On January 2, the NRA urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in a challenge to California laws that effectively ban gun shows held on state property. The case is B & L Productions v. Newsom.
B&L Productions [dba Crossroads of the West Gun Shows] has operated gun shows on state property, including the Del Mar Fairgrounds and the Orange County Fair & Event Center, for more than 30 years. Firearm transfers were generally forbidden at gun shows, but firearm sales could be initiated there—after which the purchaser would need to complete a successful background check, wait 10 days, and then pick up the firearm from a licensed retailer at another location. Two recently enacted California laws, however, prohibit anyone from even entering into a contract to purchase a firearm at a gun show. As a result of the laws, state officials have stopped allowing gun shows on state property.
In the brief’s Summary of Argument, the NRA states, “Lower courts are divided over whether the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire firearms. Some courts hold that the right is protected, some hold that it is not, and others hold that the right is implicated only when acquisition restrictions sufficiently burden one’s ability to possess arms.”
Several plaintiffs—including the California Rifle & Pistol Association—challenged the restrictions in both the Southern and Central Districts of California, alleging violations of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
NRA is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) California Rifle & Pistol Association, South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, Second Amendment Law Center, L.A.X. Firing Range, B&L Productions—for whom the case is named—and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer at Kilmer Law Offices in Caldwell, Idaho, and C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California.
While the Southern District ruled in favor of the State, the Central District held that the State was likely violating the Second Amendment by unlawfully restricting firearm sales and also likely violating the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause by engaging in unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the cases on appeal and upheld the laws.
“We are at a point where California has essentially ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 that eliminated the use of ‘judicial balancing tests’ when deciding Second Amendment claims,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “while trampling on the First Amendment protections of speech, which is necessary for the commerce of lawful products.”
Regarding the Second Amendment, the court held that only “meaningful constraints” on the right to purchase firearms implicate the Second Amendment. The court then determined that the First Amendment does not protect speech constituting an “acceptance” in contract formation. Finally, determining that the Equal Protection claims duplicate the First Amendment claims, the court declined to address them.
The plaintiffs filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. NRA’s brief supports that petition. NRA’s brief argues:
- that lower courts are divided over whether the Second Amendment protects firearm purchases and that the Court should grant certiorari to establish that it does;
- Britain’s prohibition on arms commerce sparked the Revolutionary War, and the Founders deliberately protected arms commerce when creating their own government; and
- certiorari should be granted to cabin the Ninth Circuit’s concerted resistance to the Second Amendment.
“This Court has long recognized,” the brief explains, “that the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights that, although not expressly guaranteed, are indispensable to the enjoyment of enumerated rights. Thus, four Justices of this Court agreed—and none disagreed— that the right to transfer ownership of a firearm lawfully is a necessary concomitant of the right to keep arms.”
“And Justice Thomas recognized that the Second Amendment would be toothless without the right to acquire arms. This is consistent with how other rights are treated—for example, this Court has determined that the First Amendment includes the right to purchase paper and ink for printing newspapers.”
Further the brief states, “History makes clear that the Founders intended to protect arms commerce….”
“California’s laws and policies are being used to prevent gun owners, who are honest and peaceable citizens, from congregating and conducting lawful commerce on public property,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “If the state is allowed to continue, neither the First nor Second Amendments are safe from California’s legal choke hold. We are hopeful the Court will grant certiorari.”
Read the NRA’s brief here.
