California Legal Update | January 2018
This report provides an overview of just some of the efforts the National Rifle Association of America and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., are taking to protect the rights of California gun owners. Although litigation plays an extremely important role in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms, NRA and CRPA are heavily involved in many other tremendous and equally important endeavors throughout California and across the nation.
As has been and always will be the case, NRA and CRPA invest enormous amounts of resources to protect the Second Amendment at all levels of California’s government, including all 58 counties, all 482 municipalities, and all state and local agencies tasked with enforcing the myriad of complex and ever expanding gun laws.
Firearms Litigation Report
The litigation report provides a brief overview and update on NRA and CRPA’s recent litigation efforts in California, including amicus and consulting support in other firearm related cases.
Local Ordinance Project Report
The Local Ordinance Project (“LOP”) is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA to research and actively monitor all of California’s local jurisdictions to oppose any proposed ordinance, law, or policy that threatens Second Amendment Rights. LOP efforts include developing and working with a network of professionals, citizens, local government officials, and law enforcement professionals to effectively oppose local threats to California gun owners.
Opposition campaigns typically include the preparation of opposition or pre-litigation demand letters, grassroots coordination, public information campaigns, and, in some cases, appearances at city council hearings. In many instances, these efforts have prompted local governments to vote down proposals or pull them from consideration. LOP efforts also serve as the foundation for NRA and CRPA litigation efforts against municipalities that enact anti-gun legislation.
Regulatory Matters Report
NRA and CRPA are also heavily invested in firearm law enforcement issues through their Regulatory Counsel efforts, which monitors the California DOJ and local law enforcement's interpretations of California firearm laws on a daily basis.
Ongoing efforts include drafting regulatory comment letters, providing legal support to NRA and CRPA lobbyists, drafting NRA and CRPA member alerts, and providing advice to NRA and CRPA members. Regulatory Counsel also collaborates with overlapping litigation, legislative, and regulatory matters to effectively oppose improper actions and incorrect interpretations of California law by state and local agencies.
Regulatory Counsel is responsible for many of the recently published webinars available on the CRPA’s website which provide gun owners with a comprehensive analysis of recently enacted legislation and the recently proposed “assault weapon” regulations from the California DOJ.
Hunting Matters Report
Closely related to Regulatory Counsel are NRA and CRPA’s efforts to monitor and respond to issues impacting hunters throughout California. These efforts include developing strategies and taking action when necessary before the Legislature, the Fish & Game Commission, local municipalities, and other various regulatory agencies.
Hunting Regulatory efforts are also dedicated to pushing back against rabidly anti-hunting forces such as the United States Humane Society, and to improve policies impacting hunters in California to effectively promote and defend the right to hunt in California.
Range Matters Report
Last but not least, NRA and CRPA continually monitor environmental, land use, and design and safety issues that heavily affect shooting ranges and areas in California and throughout the nation.
NRA and CRPA’s range assistance efforts include regular range evaluations and meeting with Club Boards to strategize and assist with coordination of defense campaigns against “not in my backyard” efforts from environmental non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies, and municipal governments.
Click on the case name below to reveal more information about the case status and what's next.
California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters
-
Rupp v. Becerra: Challenge to California’s “assault weapon” restrictions
Case Status: The case was filed on April 24, 2017, in response to Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135. It challenges California’s entire “assault weapon” ban as violating the Second Amendment and Due Process and Takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion to prevent the State from requiring individuals to provide the date they acquired their firearms and the name and address of the person from whom they acquired them, as a condition of registration.
What's Next: A decision on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is currently pending. Plaintiffs will soon be conducting discovery and will either file a motion for summary judgment or proceed to trial.
-
Duncan v. Becerra: Challenge to California's ban on standard capacity magazines
Case Status: The case was filed on May 17, 2017, in response to Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63. It challenges California’s current restrictions on magazine capacity. On June 29, the court granted CRPA’s motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed enforcement of the magazine possession ban while the case is litigated, which was set to take effect on July 1.
What's Next: On July 27, the California Attorney General appealed the decision to issue an injunction to the Ninth Circuit. Briefing on preliminary injunction appeal is ongoing. Meanwhile, the case progresses on the merits in the district court.
-
Villanueva v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ’s recently enacted “assault weapon” registration regulations
Case Status: The case was filed on September 8, 2017, in response to DOJ’s regulations for the registration of newly classified “assault weapons” under SB 880 and AB 1135. The lawsuit challenges the regulations as a violating California’s Administrative Procedures Act because they were enacted without appropriate legislative authority and without any input from members of the public.
What's Next: Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the illegal regulations from being enforced while the lawsuit is pending. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which plaintiffs are also opposing.
-
Flanagan v. Becerra: Challenge to California and Los Angeles' Firearm Carry Restrictions Prohibitting Both Open and Concealed Carry
(Formerly Flanagan v. Harris)
Case Status: The case was filed on August 17, 2016, as a direct response to Peruta. It seeks to force the court to decide whether it is willing to uphold a complete prohibition on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were argued on November 6, 2017. The court took the matter under submission and will be issuing a ruling any day.
What's Next: Depending on the court’s ruling on the cross motions for summary judgment, the next step is either a trial or an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
-
Bauer v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ's excessive DROS fees that generated a massive surplus
(formerly Bauer v. Harris)
Case Status: In March 2015, the district court issued an opinion upholding California’s use of DROS fees to fund APPS and other law enforcement activities. On June 1, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court opinion. And on July 12, it denied Plaintiffs’ request for an “en banc” hearing. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiffs’ filed a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What's Next: Wait to see if Supreme Court accepts review.
-
Gentry v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ's Use of DROS surplus to fund APPS
(formerly Gentry v. Harris)
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the DROS fee is an invalid tax. On August 9, 2017, the district court issued a ruling granting Plaintiffs’ request to prohibit DOJ from using DROS fees to fund unrelated law enforcement efforts and requiring DOJ to perform its statutorily required review of the current $19 fee to determine whether it is “no more than necessary to fund” DOJ’s costs for processing DROS transactions.
What's Next: Discovery is ongoing and a bench trial on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims has been set for March 16, 2018.
-
Belemjian v. Becerra: Challenge to CA DOJ's underground regulations regarding the FSC Program
(formerly Belemjian v. Harris)
Case Status: This case forced DOJ to comply with the process for enacting regulations, which it sought to avoid when implementing the FSC program in February 2015. Plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.
What's Next: Briefing concerning attorneys’ fees has been completed. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled any day now.
-
Parker v. California: Vagueness challenge to AB 962's "handgun ammunition" sales registration requirement and mail order ban
Case Status: In December 2016, because of Prop 63, the California Supreme Court dismissed its review of a Court of Appeal opinion affirming the trial court’s order striking down AB 962. The Court of Appeal’s decision is now the final opinion in the case, and Plaintiffs are seeking their attorneys’ fees against the State.
What's Next: Plaintiffs’ motion for appellate attorneys’ fees was heard on September 14, 2017. Separate litigation is being prepared to challenge the ammunition restrictions in Proposition 63.
-
Challenge to California's recently enacted ammunition sale restrictions
Case Status: NRA and CRPA attorneys are in the final stages of preparing a lawsuit challenging California’s recently enacted ammunition sales restrictions pursuant to Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235.
What's Next: Make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts to stay informed on this and other important Second Amendment lawsuits.
California and 9th Circuit Amicus and Consulting Support
-
Teixeira v. Alameda County: FFL Zoning Restrictions
Case Status: On October 10, 2017, an 11-judge “en banc” panel of the 9th Circuit issued an opinion which held that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to sell firearms, and that as a result, Alameda County’s ordinance does not unconstitutionally burden the right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 2018.
What's Next: Wait to see if Supreme Court accepts review.
-
Pena v. Lindley: California Handgun Roster
Case Status: The federal district court upheld the Roster in 2015. Plaintiffs appealed, and oral arguments were held on March 16, 2017. NRA and CRPA filed an amicus brief in the case on July 27, 2015.
What's Next: Awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit.
-
Silvester v. Harris: 10-day Wait as applied to current firearm owners
Case Status: In December 2016, the 9th Circuit issued its decision upholding the 10-day wait as applied to current gun owners. Chief Judge Sydney Thomas went even further and stated that the restriction is “presumptively lawful” and therefore falls “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” Plaintiffs have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
What's Next: Wait to see if Supreme Court accepts review.
-
Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Becerra: 1st Amendment challenge to handgun ad prohibition
(formerly Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Harris)
Case Status: In July 2015, the district court denied a request to prohibit enforcement while the case proceeds. That decision was appealed, and in February 2016 the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s order within two weeks of oral arguments. Cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed in the district court.
What's Next: Awaiting a decision from the District Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
-
NSSF v. Pleasant Hill: FFL zoning ordinance
Case Status: The case has been settled.
What's Next: The City has agreed to pay NSSF over $400,000 in legal fees.
-
Doe v. Becerra: Challenges DOJ regulation barring sale of more than one handgun in 30 days to COE holders
(formerly Doe v. Harris)
Case Status: The California trial court upheld DOJ’s regulation and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals.
What's Next: The case has been fully briefed and will soon be scheduled for oral arguments.
-
Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer: Challenge to ban on possession and carriage of firearms on recreational Army Corps' lands
Case Status: At the request of both parties, oral arguments have been cancelled, and the case has been referred to the 9th Circuit’s mediation program.
What's Next: The Army Corps of Engineers is reconsidering its firearms policy, and will work with plaintiffs to settle the matter outside of court.
-
NSSF v. California: State Court challenge to California's microstamping requirements
Case Status: On December 1, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of NSSF, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in the lower court. But on March 22, 2017, the California Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case following a petition from the State of California.
What's Next: The case has been fully briefed and will soon be scheduled for oral arguments before the California Supreme Court.
National Cases with California Interest
-
Kolbe v. Hogan: Challenges Maryland's ban on “assault weapons” and 10+ round magazines
Case Status: On February 21, 2017, an “en banc” panel of the 4th Circuit issued an opinion upholding Maryland’s ban that referred to America’s most popular types of rifles as “exceptionally lethal weapons of war.” Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, but that petition was denied on November 27, 2017.
What's Next: Although the “en banc” decision is now final, other lawsuits challenging similar restrictions (such as Rupp) are currently pending, and will provide another opportunity for the Supreme Court hear an “assault weapon” lawsuit.
-
Grace v. District of Columbia: Challenges Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW permit
Case Status: On July 25, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision declaring Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting D.C. from enforcing the requirement.
On September 28, the D.C. Circuit denied Washington D.C.’s request for rehearing.
What's Next: On October 5, 2015, Washington D.C.’s Attorney General decided to not petition the case to the United States Supreme Court. As a result, Washington D.C. is now effectively a “shall-issue” jurisdiction.
-
Local Ordinance Project Report
-
Statewide Local Elections
Description: LOP works hard to inform California gun owners of political candidate's voting records on Second Amendment Issues.
LOP Response: Continually develop and maintain detailed voting histories of local politicians, including whether they proposed or supported any firearm-related legislation.
Current Status: Ongoing.
-
LA City’s Ban on Sales of “Ultracompact” Handguns
Description: For years, the Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibited the sale or transfer of “ultracompact firearms,” even if those firearms were listed on DOJ’s “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale” in California.
LOP Response: On September 20, 2016, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a pre-litigation demand letter highlighting how the ordinance was preempted by state law.
Current Status: As a result of NRA and CRPA’s pre-litigation demand, the LA City Council voted to repeal the ordinance. As of October 15, 2017, the ordinance has been officially repealed.
-
San Carlos Moratorium on Firearm Retailers
Description: The City of San Carlos recently proposed and adopted a moratorium on firearm retail businesses as a result of several anti-gun residents complaining of a newly proposed Turner’s Outdoorsman which was set to open in mid-November.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to attend the City Council meeting, and submitted a letter of opposition to the proposed moratorium. But the City Council ultimately approved the temporary moratorium on a 4/5ths vote.
Current Status: The City voted to extend the moratorium while it considers enacting a more restrictive FFL zoning ordinance.
-
Moraga Locked Storage and FFL Zoning Ordinance
Description: The Town Council has listed implementation of a “safe firearm storage” and “home based firearm dealer” ordinance as a proposed goal for 2017.
LOP Response: On November 8, 2017, the Town Council proposed a mandatory locked-storage ordinance. NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal, and submitted a letter of opposition.
Current Status: As a result of NRA and CRPA’s opposition letter, Moraga pulled the proposed ordinance from consideration, but is expected to reconsider the proposal in 2018.
-
Sonoma County CCW Fees
Description: In October 2016, Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas sought approval from the County Board of Supervisors to impose a mandatory psychological test for all CCW applicants and raise the associated fee from $150 to $550.
LOP Response: Submitted opposition letter warning of the proposal’s serious legal problems, such as how state law capped the psychological testing fee at $150.
Current Status: In November 2016, the County Board of Supervisors pulled the proposal from consideration and stated it has no plans for re-introduction at this time.
-
Belvedere Handgun Storage Ordinance
Description: In September 2016, the City introduced an ordinance requiring all handguns kept at home to be stored in a locked container, providing an exception only for individuals who possessed a valid CCW.
LOP Response: Submitted opposition letter warning of the ordinance’s serious legal problems, including state preemption issues.
Current Status: In October 2016, the City agreed to amend the ordinance to include an exception for all law-abiding citizens when carrying the firearm, regardless of whether or not they possess a valid CCW.
-
El Cerrito CCW Fees
Description: Under the City’s “Master Fee Schedule,” residents applying for a CCW must pay a local processing fee of $961, well in excess of the $100 statutory maximum for such fees.
LOP Response: Submitted pre-litigation demand letter seeking repeal of the City’s excessive application fee.
Current Status: In November, attorneys for the City agreed that the current fee violates the statutory $100 cap. As a result, the City will soon introduce a resolution to amend the “Master Fee Schedule” accordingly.
-
San Jose Anti-Gun Ordinance Package
Description: In September 2016, Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Raul Peralez introduced an anti-gun package for discussion and referral to the City Council.
LOP Response: On October 17, 2017, the City Council discussed a proposed mandatory locked-storage ordinance. NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal, and submitted a letter of opposition.
Current Status: The City Council ultimately voted 6-5 in favor of adoption, but not before serious questions were raised about the precise language of the ordinance as highlighted by NRA and CRPA’s opposition letter.
-
Orange County CCW Applications
Description: Many Orange County residents to this day are still confused as to the specific requirements for obtaining a CCW in Orange County.
LOP Response: Prepared a comprehensive guide discussing the entire application process for obtaining a CCW in Orange County, including what is required to satisfy the Sheriff’s “good cause” policy.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA are working hard to bring "shall-issue" to California. In the meantime, CRPA will continue to provide gun owners with helpful guides on how they can apply for a CCW in their respective county of residence.
-
Cupertino Anti-Gun Ordinance Package
Description: On January 12, the Cupertino Public Safety Commission held an open discussion on several proposed anti-gun measures.
LOP Response: Alerted members to attend the Public Safety Commission meeting. Submitted opposition letter informing the Commission of the proposal's serious legal problems not adequately discussed in staff reports.
Current Status: The Commission ultimately failed to reach a consensus, but the proposal could still come before the City Council at any time.
-
Buenaventura FFL Zoning Ordinance
Description: On March 20, the City Council held an open discussion on a proposed ordinance requiring FFLs to install vehicle impact security devices in the form of “bollards” at all entrances to the store.
LOP Response: Alerted members to attend meeting and voice opposition. Submitted a letter of opposition informing the City of the ordinance’s serious legal problems.
Current Status: The City Council discussed NRA and CRPA’s opposition prior to making its decision, but ultimately voted 6-1 in favor of the ordinance.
-
Statewide Public Record Requests
Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records in connection with any anti-gun efforts in California. Such efforts include proposed anti-gun ordinances, gun buyback programs, and other anti-gun regulatory enforcement issues.
LOP Response: Responses to these requests often yield valuable results, such as which members of a local government entity are working with anti-gun groups, sources of funding, and other important information.
Current Status: Ongoing.
Firearms Regulatory Matters Report
-
CA DOJ's "Bullet-Button Assault Weapon" Regulations July 2017
Description: After several failed attempts, DOJ resubmitted “assault weapon” registration regulations without any substantive changes. OAL ultimately approved those regulations, which are now enforceable.
Regulatory Counsel Status: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposed regulations, but before NRA and CRPA attorneys could respond, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations. Prior NRA and CRPA comment letters can be viewed here, here, and here.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA attorneys filed the Villanueva lawsuit, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act. That lawsuit is ongoing.
-
CA DOJ's Proposed Expansion of "Assault Weapon" Definitions
Description: In November 2017, DOJ submitted proposed regulations expanding the “assault weapon” registration definitions to apply in all circumstances, including enforcement of CA law.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys alerted members to the proposed regulation, and submitted a comprehensive opposition letter. A representative for NRA and CRPA also attended the public hearing to voice opposition.
Current Status: DOJ must issue a Final Statement of Reasons responding to NRA and CRPA’s comments, as well as comments from members of the public, before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.
-
CA DOJ's Proposed "Ammunition Vendor Licensing" Regulations
Description: In July, CA DOJ submitted its anticipated regulations for the issuance of ammunition vendor licenses.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal and provided members with information on how to submit comments on the proposal.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA attorneys have submitted a letter of comment on the proposed regulations, and continue to monitor the proposal and provide analysis as DOJ fails to enact necessary regulations.
-
CA DOJ's Proposed Firearm Safety Device and Handgun Testing Regulations
Description: In January 2018, DOJ proposed a number of regulations regarding the certification of laboratories for handgun and safety device testing, and additional regulations regarding minimum standards for gun safes.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys are currently reviewing the proposed regulations, and will be submitting a comment letter as necessary.
Current Status: A public hearing on the proposal is currently scheduled for February 26, 2018, in Sacramento.
-
Public Record Requests
Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records from CA DOJ and local law enforcement relating to internal agency policies and interpretations of CA firearm laws.
Regulatory Counsel Response: Recently, responses to these requests provided key financial analysis reports from CA DOJ and other state agencies regarding proposed firearm legislation. These reports were subsequently used in drafting legislative opposition letters and veto requests to the governor.
Current Status: Ongoing.
-
New California Gun Laws
Description: Given California's continually evolving and complex firearm laws, many gun owners, manufacturers, and dealers are often left wondering how best to avoid being prosecuted for otherwise unintentional violations that can result in serious consequences.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA regularly work to provide Californians with up-to-date information on California laws, regulations, and policies regarding firearms to help gun owners avoid prosecution and retain their right to keep and bear arms.
Current Status: Ongoing. In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA produced several webinars on a variety of topics, including the loaning of firearms, the new “assault weapon” laws, the new ammunition sales laws, and the recently proposed “assault weapon” regulations.
-
Assistance for California Members
Description: NRA and CPRA continually assist members with questions concerning California firearm laws.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA have a variety of resources available to members, including the ability to refer individuals to attorneys specializing in firearm laws.
Current Status: In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA attorneys continue to provide analysis of parts and configurations of firearms, and provide lectures and general advice to members of the public and law enforcement regarding changes in California gun laws.
-
Implementation of Prop 63
Description: Beginning January 1, 2018, courts will require those convicted of firearm prohibiting offenses to turn in/transfer firearms pursuant to Prop 63.
Regulatory Counsel Response: To better inform the courts and members of the public regarding this process, and in an effort to avoid confusion and inadvertent violations, NRA and CRPA prepared and submitted a letter of comment to the Judicial Council of California.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA are continuing to monitor the implementation of Prop 63 in the courts and the problems associated with its requirements.
-
DOJ Website Errors
Description: In January 2018, new laws regarding firearm warning labels that reference DOJ’s website took effect. DOJ’s website, however, is woefully out-of-date.
Regulatory Counsel Response: In January, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a letter to the Attorney General highlighting the many inaccurate legal statements on DOJ’s website and the need for correction.
Current Status: Ongoing.
-
Assistance to Gun Clubs and Youth Groups
Description: California law substantially regulates and restricts the acquisition, transfer, and loan of firearms. Firearm clubs and youth groups are particularly affected by these restrictions
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA are currently assisting these groups navigate CA’s requirements and advising how best to avoid unintentional violations of CA law.
Current Status: Ongoing.
-
California’s Firearm Violence Research Center
Description: California granted $5 million to create the “California Firearm Violence Research Center.” The individual chosen to head this center is a known anti-Second Amendment advocate.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA are continuing to monitor the center’s activities to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted on biased and unsubstantiated research.
Current Status: Ongoing.
Hunting Regulatory Matters
-
Coalition Building & Uniting Hunting Groups to Promote and Protect Hunting Rights
Agency: N/A
Recent Action: Prepared two full days of presentations developed by NRA and CRPA to California hunting groups laying out a plan for addressing attacks on hunting rights in California.
Status: The groups unanimously agreed to form a coalition and develop a coordinated system to effectively and efficiently oppose and roll back anti-hunting regulations.
-
Potential Legal Challenges to Regulations Restricting Hunting Right
Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies
Recent Action: Prepare memoranda on viability of lawsuits challenging regulations; maintain ongoing list of potential legal challenges.
Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor current and potential legal challenges to timely and effectively intervene or file litigation as appropriate.
-
Monitoring anti-hunting forces
Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies
Recent Action: Ongoing monitoring of lawsuits and activities of potential interest to hunting related matters in California. Regularly submit public records act requests for documents concerning efforts of anti-hunting groups. Analyze Fish & Game Commission meeting agendas and prepare lobbyists for addressing matters of interest at FGC & WRC meetings.
Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor various hunting related issues to allow for timely and effective intervention as necessary.
-
Increasing Support for Hunting Rights Throughout California
Agency: N/A
Recent Action: Developed and distributed computer presentations for distribution by coalition of hunting groups that outline the attacks hunters are facing. Presented to Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports regarding issues in California to garner support.
Status: Ongoing efforts to grow hunting rights coalitions and spread awareness.
-
Membership Alerts
Agency: N/A
Recent Action: Prepare alerts regarding new hunting rules and regulations and advise of NRA and CRPA efforts to promote and defend hunting rights in California.
Status: Ongoing.
-
Anti-hunting Regulations
Agency: Fish & Game Commission
Recent Action: Development of petitions to repeal or amend current regulations that negatively affect hunters and to promote adoption of regulations that benefit hunters.
Status: The petition to allow big game archery hunters to carry side arms has been referred to the Department for possible implementation.
-
Opposing HSUS Predator Policies
Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities
Recent Action: Ongoing efforts to prepare representatives for attendance at Wildlife Resource Committee hearings on predators. Presented at coyote management symposium regarding negative impacts of HSUS on predator management policies. Drafted manuscript explaining HSUS lies for publication in predator management circles. Grassroots organization to mobilize and direct local residents of cities with HSUS coyote policies.
Status: Ongoing efforts to challenge HSUS regarding non-lethal coyote policies in cities where pets and family members are being attacked. Working to broaden coalition of individuals opposed to HSUS policies in light of dangers to typical family households while informing industry members of predator management about opportunities to oppose.
Range Matters Report
-
Stormwater runoff
Recent Action: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Region 5R has been inspecting all shooting ranges in the region requiring sampling for potential lead contamination in stormwater runoff, utilizing drinking water standards. This has the potential to set extremely bad precedent for regulating ranges for stormwater runoff (using drinking water standards) and may potentially shut down numerous ranges.
Status: Ongoing efforts to assist ranges and engage the RWQCB Region 5R representatives to contest the validity of RWQCB’s actions. Working to prevent RWQCB from using the drinking water standards (0.010 mg/L for lead) and invoke the proper stormwater standards (0.262 mg/L), if not stopping RWQCB’s actions entirely.
-
Non-conforming “Use Status” and “Use Intensification”
Recent Action: Counties are attempting to break shooting ranges’ grandfathering as a non-conforming use under County Ordinance. Once the grandfathered status of a range is broken through a use intensification argument or a subsequent County Ordinance requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the guise of health and safety concerns, compliance with current County Ordinance is effectively impossible and range closure is certain.
Status: Ongoing efforts to assist ranges in defending their grandfathered status is crucial in keeping these ranges open and operating.
Previous Legal Updates
-
December 2017
-
October 2017
-
August 2017
-
June 2017
-
April 2017
Monday, December 23, 2024
No, that is not a headline from a satirical news site. Indeed, it may come as a surprise to many (and perhaps even to the man himself), but Joe Biden has in two short days ...
Monday, December 23, 2024
Last February, we reported on the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum emanating from the Hawaii Supreme Court over the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Friday, December 20, 2024
With the sun setting on the 2023-2024 legislative session, yesterday the Michigan Senate held a marathon session lasting over 24 hours. While citizens were sleeping, anti-gun lawmakers were able to pass two pieces of legislation, ...
Thursday, January 1, 2015
CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.
Monday, December 23, 2024
On Thursday, December 19th, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the city of Fargo against the state legislature to block House Bill 1340, a bill passed in ...
