“The opposition spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the evolution of general handgun legislation in the early 1900s. It cites zero legislative history, or any history at all, directly addressing the advertising ban at issue here. Yet, as the Attorney General suggests, some evidence of the general purposes behind the 1923 law may ‘provide clues’ as to why the legislature wanted to ban retailers from depicting handguns on store-front placards. It turns out that a principal reason for the adoption of the 1923 legislation, which included the speech restriction here, was . . .
disarming immigrants. The opposition cites a newspaper article in which the president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club—whose support the opposition found noteworthy… —hailed the law, but omits the reason for his enthusiasm: its ‘salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent.'” – Plaintiffs’ response in Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Kamala Harris [via utsandiego.com]