Oral Arguments Made In Youth Firearms Marketing Case
The following is courtesy of the California Rifle and Pistol Association:
| (Yesterday), CRPA attorneys appeared in oral argument before the Ninth Circuit. The argument was based on an appeal from a denied Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the lower court. A preliminary injunction is an action that would stop the state from being able to implement the law and maintain the status quo. The panel was tough in their questioning of the state, particularly Judge Vandyke, who pointed to the targeting of lawful activity in the legislative record. When the state denied this, the Judge read from the legislative record and the state continued to argue that they were not aware that the legislature was trying to stop lawful conduct of minors possessing and using firearms. The judges seemed to find that the commercial speech issues of this law alone would justify granting the preliminary injunction to halt the new law, but there is no guarantee as we await a determination. The court has taken this issue on the preliminary injunction under review. Stay tuned for more information as the court releases its order. Almost one year ago, Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 2571, under urgency measures. This law made it illegal for members of the “firearm industry” to advertise firearms and firearm related products in a way that may be attractive to children. This law was so egregiously vague that the state almost immediately tried to amend the law last year, but even those amendments do not bring clarity to the law and do not narrowly tailor the law in a way that would not impact lawful commercial and general speech. CRPA members and youth shooting teams and hunters have been waiting for this appeal to be heard. A reversal of the lower court ruling would allow “firearm industry members” to continue as they always have with lawful communications regarding lawful products while the rest of the case is heard. |
