big brother surveillance
Shutterstock

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California challenging that state’s law requiring firearms dealers to video record all transactions, calling it a violation of First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

At issue is California Penal Code section 26806. SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, the Gun Owners Foundation, On Target Indoor Shooting Range, Gaalswyk Enterprises and three private citizens. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel and Tiffany D. Cheufront, Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Kilmer Law Office in Idaho.

Named as defendants are California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta, in their official capacities, and several unidentified officials. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is known as Richards v. Newsom.

“Requiring firearms retailers to video record their transactions is not only an egregious violation of privacy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “it involves an expense that is both cost-prohibitive, and could literally drive small dealers out of business. In addition, it would be impossible to record such transactions at gun shows, because at such events, dealers are merely vendors, operating in a large facility where such equipment would be impossible to install.”

“The state is imposing Orwellian tactics to literally view and overhear private conversations of anyone who walks into a gun shop or visits a gun show, or the home of a residence-based licensed firearms dealer,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is a violation of privacy to which no person exercising any other civil right would ever be subjected.”

Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of California Penal Code section 26806. 

This is the 14th lawsuit SAF has filed in 2023, challenging extremist gun control laws. Currently, SAF is engaged in 57 active lawsuits around the country.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

31 COMMENTS

  2. Well I assume that these transactions will have to be recorded at the quality of most banks which means recording the transaction with a potato will suffice.

  3. So…now everyone’s all aflutter over cameras, citing privacy violations.

    And why, then, are people and organizations so accepting of 4473s and BGCs, with the intrusion into the privacy of those who purchase the same items the cameras would be recording? The Government is requiring me to place myself on the radar (BGC) and register my private property with the state. Where is SAF, FPC, GOC, NRA, et al and the opposition to *this* intrusion?

    • “Where is SAF, FPC, GOC, NRA, et al and the opposition to *this* intrusion?”

      I’ve learned those orgs are playing the incremental, long game. They nibble around the edges, rather than go for the throat (NFA/GCA) because slow is the least risky campaign.

    • Let’s all grab that paper sandwich bag and breathe in and out for 10 seconds. Any reputable shop already has potato grade video with no sound, just as a matter of basic security. So strike those guys off the list and the commie state already knows who has a “purchase license” and all that crap. This is targeting the small, kitchen table FFL again and the gun show crowd with more leftist BS.

  6. I would sue the state that each recording of a person must be duplicated and a copy given to each person recorded within 24 hrs.

    Sometimes killing the gander with more work is effective.

    • I politely disagree with the concept of recording all gun or ammunition sales visually or otherwise, because I do not believe our government (federal, state or local) has a valid interest to do so. Subject to additional discussion over details, I have no problem with restricting the availability of firearms and ammunition to persons charged with or convicted of crimes of violence or involuntarily determined to be mentally incompetent. Even then I would be willing o consider eventual rehabilitation or cure of such persons, bit admit I do not have the background to speak with authority in those issues.

  9. What incriminating information are they expecting to capture with this regulation?
    Anyway, it must be fun to flip off the camera and yell “F**K YOU NEWSOME!” and have it recorded for posterity.

    • Lol, you bought a gun in Commifornia? You’re already an enemy of the state… That is if you did it legally.

      If the state doesn’t know on paper, you’re obviously good to go. Criminals aren’t going to record their transactions. This is what it boils down to when gov becomes a criminal enterprise.

  10. The purpose of the law is (at least) two fold:drive all the home-based FFLs out of business, and eliminate all gun show sales. A third reason might be to force out all but the best financed brick and mortar stores, as installation of the required equipment and the massive and lengthy storage requirements of 24/7 video recording are quite costly. Which of course will drive up the cost of doing business, and the cost of firearms. All of these effects are of course intended, as California wants to discourage gun ownership and eliminate the 2d Amendment.

  11. demand that all movements and activity and talks/meetings/conversations of the governor be on video, also that he wear a body cam, except for bathroom breaks, and all the video is available to the public. he is a public employee after all, 24 hours a day.

  12. SO the Gabbling Nuisance and the Bumbling Bonta are sued in their offficial capacity. WHEN will we wise up and begin suing them in their PERSONAL capacity? Buth have egregiously violated their oath of office, They both either KNOW this monstrosity violates the US and State Cnstitutions on multiple points, or their NOT knowing is proof unassailable that they are too incompetent to hold public office. I would also name as defendants/respondents in such a case each and every one of the “law”makers who wrote up, proposed, promoted, and/or voted in favour of this piece of horse biscuit.

    • And until California hitches up some balls, and sues, or arrests and prosecutes, EVERYONE in public office who knowingly violates their oath of office, the citizens there remain second class serfs! San Francisco has on multiple occasions passed laws knowingly violating California pre-emption laws, they should all face arrest, and removal from office, and be banned from holding public office, for malfeasance, and waste of public funds!

  13. Considering the number of Court rulings being ignored, as long as they are allowed by the political leadership of California. The use of the ‘Jury Box’ has been just as big a failure as the ‘Ballot Box’. In the protection of 2nd Amendment Rights. That leaves, but 1 box. Frederick Douglass – A Man’s Rights Rest in Three Boxes: The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and The Cartridge Box. Which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

  14. Well the libertarians liberals and the left asked for this. Conservatives warned about demanding more government cameras. But the three L’s love government cameras. They want more government cameras.

    So now there are thousands upon thousands of more government cameras all over the United States watching you. And most of those cameras are worn by police officers.

    But when those cameras proved to be effective at catching criminals, and causing them to plead guilty when they were caught on tape.

    Now, all of a sudden, the libertarian’s liberals and the left go to court. To force the police to turn their cameras off.

    • btw
      In the beginning, there were many police agencies that voluntarily, started putting cameras in their vehicles. And badge cams on their officers. Because they were tired of having their officers smeared, lied about, accused of things that were not true.

  15. These claims all seem to be about violations of federally protected rights. I’m surprised they didn’t mention violations of any rights protected by California’s own Constitution:

    Article I is the Declaration of Rights, of which Section 1 states “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

  19. We have this requirement in NYS too; be great to see this deemed unconstitutional because storing 2 years of video data is not cheap for me.

  21. The functionality will be compressed into a music editor with a combined library of audio files and music, as well as a fully furnished recorder with the ability to examine videotape.
    The complex user interface and built-in modules provide you the opportunity to not only create a real clip in a flash. If you android User then Download CapCut for Android Now with the Latest Version.

  22. The SAF’s lawsuit against California’s firearm transaction video recording requirement is crucial for privacy concerns. Instead of a blanket policy, suggesting the use of CapCut for video recording ensures a more secure and controlled environment, balancing accountability with individual rights.

  23. The SAF’s lawsuit against California’s firearm transaction video recording requirement is crucial for privacy concerns. Android users can download apk of their favorite apps and use them without any limitations.

Comments are closed.