California’s ban on gun shows on state land has been blocked by a federal judge.
A federal judge in California’s Orange County has blocked the state from enforcing its prohibition on gun shows held on public properties, including county fairgrounds.
In his opinion handed down on Monday, U.S. District Judge John Holcomb sided with a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy groups and gun show proprietors, temporarily blocking the enforcement of two California laws aimed to further restrict gun shows that are already highly regulated across the state.
The two laws were written by state Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat representing parts of Orange County. The first, Senate Bill 264, bans the sale of firearms or ammunition on Orange County Fairgrounds. The second law, Senate Bill 915, prohibits such sales on state lands, including county fairgrounds.
Mr. Min, a former law professor at the University of California–Irvine, has argued that his bills would make California a safer place by closing what he called the “gun show loophole” and ending “ghost gun” sales, straw purchases, and gun thefts from careless vendors. Judge Holcomb, however, said those regulations are going too far.
“Even if the Court were to conclude that banning lawful firearm sales at the Orange County Fairgrounds directly advances California’s interest in stopping illegal weapon sales, the regulation would still be more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest,” wrote Judge Holcomb, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.
“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,” he continued, quoting from the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. “In fact, the firearms purchased at gun shows must be retrieved at brick-and-mortar gun stores.”
Supreme Court Ruling on Guns
In a landmark Second Amendment ruling in June 2022, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that gun laws can only be deemed constitutional when they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” Citing this legal standard, Judge Holcomb said that California failed to show evidence that the two challenged laws have any parallel from the time of the Second Amendment’s framing.
“No law that Defendants cite permitted the state arbitrarily to ban firearm sales in disfavored forums, nor did those laws discriminate between gun vendors based upon whether the sales took place on public or private land,” he wrote.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs challenged the California laws on both First and Second Amendment grounds, claiming that the state has engaged in viewpoint discrimination against gun owners.
Specifically, they argued that a gun show is more than just a place where people trade guns, but also a public forum that allows gun owners to meet and discuss topics such as hunting, target practice, gunsmithing, and political advocacy. By shutting down gun shows, they said, the California government is denying gun owners a forum to exercise free speech.
Judge Holcomb agreed, saying that the laws have “a viewpoint-discriminatory purpose,” and that they “disfavor the lawful commercial speech of firearm vendors.”
Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, a leading plaintiff in the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling as ”a huge victory for both the First and Second Amendments.”
“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,” Mr. Gottlieb said in a statement to The Epoch Times.
Meanwhile, Mr. Min on Monday condemned the ruling as “the very essence of federal overreach” motivated by partisan politics.
“Today’s injunction, issued by a Trump-appointed activist judge, is an outrageous abuse of judicial authority that will undoubtedly make our communities less safe,” he wrote in a statement posted online.
“I am confident this decision will be reversed on appeal, and pray this totally unwarranted injunction does not lead to the deaths of more innocent gun violence victims in the interim,” the state senator added.
What impact does the ruling have on the debate surrounding gun control in California?
Laws speak to the special context of political expressive forums,” the judge wrote. “Nor does the historical tradition of the Second Amendment support California’s heavy handed approach to banning, regulating, or enforcing additional restrictions on gun shows specifically.”
The ruling comes as a victory for gun rights advocates who argue that the state’s laws unfairly discriminate against gun shows, which are popular among law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts. Gun shows provide a venue for legal firearms transactions, as well as a platform for education, training, and networking within the firearm community. Proponents of gun shows argue that they are an important part of exercising Second Amendment rights and should not be subject to excessive government regulation.
Critics of gun shows, on the other hand, claim that they contribute to the illegal proliferation of firearms by making it easier for criminals to obtain weapons. They argue that the lack of background checks and the ability to purchase firearms without identification at some gun shows create a loophole that allows dangerous individuals to acquire guns. However, it is important to note that federal law still mandates background checks for all firearms purchased from federally licensed dealers, including at gun shows. Private sales, which account for a small portion of transactions at gun shows, may not require background checks depending on state laws.
The debate over gun shows and their regulation highlights the larger national conversation around gun control and the balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety. While California lawmakers argue that stricter regulations on gun shows are necessary to prevent crimes committed with illegal firearms, Judge Holcomb’s ruling suggests that the state’s laws may be overly restrictive and fail to pass constitutional muster.
It remains to be seen how the ruling will impact future gun control efforts in California and potentially other states. Gun rights advocates are hailing this decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights and a check on government overreach. Meanwhile, supporters of stricter gun control measures are likely to argue that the ruling undermines public safety and the ability to regulate the sale and transfer of firearms.
As this legal battle continues, it is crucial to find common ground and address the underlying concerns of both sides. Balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety is an ongoing challenge, but it is a necessary one to ensure the well-being of our communities and the responsible exercise of our constitutional rights.
In the meantime, gun shows in California’s Orange County can continue to operate on public properties, including county fairgrounds, pending further legal proceedings. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have implications for gun show regulations not only in California but also across the country.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
