By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A federal judge in California has granted a preliminary injunction in a challenge of two California statutes designed to ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds, and on other state-owned property, in a lawsuit filed last year by the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association.
In a significant setback for the state, U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb also denied the state’s request for a stay to allow time for an appeal to be filed. In his 30-page ruling, Judge Holcomb wrote, “After reviewing the parties’ extensive briefing and conducting a hearing on the motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims and that they have satisfied the other requirements for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined and restrained from enforcing the two state statues at issue.”
Attorney Donald Kilmer, representing SAF in the case, told TGM this is a significant win because it blocks the gun show ban all over the state. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb concurred. The case was filed in 2022.
“This a huge victory for both the First and Second Amendments,” Gottlieb said. “We believe the court has sent a clear message to the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta that the constitution trumps their personal animus toward gun owners and the Second Amendment.”
He was joined by SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who observed, “It is refreshing to see a California court correctly apply the law in a challenge that involves firearms. Judge Holcomb’s opinion catalogues the unconstitutionality of California’s law in an exacting manner, finding it violates the First and Second Amendments, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State’s attempt to ban gun shows on state property could not rightfully withstand constitutional scrutiny and we are pleased with the Court’s decision.”
SAF and CRPA were joined by B&L Productions (Crossroads of the West), the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Second Amendment Law Center and four private citizens. In addition to Kilmer, plaintiffs were represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront at Michel & Associates in California.
In his opinion, U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote, “Here, the Court finds sufficient evidence that SB 264 and SB 915 have a viewpoint-discriminatory purpose. Legislative history shows that the goal of the two statutes is to end gun shows in California, and, while the opinions and statements of legislators are not dispositive of viewpoint discrimination…those statements are circumstantial evidence that the statutes disfavor the lawful commercial speech of firearm vendors.”
But he didn’t stop there. Elsewhere in the decision,. Judge Holcomb observed, “California’s interest in stopping crimes committed with illegal weapons, ‘as important as it is, cannot justify’ prohibiting the complete sale of lawful firearms at gun shows…especially when those same firearms are available for purchase at regular gun stores—and, in fact, the firearms purchased at gun shows must be retrieved at brick-and-mortar gun stores.”
And Judge Holcomb also noted, “As a preliminary matter, evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment has overturned much of the Ninth Circuit’s precedent relating to restrictions on gun shows. Whereas the Nordyke line of cases may be instructive regarding gun shows and commercial speech, the Ninth Circuit’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment—as guaranteeing only ‘a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia’ and ‘offer[ing] no protection for the individual’s right to bear arms,’—has been unambiguously overturned by Heller and its progeny.”
