Posted on 09/13/2023 11:56:38 AM PDT by CFW
A California law ostensibly aimed at restricting the marketing of firearms to minors infringes on the free speech rights of adults, according to a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its ruling handed down on Thursday morning, the panel vacated a lower court decision denying an injunction against the law’s enforcement and delivered a resounding win for both First and Second Amendment advocates.
Writing for the majority, Judge Kenneth Lee ruled that the law forbidding marketing and advertising firearms that “reasonably appear to be attractive to minors” is likely to infringe on the First Amendment, given that the statute is so broadly written that advertisements aimed at adults who can lawfully purchase a firearm would be swept up in its provisions.
"While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms. There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech."
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
What I am most curious about is when is SCOTUS supposed to take on that case which supposedly will lead to ALL state gun restrictions being overruled?
Thursday? From a week ago or tomorrow?
California will be racking up one rebuke after another soon enough. They are passing some crazy ass laws, even by Sacramento’s kooky standards. The affirm your kids gender confusion or lose custody bill needs to be challenged right away if hair helmet signs it into law.
from the ninth circus?
That’s when you know California lawmakers really over reached their boundaries. Back to the drawing board.
“Thursday? From a week ago or tomorrow?”
It appears the ruling came out today. Cam must be suffering from that problem from which many retired folks suffer. “What day is it?” is a question often asked at my house since we retired.
In other Second Amendment news:
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/09/13/grishams-gun-ban-gets-its-day-in-court-n74784
“Grisham’s gun ban gets its day in court”
“There was some consternation on the part of gun owners when U.S. District Judge David Urias scheduled and then unscheduled the first hearing in a lawsuit challenging New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s “emergency” ban on bearing arms in the city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, but it looks like the delay was based more on allowing all the plaintiffs in the now half-dozen lawsuits to have a seat at the table than an attempt on the part of the judge to delay a ruling as long as possible. On Tuesday afternoon, not long after the original hearing in Donk v. Grisham was supposed to take place, Urias issued a new order in that case and the other lawsuits that have been filed alerting the parties to a new hearing date: today at 1 p.m. Mountain Time”
.
Trump appointed 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.
Trump did a lot in four years.
Same reasoning should apply to Kalifornia’s ban on flavored tobacco.
Banning adult use of legal products because a minor might illegally use them is a direct infringement on the rights of adults.
“While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms. There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.”
Wow, that judge writes like a right wing wacko.
Bloody amazing, actually.
Newsome did this to show how tough he was — in direct conflict with existing law that you cannot go after gun companies for what idiots do with their products unless their marketing is directly oriented towards kiddies.
“What day is it?”
Easy answer that won’t steer you wrong
It’s the day after yesterday
Absolutely. Props for the Don. We need to get him back in.
“Wow, that judge writes like a right wing wacko.”
That was a great paragraph, wasn’t it?
Some good news for a change.
“What day is it?”
Easy answer that won’t steer you wrong
It’s the day after yesterday
I’ve tried that response with hubby. He then asks, “Well, what day was yesterday?”. We then have to discuss what doctor appointments were yesterday and consult the calendar. It gets complicated but we usually figure it out by the time we have finished the first pot of coffee.
Yes, but considering how frequently the “Nutty Ninth” is overturned by SCOTUS, this could be sketchy!
“Absolutely. Props for the Don. We need to get him back in.”
The judges Trump appointed was one of the best things he did. Yeah, there may have been a few questionable choices but we have to consider the chances of them getting confirmed and the districts they were being nominated for. Sometimes, it was a choice between a squishy middle of the road judge that could be pushed through, or a far wing left activist that never considered the Constitution.
The fact that he actually got 10 judges appointed in the Ninth was amazing in itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.