Previous Post
Next Post


When we reported that four California gun stores, including Tracy Rifle and Pistol, had filed suit against the nation’s best-looking attorney general, Kamala Harris, because they’d been cited by the DOJ under the state’s ban on displaying images of pistols in full public view, we don’t know exactly what we pictured that the store had done to cause the kerfuffle. We just know we imagined something…smaller. However, as you can see, Tracy R&P had adorned their window with bigger-than-life graphics that leave absolutely nothing to the imagination. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Why should a lawful business selling a legal product not be able to indicate that to potential customers? While we’re not lawyers, the Golden State law prohibiting that activity would seem to be a clear-cut First Amendment infringement. But what do we know? Don’t touch that dial.

[h/t DrVino]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. To be fair, that is inarguably a violation of California law. Right or wrong the law may be, you still have to follow it.

    • Right or wrong the law may be, you still have to follow it.

      No you don’t.

      You don’t have to do anything.

      You’re not a sheep.

      You can choose to disobey an unjust law.

      • Amen.

        It’s not like CA is enforcing immigration laws. Then again, one could make the observation that liberal progressives only want to enforce laws that ensure that their rule remains unchallenged.

        Voter ID? No big deal.
        Border? Ha!
        Poster of beautiful 1911? No soup for you!

    • Can you cite the exact law in LA LA land that forbids this? Would like to see that. I agree it appears to be a first amendment infringement. First they go for the second amendment and now the first. Not hard to see where this is all going, is it ?

      • The law at issue is Cal. Penal Code section 26820. It was originally passed in 1923, along with the state’s ban on concealed carry, waiting period, and various other firearm purchase, possession, carry, and sales regulations in AB 263 (Hawes).

    • Interesting that this law applies to gun dealers and ONLY gun dealers. Anti-gun protesters can display pics of pistols all they want, as can non-firearms related businesses. This would be the definition of “arbitrary and capricious” and a sure sign this law should be struck down.

    • It is the duty of moral men to resist immoral laws.

      There was a time when the law of the land forbade aiding escaped slaves. Should people have followed such a law?

      In actual fact, a ban on displaying images of handguns is NOT the law of the land. All federal and state laws are subject to the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is illegal, that’s how a republic works.

    • In order for the law to be challenged in court, it has to have affected someone negatively. These four gun stores are brave to take up the lawsuits in order to get an unconstitutional law repealed and we should be grateful for that. If they didn’t have images of handguns up, and they were never sued, the law would still be unchallenged and would remain that way until someone else is sued for a handgun image.

    • An unconstitutional law is moot. So no, you don’t (morally) have to follow it, and (legally) you may have to violate it, in order to have standing to challenge it.

      • No, one need not break a law to have standing to challenge it. But the as-applied facts certainly show the enforcement practices and harm.

  2. They ban images of pistols in full public view? Seriously? Has anyone actually been prosecuted for that heretofore? I know that “commercial speech” (ie advertising) is not as Constitutionally-protected as “political speech”, but surely such a ban would be considered “overbroad” and an impingement on political as well as commercial speech. They really are slaves out in Cali, aren’t they?

    • Slaves, No. Living in occupied territory, yes. Behind enemy lines, yes. Still fighting, obviously. Tired? Not even close.

    • It’s California legal. California doesn’t allow for firearm with detachable magazines and certain features to be sold.
      That firearm has a fixed magazine as defined under California law. Notice the magazine release, and how it looks a little odd. That’s because it is equipped with a California Bullet Button and a tool must be used to remove the magazine, such as the tip of a bullet. You cannot release the magazine without a tool.
      Fixed magazine firearms such as this may have as many features such as pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs as desired.

    • Tracy Rifle and Pistol is also a licensed assault weapon dealer in CA so they can sell assault weapons to law enforcemt members. An interesting twist to this is that Kamala Harris recently decided this only applies to sworn CA LEOs and not to Feds. I witnessed quite an argument between some Feds and an employee at Tracy Rifle and Pistol shortly after that ruling (same rules apply to CAs list of not-unsafe handguns).

  3. That’s an old blue law.
    Like not being able to sell beans on Fridays, or no oral sex from a spouse on Sunday’s.
    I’m surprised someone found that law. 1923. Wow.

  4. Instead of making out an advertisement they should change it into a political statement. Instead of removing the image, change it so it complies.

    Maybe rent the window space to SAF or the NRA.

  5. Right or wrong, you still have to follow it?

    Same exact philosophy of some when racial discrimination was rampant throughout regions of this land. Same philosophy of some in Houston who thought the mayor had the right to demand all communications, including sermons from Houston pastors. Same philosophy that brought us internment of Japanese in WWII. Same philosophy that brought the decimation of many Poles, Czechs, and especially Jews in Germany and neighboring countries. African-Americans do not count as a full person–U.S. law….right or wrong, you still have to follow it…crap!

    Civil disobedience to defend a higher law. Some California statute does not supersede U.S. Constitutional law. Period. Watch this one play out in the courts. If a judge at a lower court does not negate the California statute, then SCOTUS will and really will have not much choice. The speech that must be even more protected is that speech we do not like–paraphrase of SCOTUS prior decision on laws which violated the First Amendment.

    • +1000…no we don’t have to obey. And I’ve seen this display in Indiana where people are cool with it. Furthermore see Act 5;29…

    • Oh ye of little faith. The Supremes have found a way to rule that that warrantless, suspicionless roadblocks known as DWI checkpoints are somehow Constitutional. If they want to make it happen, they can find a way.

      • Just happened to catch him “very attentive” a couple of days ago but thought it would come in handy as the perfect response to so many liberal democrat statements. Example: Jonathan Gruber “voters stupid” – Here Jonathan, suck it.

  6. Harris really needs to go back to her law textbooks and look up the term “arbitrary and capricious”.

  7. There are plenty of SCOTUS cases involving commercial speech, but I think that the key case is Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly.

    The Lorillard case involved a MA restriction on tobacco advertising. It was struck down by the Court as a First Amendment violation even though the Court recognized that advertising would promote tobacco use — smoking! cancer! death! — even among children.

    I think the same result will be obtained in this case. This old law is a First Amendment violation and should be tossed.

    • Thanks for the legal context.

      In a case like this, can the plaintiffs sue for legal fees?
      I’d rather have the statist who are instigating this pay out of their pockets (which would *never* happen), but if not, at least the state should cover the costs of citizens explaining to the state how it’s violating the Constitution.
      And eventually…maybe, the CA taxpayers will learn that these fascists they keep electing are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to drive out legal businesses they dislike.

  8. Lots of women in the replies on the facebook page. That’s good. Maybe they will set a shining example for the AG and she will change her tune.

  9. I have to disagree with Kamala Harris being the best looking attorney general in the country. Without a doubt its Pam Bondi and unlike Harris she upholds Second Amendment rights

  10. California suspended the constitution for CA residents. “They can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true”! I saw it on the internet.

  11. Maybe it’s the “modern sporting rifle that set ’em off; it doesn’t look to be California Crippled. Sans the bullet button, StupidStock® et cetera, it’s not a “legal product.”

    Question of the moment: Does a no-gun circle/slash sign qualify as a displayed image of a pistol?


    • Russ-the answer to your question would be yes…….but no. You see a gun with a circle-slash would signify guns are baaaaad, and that would jibe perfectly with the powers that be in Kalifornistan. A sign with a clear unobstructed image of a handgun would be anathema in that it does nothing to support the meme being driven by the powers that be……….because……….you know………the children (TM).

  12. What is funny about this is that the Handgun in the picture is some type of custom nighthawk 1911. Which I am willing to bet is not on the CA Safe Roster List. So you cannot buy it anyway. So if anything you could say this Gun Shop is false advertising. LOL

    • Actually, Nighthawk is one of the few manufacturers that hasn’t given California the finger. There are more Nighthawk pistols on the list than S&W semi-autos now….

  13. I don’t see the problem. I don’t see complete guns. I see parts of guns that are separated by black bars!!

  14. First off, Kamala Harris is HOT now? Ugh! Either our world is falling apart or attorney generals have a VERY low standard. Or are devoid of females (For you lady gunners out their, I apologize in advance). Second, “Rifles and Pistols”? No shotguns!? No Remmy, then me no likey. Well, me or foghorn :).
    Third, I saw that our wonderful article says that it’s illegal to display pictures of pistols. Pardon my lack of legal knowledge about gun hating states- *cough* CALIFORNIA, sorry, but is the law against just pistols or guns in general?

  15. my dad didnt allow guns in the house. when i turned 21, i bought my first 22. not a word was said to me about it. guns dont scare me, just the idiots behind them. my kids enjoy shooting, too.

  16. “If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” — Thomas Jefferson

Comments are closed.