisputably includes a proper method to report Title I firearms,” among others; “Defendants are no longer using tax dollars to implement a discriminatory reporting system.”

“We are pleased that the DOJ has rectified the defects in the DES and that Judge Murphy rightfully acknowledged the claims for damages against California DOJ’s egregious abuses of power,” said Franklin Armory President Jay Jacobson. “We are confident in the merits of our case and are encouraged by this ruling, which gives hope to those of us who believe government officials should be held fully accountable for their wrongdoings.”

Full details of the case and available documents can be found on the website of Michel & Associates, attorneys for Franklin Armory and CRPA.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The next wave of “accountability” needs to codify that politicians, elected officials, and appointed employees shall have immunity from civil damages stricken when they make decisions that are later found to either be unconstitutional or contrary to law or regulations.

    • That’s an impossible standard as long as the court only accepts cases that are “ripe” and refuses to offer prospective opinions. You could pass or implement a law that you think is constitutional, yet, a court in 10 years could decide that it’s not. No one sane would take that risk.

      On the other hand, there’s a more conservative option: turning the absolute immunity of elected officials and legislators into “qualified” immunity. At least that would be pierced if they do something that is against caselaw at the time. And there’s plenty of examples- like that of the New Mexico governor right now.

  2. Franklin makes decent stuff and business of the type have enough headaches with production, etc. Hopefully justice is swift

  3. This lawsuit is great and all, but even if it’s allowed, CA still has universal registration and background checks, even on family transfers and estate bequests. Grandpa didn’t keep his items off the radar all those decades just to have the grandkids allow Newsom and CADOJ to put them into the spotlight for future confiscation.

    The real measure of any actual freedom here will be when registration, Unsafe Gun Rosters, restrictions on what type of gun or ammo you may possess, etc, are eliminated.

    Until then, some people keep building…

  4. To many lawyers and to many court rooms.
    When a constitutional right only has the protection of a courtroom or lawyer we have lost.

    • When a constitutional right is trampled on, there needs to be jail time involved. When this is done, it will curb the amount of abuses that are done.

      • Ed Schrade:
        I’m no lawyer, but I’ll bet that what you suggest would have to be written into the Constitution by amendment. And trust me; that ain’t going to happen.

Comments are closed.