JUNIOR SPORTS MAGAZINES INC. et al. v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2025). My friend Don Kilmer has been chasing this absurd case for a couple years. California passed "—a statutory scheme that bars firearm advertising that 'reasonably appears to be attractive' to minors..." These idiots cannot even pass laws. What is "attractive" advertising to minors?
This is not primarily a Second Amendment case. It was decided on free speech grounds. The 9th Circuit ruled again California two years ago, remanding the case back to district court to be reheard consistent with that decision. (By the way, appellate courts do not directly strike down laws; they tell the trial court to rehear the case consistent with their decision.
We earlier held that Section 22949.80 of the California Business and Professions Code—a statutory scheme that bars firearm advertising that “reasonably appears to be attractive” to minors—violates the First Amendment. Junior Sports Mags. Inc. v. Bonta, 80 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir. 2023). On remand, the district court declined to preliminarily enjoin subsection (b) of Section 22949.80, which prevents the firearm industry from compiling or using personal information of minors for marketing purposes. Junior Sports Mags. Inc. v. Bonta, 2024 WL 3236250, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2024). We reverse the district court and clarify that our constitutional analysis applied to the entirety of Section 22949.80.
There was nothing subtle about that 2023 decision; you could hear the anger during oral arguments. The decision uses language more direct than usual:
We REVERSE the district court’s order denying in part the motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the entirety of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22949.80. [emphasis added]
No comments:
Post a Comment