Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

[FirearmFino]

Jones v. Bonta
Southern District of California
Judge: M. James Lorenz
3:19-cv-01226
Ninth Circuit
Panel: R. Nelson, Lee, Stein (SDNY)
20-56174

Gun Owners, Rights Organizations Sue California, Attorney General Becerra in New Federal Lawsuit Over State’s Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

SAN DIEGO, CA (JULY 1, 2019) — A new federal lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Diego today, announced two individual plaintiffs and the institutional parties to the case, advocacy organizations The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The case, captioned Jones, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., challenges on Second Amendment grounds the State of California’s discriminatory age-based general ban on firearm purchases by legal, law-abiding adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21. The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel John W. Dillon of Carlsbad, California-based Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP. A copy of the court filing can be accessed at www.firearmspolicy.org/jones.

“Once individuals turn eighteen, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” explained Dillon. “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.”

Adults who are not violent criminals or mentally ill should have access to the full scope of Second Amendment rights, the plaintiffs say. “The individuals involved in this case are adults, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms, and who want to exercise their right to purchase firearms,” Dillon said. “The State’s actions and policies to deny them their fundamental rights are unconstitutional and wrong.”

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and adults over the age of eighteen but under twenty-one are not second-class people,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “This case seeks to restore the Second Amendment human rights of legal adults who are being prevented from exercising them because of unconstitutional laws, policies, practices, customs that the State of California defendants are known to enforce.”

“The Second Amendment fully applies to all non-prohibited adults, period,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “California cannot deny a fundamental, enumerated right to adults over the age of 18 that have no disqualifying criminal or mental health history.”

“We’re going to court against this law because it clearly violates the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When a citizen turns 18 years old in this country, he or she is considered a legal adult, free to exercise their rights under the Constitution, and that certainly should include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But this California law turns that concept on its ear, with very few exceptions, such as possessing a valid hunting license. Our individual plaintiffs do not hunt, and have no intention of pretending to be hunters, just to exercise their constitutional rights.”

District Court:

7/1/19: Complaint

7/30/19: Amended Complaint

11/8/19: Second Amended Complaint

1/14/20: Order Denying Amicus Motions

11/3/20: Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Circuit Court:

12/4/20: Appellants' Opening Brief

1/20/21: Appellees’ Answering Brief

2/9/21: Appellants' Reply Brief

3/6/21: Order for Supplemental Briefing

4/23/21: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Supplemental Brief

4/23/21: Appellees’ supplemental brief

5/3/21: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Responsive Supplemental Brief

5/3/21: Appellees’ Response to Appellants’ Supplemental Brief

5/12/21: Oral arguments

5/11/22: Opinion

5/16/22: Joint Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

5/18/22: Filed text clerk order: The motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing en Banc is granted.

7/25/22: Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

8/23/22: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opposition to Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc

9/2/22: Plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651

FPC Case Page - CourtListener Page

[CandG]

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

[vintagearms]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

I'd say 18 and call it a day for every state.

[TruOil]

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.

[FirearmFino]

The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Judg...hrome&ie=UTF-8

An 84 yr old Bezerkley Law School Grad appointed by Slick Willy................

[abinsinia]

So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..

It looks like more plaintiffs are being sought, but wouldn't this fall under "Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review"?

[Librarian]

While I agree the suit is justified, and any attack on the nonsense applied against CA gun owners is a good idea in the abstract, is this a wise use of funds just now?

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by Librarian

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.

Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

[freonr22]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

Well Brandon is involved in Cgf, (or was, no indication hes not) and FPC. So, why wouldn't he support himself?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Hopefully that's not the case



While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.

Probably they could have better spent those funds on something else... Like, I don't know... Maybe funding the Duncan case. But nope, they wanted their own case that they could use to generate their own donations, knowing fully well that they were essentially diverting donations away from Duncan.

My favorite part was when they used the news of the Duncan win to try to solicit more donations for themselves, despite having no involvement in Duncan other than being an obstacle in its path to success.

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.

Ah right, I did forget that they were the ones who filed Wiese, and I didn't realize how FPC and Calguns were connected.

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan?

The Firearms Policy Coalition case was filed first on 4/28/2017, and Duncan was filed on 5/17/2017.

[MolonLabe2008]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.

Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008

Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.

21st amendment disagrees with you

[Yodaman]

Originally Posted by taperxz

21st amendment disagrees with you

Well played!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mit31]

It does? The 21st amendment repealed prohibition on "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” It doesn't guarantee the right to consume or possess. In fact, it allows the states to heavily regulate both.

Originally Posted by taperxz

21st amendment disagrees with you

[ddestruel]

Originally Posted by taperxz

21st amendment disagrees with you

The 18th amendment demonstrates the mechanism and only way the fed government or states should be able to completely ban anything. The 21st demonstrates that right being taken back from the feds and given to the states. The 2nd doesn’t seem to grant the state or feds that power to regulate to no end where as alcohol they said differently in the 21st.

[Epaphroditus]

Among these are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit or Happyness

Includes intoxicating substances.

Rights reserved by the people take precedence over states claims.

[mit31]

You are quoting the declaration of independence, not the constitution.

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

Among these are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit or Happyness

Includes intoxicating substances.

Rights reserved by the people take precedence over states claims.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008

Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.

You beg the question, unless you are arguing that the State can enact no restrictions on the right to bear arms--i.e., that even a 2 year old has the right to run around cocked and locked. I don't see any court accepting such a proposition, but instead, that any right of nonadults is subject to parental control--and the state is the superparent.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

The dems want to lower the voting age to 16

[crasch]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

The dems want to lower the voting age to 16

That's because they have brainwashed children. It takes late stage adult hood to make most people to stop voting for cronies Democrats.

[FirearmFino]

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Other due dates:

NOTICE AND ORDER for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. An Early Neutral Evaluation will be held on 9/30/2019 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. Joint Discovery Plan due 9/20/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 8/22/2019.(lrf)

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.

Winning anything is a challenge, I'm hopeful on two counts.

The firearm involved in the Heller case was a handgun. And for some reason lost on me, the decision made reference to handguns being especially well suited for self-defense in the home. Paired with the 5th Circuit Court's reasoning in their decision upholding a ban on FFL sales to 18 to 20 year olds.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...59-CV0.wpd.pdf

In that case out of TX the 5th based their decision in part on the fact that an 18 to 20 year old could purchase a handgun privately. As in a truly private, paperless sale. That's not an option in CA where all handgun sales must go through an FFL. There is in CA a defacto prohibition on any 18 to 20 year old legally acquiring a handgun for self-defense in the home.

All of this means nothing to the CA courts and especially the 9th. And the court could simply say "the legislature gets to set age limits" as it sees fit and be done with it. The legislature can set age limits for voting, operating a motor vehicle on a public way, marriage, entering into a contract, consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. None of which are rights but each of which, it would be said, have an impact on public safety. I'm not on board with that line of thinking, but many will be.

As an aside, reading the 5th's decision, they put 18 to 20 year olds just a hair's breadth above criminals and other miscreants for their inclination to do wrong. I'm about 40 years past that age group, but reading it - it was fairly offensive. They're not the brightest lot out there, but the court treated them poorly.

[command_liner]

This is part two of a squeeze play. The other part was introduced earlier.

It goes like this:

1) California says the state can impose a tax on the enumerated rights? OK, then Georgia says it can impose a tax on the non-enumerated right of abortion. Lets say, $10K per event. Litigation underway.

2) California says the state can impose age restrictions on enumerated rights? OK, we can have Alabama raise the abortion age to 45. Lets litigate! We can meet at the USSC.


Since Heller, every piece of litigation in this domain must be examined in the shadow and domain of abortion.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by command_liner

This is part two of a squeeze play. The other part was introduced earlier.

It goes like this:

1) California says the state can impose a tax on the enumerated rights? OK, then Georgia says it can impose a tax on the non-enumerated right of abortion. Lets say, $10K per event. Litigation underway.

2) California says the state can impose age restrictions on enumerated rights? OK, we can have Alabama raise the abortion age to 45. Lets litigate! We can meet at the USSC.


Since Heller, every piece of litigation in this domain must be examined in the shadow and domain of abortion.

I CALL BS

Roe.................1973 was settled law, 25 yrs before Heller in 2008. And has nothing to do with Heller. Unless a woman wants to store her firearm inside her lady parts. And a law is passed to forbid it.

[FirearmFino]

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT by Beebe Family Arms and Munitions LLC, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, Thomas Furrh, Matthew Jones, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation.

Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for preliminary injunction. This motion will be filed the week of October 1, 2019. The parties have previously met and agreed that they will file a joint stipulation seeking to amend the briefing schedule and hearing date for the preliminary injunction motion after the motion is filed. The parties will meet and confer further on an agreed briefing and hearing schedule, and file their joint stipulation shortly after Plaintiffs file their motion.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by Librarian

While I agree the suit is justified, and any attack on the nonsense applied against CA gun owners is a good idea in the abstract, is this a wise use of funds just now?

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.

I agree. I question what the FPC actually does. My money goes to the CRPA.
They are always begging. I like Adam from TGC but I find FPC annoying at this point.

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Notice is hereby given that on November 18, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. ... Plaintiffs will move for preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiffs will seek an order enjoining Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his agents, servant, employees, and those working in active concert with him, from enforcing or giving effect to California Penal Code, §25710 during the pendency of this action.

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF DAVID T. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 1 of 4)

DECLARATION OF DAVID T. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 2 of 4)

DECLARATION OF DAVID T. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 3 of 4)

DECLARATION OF DAVID T. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 4 of 4)


DECLARATION OF THOMAS B. MARVELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 1 of 2)

DECLARATION OF THOMAS B. MARVELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 2 of 2)

DECLARATION OF JOHN LOTT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF DAVID BOGAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 1 of 2)


DECLARATION OF DAVID BOGAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Part 2 of 2)

[FirearmFino]

SCHEDULING ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

[TruOil]

Without reading the papers, I just can't see, from a practical perspective, a judge is issuing a preliminary injunction allowing young people to continue to buy rifles and shotguns while the case is pending, which could easily be two or more years, when at least one federal court has held that the restriction is valid.

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On October 4, 2019, Plaintiffs’ filed and served their preliminary injunction motion and supporting papers. Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Goddard’s Order (Dkt. No. 10), parties attended an in-person, counsel-only case management conference on October 9, 2019. At the conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel discussed the likelihood of California Governor Gavin Newsom signing Senate Bill 61 (SB 61) into law, which would make substantial changes to California Penal Code section 27510 – the statute at issue in this case. Predicting this potential change in the law, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that if SB 61 were to be signed into law, Plaintiffs would be forced to file a second amended complaint and refile their preliminary injunction motion. Subsequently, on October 11, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 61 into law.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Without reading the papers, I just can't see, from a practical perspective, a judge is issuing a preliminary injunction allowing young people to continue to buy rifles and shotguns while the case is pending, which could easily be two or more years, when at least one federal court has held that the restriction is valid.

Prior to signing SB 61 an 18 to 20 year old could purchase a firearm (rifle of shotgun) using a CA hunting license, correct? That option has been wholly eliminated, they are now prohibited from "self defense in the home" as prescribed by Heller. Should that make the case stronger for a preliminary injunction? An injunction simply maintains status quo.

[marcusrn]

The problem is that only young and dumb 17-20 yr olds will go off to unpopular wars. We should tie all age related gun restrictions to military and police age limits as well. We should never talk about gun control. We should always preface that term with either term "unilateral" or "bilateral"whenever it is used. Dhimmies know the all important use of language as a weapon.

[nick]

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008

Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.

Well, it does say something about pursuit of happiness. Now the big question is: are you a happy drunk, or a sad drunk?

[gobler]

I've talked to my (now 16 yo) nephew about his rights for years. I suggested that so long as there is an age restriction on his rights he may want to refuse signing up for the selective service. He and his dad agree and are suggesting the same for all there sons, nephews, cousins and their friends kids. Spread this.

[nikonmike5]

Originally Posted by nick

Well, it does say something about pursuit of happiness. Now the big question is: are you a happy drunk, or a sad drunk?

That’s in the Declaration of Independence. But point made.