Saturday, April 1, 2023

Another Victory to Blame on Bruen

 From Renna v. Bonta (S.D.Cal. 2023):


While the topic of gun regulation and its permissible scope is hotly debated in America’s political theater, the role of this Court is to determine whether the roster provisions of the UHA violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights under United States Supreme Court precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Bruen abrogated the “means-end” approach used by circuit courts across the country to determine the constitutionality of gun regulations under the Second Amendment, including a Ninth Circuit decision that previously upheld the UHA’s chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements. See Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018). Under Bruen, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, in which case the State “may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest,” such as public safety. 142 S. Ct. at 2126. Rather, to justify its regulation, the State must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulations. Id.  Under this newly formulated standard, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ desire to commercially purchase newer models of semiautomatic handguns in common use is covered by the Second Amendment and presumptively protected. Because the State is unable to show the UHA’s chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements are consistent with the Nation’s historical arms regulations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the State’s enforcement of those three provisions, which operate to prohibit the commercial sale of these arms, as well as the three-for-one roster removal provision, which depends on the enforceability of those provisions. However, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the UHA’s roster listing requirement, and its fees, safety device, and testing requirements violate their Second Amendment rights. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part and denied in part.

And the judge refused to grant California a stay pending appeal. 

No comments:

Post a Comment