Share

SAF Files Brief Supporting Motion for P.I. in CA Gun Law Challenge

SAF Files Brief Supporting Motion for P.I. in CA Gun Law Challenge

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging newly-signed California Senate Bill 2—a gun control measure designed to make it impossible to legally carry firearms in most places—have filed a brief supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.

SAF is joined in the case by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, the Liberal Gun Club and nine individuals. The case is known as May v. Bonta. The “Memorandum of Points and Authorities” was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Michel & Associates, and Don Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer.

In their brief, the plaintiffs argue, “California is defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings and order that the Second Amendment includes a right to carry arms in public for self-defense. The state has passed laws with unprecedented restrictions curtailing where that right may be exercised. These atextual, ahistorical, and unconstitutional restrictions serve to constrict the right of bearing of arms in public into a mere parchment guarantee that effectively nullifies the right. California has hijacked the Supreme Court’s “sensitive places” dicta to impose criminal penalties on almost all instances of the peaceable, public carry of firearms.”

“California is trying to dance around the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in the same manner that lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and a few other states have attempted,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The new law simply makes it virtually impossible to carry anywhere outside the home. The state cannot be allowed to get away with this.”

“The State of California is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Ignoring Bruen’s directive, California has chosen to expand areas it deems to be a ‘sensitive place’ to encompass locations that lack any modicum of historical evidence showing that such would have been acceptable at the time of the Founding. We expect to prevail in this action.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.