Recently, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California.
The California lawsuit challenges the state’s firearm “Roster” laws that have recently been expanded.
Along with the SAF and CCRKBA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners, two private businesses and close to a dozen individuals are also suing.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the case is referred to as Renna, et.al. v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et.al.
Specifics of the California Lawsuit
Currently, under California’s roster system, citizens that are legally able to purchase firearms are prevented from owning thousands of firearm models that are available everywhere else in the country.
Basically, if the firearm you want doesn’t make their list of approved firearms, you cannot legally purchase it—whether it performs the same as other approved firearms or not.
According to the State of California Department of Justice “As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model…is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice.”
Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” the government can randomly ban handguns that are able to be purchased everywhere else in the country.
For example, a Gen 3 GLOCK can be purchased (with the limited 10-round magazines), however, a Gen 4 or 5 GLOCK cannot be purchased at an FFL.
Why? Because the Gen 3 model made the list when it was created and the newer generations came out after the list was already in effect.
If any slight change is made to the design of the firearm, it must be submitted for reapproval before it is able to be sold.
Why the Lawsuit Was Filed
Models on this list have an expiration date and the California DOJ can choose to renew them at the beginning of each new year.
According to the complaint issued by the plaintiffs, “under California’s handgun ban, the roster of available handgun makes and models will be reduced three times for each new model added to the roster.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, as well as a large number of firearms enthusiasts, believe this ban is unconstitutional.
In the previous Supreme Court case District of Columbia V. Heller, the court ruled that if a firearm is attainable and in common use, it is protected under the Second Amendment.
The Director of Legal Strategy for the Firearms Policy Coalition, Adam Kraut, stated that “handguns California prevents law-abiding people from purchasing and making themselves are protected arms.”
Additionally, this was the understanding in the case of Duncan V. Becerra, which ruled that California’s ban of common firearm magazines violated the Second Amendment.
This magazine ban is still being argued in a separate SAF California lawsuit.
The President of the FPC, Brandon Combs, stated that “California’s new and expanded handgun ban is unconstitutional because it prevents law-abiding people from purchasing the common, modern firearms they have a right to under our constitution.”
We’ll have to pay attention as the case progresses, because if this decision goes in favor of the 2A community, California could be looking at a whole new world of firearms.
What are your thoughts on this California lawsuit? Let us know in the comments section below!