Tweet
Filed December 19, 2023 in United States District Court, Central District of California. Case number 8:23-cv-02413.
Motion for preliminary injunction filed 12/20/2023.
Hearing on preliminary injunction 1/16/2023
MOTION DENIED. Ruling here https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/...Injunction.pdf
From the press release:
More information will be added.
Motion for preliminary injunction filed 12/20/2023.
Hearing on preliminary injunction 1/16/2023
MOTION DENIED. Ruling here https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/...Injunction.pdf
From the press release:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined Gun Owners of California (GOC) and several other plaintiffs** in filing a lawsuit challenging California?s SB 1384, which imposes Orwellian-level surveillance requirements on the State?s gun dealers. Slated to take effect on January 1, 2024, the new requirements would:
force every gun dealer in the state to install sophisticated surveillance equipment that records both video and audio of every gun sale that occurs in California;
force dealers to bear the cost to purchase and install this prohibitively expensive system, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (one big box store reportedly has spent over $250,000 to comply, at only one location);
force dealers to allow state officials access to the recordings, upon demand;
require dealers to post signage informing customers that their activities are being recorded; and
does not exempt California?s home-based dealers, who will be forced to install state surveillance equipment within their own homes.
GOA and GOF?s lawsuit brings a variety of challenges to what is essentially California?s version of the ?telescreen? from Orwell?s novel ?1984,? including:
several First Amendment challenges based on (i ) freedom of speech, (ii) freedom of association, (iii) the right to engage in anonymous speech, (iv) a compelled speech claim, and (v) a claim that SB 1384 represents viewpoint discrimination against gun owners;
a Second Amendment challenge, because there is no historical evidence that our Founders ever would have permitted the government to monitor the real-time exercise of the right to keep and bear arms;
a Fourth Amendment challenge, because SB 1384 represents a per se unconstitutional ?general warrant? ? it invades private property rights ? and it violates gun stores?, customers?, and homeowners? reasonable expectations of privacy; and
a Fifth Amendment takings claim, because SB 1384 takes and appropriates, for government use, physical space within gun stores and private homes;
a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, because SB 1384 singles out and discriminates against gun stores, treating them differently than all other businesses in California; and
a claim under the California state constitution?s right to privacy.
force every gun dealer in the state to install sophisticated surveillance equipment that records both video and audio of every gun sale that occurs in California;
force dealers to bear the cost to purchase and install this prohibitively expensive system, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (one big box store reportedly has spent over $250,000 to comply, at only one location);
force dealers to allow state officials access to the recordings, upon demand;
require dealers to post signage informing customers that their activities are being recorded; and
does not exempt California?s home-based dealers, who will be forced to install state surveillance equipment within their own homes.
GOA and GOF?s lawsuit brings a variety of challenges to what is essentially California?s version of the ?telescreen? from Orwell?s novel ?1984,? including:
several First Amendment challenges based on (i ) freedom of speech, (ii) freedom of association, (iii) the right to engage in anonymous speech, (iv) a compelled speech claim, and (v) a claim that SB 1384 represents viewpoint discrimination against gun owners;
a Second Amendment challenge, because there is no historical evidence that our Founders ever would have permitted the government to monitor the real-time exercise of the right to keep and bear arms;
a Fourth Amendment challenge, because SB 1384 represents a per se unconstitutional ?general warrant? ? it invades private property rights ? and it violates gun stores?, customers?, and homeowners? reasonable expectations of privacy; and
a Fifth Amendment takings claim, because SB 1384 takes and appropriates, for government use, physical space within gun stores and private homes;
a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, because SB 1384 singles out and discriminates against gun stores, treating them differently than all other businesses in California; and
a claim under the California state constitution?s right to privacy.
Comment