US Appeals Court blocks California gun control law.

A Victory for Free Speech: Appeals Court Strikes Down⁤ California’s Gun Advertisement Ban

In a significant ruling, a panel from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared California’s ban on certain gun advertisements unconstitutional, citing a violation of the⁢ right‌ to free speech.

“There is no evidence in the record that⁢ a minor⁣ in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad,” wrote Ninth Circuit Judge ⁤Kenneth Lee in the order (pdf). “Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns … encourage illegal⁣ or violent gun use among minors.”

The ruling‌ overturns a previous decision that had blocked ​the enforcement of‌ the California law, which aimed to restrict firearm sales to minors. Earlier this year, ⁢a federal⁤ judge in Sacramento had argued that the law ⁢appropriately regulated commercial speech and that the challengers‍ were unlikely to succeed.

According to ‍Judge Lee, California’s law goes beyond what is necessary, as it restricts truthful ads about the lawful use of firearms by both adults and ⁤minors. ‌He provided an example of‌ how an advertisement featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm, targeted at adults, could be deemed ⁣illegal simply because minors might be attracted to ⁤it.

While the ⁤intention of the law is to prevent gun advertisers from reaching ‍children, the court order highlights that it also affects speech directed at adults who have‌ the legal right to purchase firearms. This undermines the state’s argument that the law is solely concerned with unlawful activity.

The ⁤9th ⁢Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its left-leaning ⁣stance, consists of nearly ‌30 active judges. Notably, the ⁣three judges on the panel that issued ⁢this ruling were appointed by Republican presidents.

As of now, the California Attorney ‍General’s office and the groups that challenged the ban ‍have not ‌released any public ​statements regarding the ruling.

Judge Lee’s opinion was echoed by 9th Circuit ‌Judge Lawrence ⁤VanDyke, who accused California officials, including ⁢Governor Gavin Newsom and state ‍Democrats, of ‌attempting ‍to shape‌ public opinion on firearms. Judge VanDyke ‌argued‌ that the law targeted a specific message and violated First Amendment protections.

“California wants to legislate views about firearms,” he wrote ‌in​ the ruling. “California has​ thus singled out a particular message it does not like and ⁢prohibited its proliferation. Its intent to stamp out this speech is evident from⁢ the record. And it crafted a targeted legislative scheme to get ‌the job done.”

According to the judge, the First Amendment requires more than good intentions to justify the government’s suppression of speech, as⁣ stated ​in the opinion.

Last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed the law, citing the need for new legislation in response ⁣to the Supreme Court’s decision to expand the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home. This ruling, which ‍emphasized the importance ⁣of ⁣adhering to the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, has led to the invalidation of various other‍ gun control laws by‌ multiple courts.

The law was swiftly passed and signed by⁢ Governor Newsom following a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. At ⁤the time, state lawmakers had sent several gun control bills ‍to the governor’s desk before‌ their summer recess.

Aside from Governor Newsom, other prominent California Democrats, including ​Attorney General Rob Bonta, ‌have ⁢praised the law as a necessary measure to combat senseless gun violence.

“The idea ⁤of marketing dangerous weapons ​to kids is despicable, and I will not stand⁣ for it,” Bonta ‌stated.