Second Amendment

SACRAMENTO — Gun rights organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new California law that bans certain types of Glock-style semiautomatic firearms.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, prohibits the sale of semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” — a feature that allows gun owners to attach a device, commonly called a switch, that boosts the weapon’s firepower and converts it into a machine gun capable of spraying dozens of bullets in a fraction of a second.

“Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,” John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “They are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges the law violates the 2nd Amendment. Plaintiffs include the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as some individuals and smaller businesses.

The legal action alleges that California’s new law essentially bans the sale of certain Glock-brand handguns and others with similar features that allow modification by owners.

“A law that bans the sale of — and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring — a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit states. “Semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way. The Supreme Court has already held that handguns are in common use and cannot be banned.”

The lawsuit states the only justification for banning a firearm is when the weapon is “dangerous and unusual” and argues that semiautomatic pistols are neither.

“They are also unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes,” the lawsuit states. “In fact, they are among the most popular handguns in the nation.”

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced Assembly Bill 1127, said his bill was intended to help protect communities from gun violence.

“Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal and capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute; they are illegal in California,” he told the Senate Public Safety Committee in July. “Unfortunately, some semiautomatic firearms feature a dangerous design element allowing them to be converted to automatic weapons through the attachment of an easy-to-use device known as a switch.”

Over the last few years, handguns retrofitted with switches were used in several prominent shootings in California, including the 2022 mass shooting in downtown Sacramento that left six people dead and a dozen injured.

Machine gun conversion switches are illegal in the United States and are mostly manufactured overseas. They also can be built at home using 3D printers. Instructions for installing one on a firearm can be found online and require little to no technical expertise.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, according to the Associated Press.

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

The justices by a 7-2 vote turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended that most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area were being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The justices let stand a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the “2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, said the court’s refusal to hear the appeal “reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right.”

The high court’s action is sure to be a disappointment to gun-rights advocates, who were cheered by President Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

It is the latest of several actions by the court that suggest that although the Constitution protects an individual right to “bear arms,” the scope of that right is quite limited.

In a pair of rulings in 2008 and 2010, the justices struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that banned nearly all private possession of weapons, including the keeping of handguns at home for self-defense.

Since then, however, the court has turned down a series of constitutional challenges to laws and local regulations that prohibit people from carrying guns in public or from buying and owning rapid-fire weapons.

California law says law-abiding owners may obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they can show “good cause.” This state law is enforced by the county sheriffs. In San Diego, Los Angeles and other urban counties, sheriffs have set a high bar for what qualifies as a “good cause,” such as a particular need for protection. “Simply fearing for one’s personal safety is not considered good cause,” a San Diego official told a judge there.

The case of Peruta vs. California has been closely watched as a test of whether 2nd Amendment rights go beyond the home. A federal district judge upheld San Diego’s strict enforcement policy, but in 2014, a 9th Circuit panel struck down the policy as unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the panel said the 2nd Amendment protected a right to carry a gun in public.

But last year, the full 9th Circuit reconsidered the issue and rejected this broader view of the 2nd Amendment. Citing English history back to 1541, Judge William Fletcher said the law for centuries had restricted the carrying of concealed firearms without a license.These restrictions were enforced in the American colonies prior to the Constitution, he said.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the 2nd Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” he wrote for a 7-4 majority of the appeals court.

In January, former Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement filed an appeal with the high court on behalf of gun owners. He argued that millions of law-abiding gun owners in California and elsewhere were being denied the right to carry a gun in violation of their rights to armed self-defense under the 2nd Amendment.

California Atty Gen. Xavier Becerra called the high court’s decision “welcome news for California and gun safety everywhere. It leaves in place an important and common-sense firearm regulation, one that promotes public safety, respects 2nd Amendment rights and values the judgment of sheriffs and police chiefs throughout the state on what works best for their communities.”

In a separate but related action on Monday, the justices without comment let stand a ruling from Philadelphia that restored gun-ownership rights to two Pennsylvania men who were convicted decades earlier of misdemeanors. Because the crimes could have sent them to jail for more than a year, they were prohibited from owning a gun under a 1968 federal law. But a federal judge and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the 2nd Amendment, said the men’s gun rights should be restored.

The Justice Department had urged the high court to hear Sessions vs. Binderup, but it was turned down for review.

[email protected]

On Twitter: DavidGSavage

ALSO

Supreme Court partially revives Trump’s foreign travel ban, will hear case in the fall

Supreme Court rules for Missouri church in playground case

Supreme Court will hear case of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

UPDATES:

12:55 p.m.: This article was updated with additional background.

6:55 a.m.: This article was updated with details about a dissent to the action and another gun case.

This article was originally published at 6:40 a.m.

Reporting from Washington — Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes.

The case of Sessions vs. Binderup puts the new administration in a potentially awkward spot, considering President Trump’s repeated assurances during the campaign that he would protect gun-ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.

But the Justice Department under Trump has embraced the same position in this case that was adopted under President Obama: to defend strict enforcement of a long-standing federal law that bars convicted criminals from ever owning a gun, even when their crimes did not involve violence.

The decision is in keeping with Justice Department tradition to defend federal laws in court, even if the administration may not be enthused with the statute.

Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

“I am not shocked by it. The government never likes to have its authority limited,” said Gura, a Virginia lawyer who brought the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s first ruling upholding an individual’s constitutional right to have a gun for self-defense. “They could dismiss the appeal at any time. But I have no reason to expect they will.”

Gura said the federal law had been misapplied to individuals whose crimes didn’t merit a lifetime ban against exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to own a gun. This has “nothing to do with disarming dangerous felons,” he said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.

During last year’s campaign, Trump made gun rights a key issue, winning the early endorsement of the National Rifle Assn.

Last month, Trump told an NRA audience in Atlanta that the “eight-year assault” on the 2nd Amendment had come to “a crashing end…. I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The two Pennsylvania men won a federal court ruling last year, the first of its kind, that ordered the government to restore their rights to own a gun.

Daniel Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 to a charge of corrupting a minor for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female employee at a bakery where they worked. He was 41. He served no jail time and was put on probation for three years.

Julio Suarez was stopped by police in 1990 and had a gun in his car but no permit for the weapon. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served no time in jail.

However, both offenses triggered the federal ban. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited people from owning a gun if they have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail.

Gura argued it was absurd to stretch the federal law to cover state misdemeanors that did not result in a jail sentence. He also argued that because the 2nd Amendment protects a constitutional right, judges should waive the ban for people who were convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses in the past and have had a law-abiding record since then.

Last year, he won on the 2nd Amendment claim before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. By an 8-7 vote, its judges said the men should have their gun rights restored because they had not committed a serious or violent crime. However, the judges did not agree on clear guidelines about when gun rights should be restored.

In January, lawyers for the outgoing Obama administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court. They noted the opinion in the Heller case, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said the decision did not interfere with the “long-standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons.” They also said the 3rd Circuit’s ruling would “open the courthouse door to an unknown number of future challenges.”

Last month, acting Solicitor Gen. Jeffrey B. Wall, representing the Trump administration, filed another brief urging the court to hear the appeal. He said the lower court’s ruling “if allowed to stand … will place an extraordinary administrative burden” on federal judges since people with a criminal record may go to court and seek an exception to the law.

“The 3rd Circuit’s conclusion that the Constitution mandates that untenable result warrants further review,” he told the justices. He also urged the court to reject Gura’s separate claim that the law should not be stretched so far.

It is one of two significant appeals involving the 2nd Amendment that the justices are considering this week.

In Peruta vs. California, the court is being asked to strike down part of California’s law restricting the carrying of guns in public.

While California law authorizes people to seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they show “good cause,” county sheriffs in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco routinely deny such requests by establishing a high bar to meet that standard. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7-4 decision, upheld this enforcement policy.

“There is no 2nd Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the appeals court said.

Former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement appealed on behalf of several San Diego residents and urged the court to clarify whether 2nd Amendment rights extended “outside the home.” He said the court should make clear the “Constitution guarantees ordinary, law-abiding citizens some means of bearing firearms outside the home for self-defense, whether it be open or concealed carrying.”

Because the California case involves a constitutional challenge to a state law, the Justice Department has not been involved so far.

The Supreme Court will meet Thursday to consider these and other appeals. If justices decide whether to hear or deny the appeals, the announcement could come on Tuesday.

[email protected]

On Twitter: DavidGSavage

ALSO

How Trump might fend off an obstruction of justice claim

Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties

Supreme Court finds the GOP packed black voters into two North Carolina districts to help win more House seats