The Second Amendment Foundation has scored an important First Amendment victory before a federal appeals court panel in San Francisco which unanimously reversed a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge of California’s law prohibiting advertising of firearms products in a way that may appeal to minors.
At issue is California Business and Professions Code § 22949.80, which prohibits advertising of any “firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”
Writing for the three-judge panel, District Judge Kenneth K. Lee noted, “California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth. But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.
“But given that California allows minors to use firearms under adult supervision for hunting, shooting, and other lawful activities,” he continued, “California’s law does not significantly advance its purported goals and is more extensive than necessary. In sum, we hold that (the statute) is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment…”
Elsewhere, the judge observed, “In short, there are good reasons to believe the First Amendment subjects viewpoint-discriminatory commercial speech restrictions to strict scrutiny. “
“Just because politicians in California don’t agree with our pro-gun viewpoint, they have no right to gag us,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
“California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country regulating the exercise of the Second Amendment,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “but this case shows how the state is determined to regulate the First Amendment as well. Thankfully, the appeals court has drawn the line.”
SAF was joined by Junior Sports Magazines, Inc., the California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, California Rifle & Pistol Association, the CRPA Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Raymond Brown. They are represented by attorneys Anna M. Barvir and Carl D. Michel of Long Beach, Calif., and Donald Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho. The case is known as Junior Sports Magazines v. Bonta.
OMG, finally! Such a stupid law. Such a clearly unconstitutional law. I guess this means that all of those “Are You 21 or older” signs on many of the websites I visit will disappear.
Cheers to SAF for a job well done.
And yet the Left got Tobacco advertising banned. Make no mistake Liberal/Progressive democrats won’t give up on this attack strategy. Next up in Commiefornia, banning the use of firearms by minors. Regardless of parental decisions.
Appellate action filed by our overlords in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Much of our CA gun control nonsense has already been declared unconstitutional at one point or another, at one level or another. But CA knows how to play the appeals game.
Liberals have always played the long game in getting their ideology accepted as law. Even if it takes 60 years. As much of the current ideology that is in place, began their journey in the 60s and 70s. They understood that the way to transform a society morally, ethically, and responsibly has to begin in the classroom. As early as possible, which they have been very effective at. Over the last 60 years.
The fascist left loves nothing more than to commit crimes against humanity.
We are way past due Nuremberg 2.0.
Post Nuremberg.
“But given that California allows minors to use firearms under adult supervision for hunting, shooting, and other lawful activities…”
I wonder, did the judge wink when he said that? If so, he may have given an out to Newsom et al.
I know, I know, but as Grisham proves, they’ll attempt anything…
“unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.”
So interest balancing tests are still ok, that’s what it sounds like from this? Granted this is more first amendment than second, but still, freedom of speech unless it’s better for the state if you don’t have that freedom…I know, shouting fire in a theatre, but I can think there could be lots of inconvenient speech a state might want to suppress. It would have been better if a higher level of scrutiny was applied in my mind.
We are talking about a state restricting lawful advertising of legal and lawful products by legitimate businesses, I would hope they would say “you can’t restrict that because you can’t, regardless of interests.”
Anyway, not a lawyer.
Remember the Left got tobacco advertising banned in exactly the same way.
Part of that was the tobacco industry’s own doing. Internal emails that explicitly indicated they were targeting young adults in their ads.
Also, 1st Amendment rights have come a long way since the 80s.
Exactly, by lying. I was an analyst during the original suit by Florida. The state lied every step of the way. When I out what they were doing g I protested telling the it was fraud. I was told to keep my mouth shut or be fired. Florida was solid blue at the time. I had nowhere to turn. This still haunts me.
Can’t advertise guns but drag queens are a ok.
Next up will be ads for transition clinics and the local drug dealer. Paid for by the tax payers.
Next? Pretty sure that was a year or two ago.
There has been a huge number of 2A lawsuits (and wins!) recently. There is one common theme to all of them that I haven’t seen mentioned lately: The complete absence of the NRA.
Weren’t they supposed to be the 800 pound gorilla? The left seems to still consider them to be the big boogieman. But do they even still exist? If so, why?
Th NRA’s cases are usually filed in the name of the local affiliate. Bruen was an NRA case filed in the name of its affiliate the New York Pistol and Rifle Association. The CalPRA is quite active in California.
“Th NRA’s cases are usually filed in the name of the local affiliate.”
This is just a dodge by NRA. Affiliates are unknown to the general public (i.e. anti-gunners). The “800 pound gorilla” is NRA, not an affiliate, or even all the affiliates.
NRA will put it’s name out when risk is low, but hide behind nebisshes otherwise.
maybe a smart move. nra is not the most sympathetic organization anymore.
Sam, I beg to differ. You see, the STATE association usually initiates the matters before the courts and the NRA steps in to ASSIST when the matters go to the Appellate Level. You are so full of hatred for the NRA, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
“Strict scrutiny”, and “interest balancing”?
They will say it’s a1st A case so it’s ok
True. In a 1st amendment case, strict scrutiny applies to the content of speech, but the government can place restrictions on time, place and manner, which is an interest balancing test.
“They will say it’s a1st A case so it’s ok”
Will be an interesting conversation, when the issue is a gun ban executive order.
On top of that the libs should target video games produced in California that target minors and violence .Maybe start targeting the REAL harmful groups
Has anyone ever noticed how quick the “entertainment industry” is to claim influence when some young child said that he learned about 911 from a TV program but equally quick to deny culpability when some young child claims he learned to stop on his younger sister or brother from watching a TV program?
Interesting. Not the ruling per se, but the fact that it came from the 9th.
@fppf
“maybe a smart move. nra is not the most sympathetic organization anymore.”
When you are considered the “800lb gorilla”, you don’t concern yourself with manners, you just dominate. But NRA claims to be the premier civil rights organization in the US, with a 150yr history of supporting “gun rights”.
Pro and Anti gunners claim the NRA is the powerhouse of political influence, yet NRA is actually just a powerhouse fund raiser for its own benefit and existence.
Note the NRA keeps a low profile until other organizations succeed, then NRA claims responsibility.
Sam, I have a RED HOT NEWS FLASH for you. The NRA is the premier gun rights civil rights organization in the US with a 150 year history of supporting gun rights. In order to do what they do, fund raising is REQUIRED!
@Walter E Beverly III
“…the STATE association usually initiates the matters before the courts and the NRA steps in to ASSIST…”
Precisely. NRA stays publicly invisible, rather than being seen as the agitator. What the general public sees does not indicate NRA leadership/championship at all. Thus NRA can avoid being tagged with failures.
Sam, here’s a RED HOT NEWS FLASH for you. The NRA is NOT a bottomless pit of money. It certainly DOES show the NRA as having leadership and championship in the quest to protect our rights. A good organization picks fights that it KNOWS it can win. It does not finance losers. Ya know what I mean? Let me put it this way. When you go to the race track, do you bet on the nag that is bound to come in last?
Again, your hatred for the NRA is showing big time!
“A good organization picks fights that it KNOWS it can win. It does not finance losers.”
Precisely as I wrote: NRA lets the grunts actually doing the work spend money, until NRA sees a “win”, then NRA swoops in and takes credit among the POTG….but not the general population. Then NRA boasts another “win”, and cries for more money.
“Again, your hatred for the NRA is showing big time!”
I don’t hate the NRA, that would require emotional investment. I am just informing people of the fact NRA is a scam. Others can decide where they spend their money.
Comments are closed.