Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc of Panel Decision Holding Gun Ads Restriction Is Likely Unconstitutional

Reason ^ | 2/20/24 | EUGENE VOLOKH

[CFW]

Volokh:

The order came down today; it noted that no judge called for a vote on the en banc rehearing petition. Here's my post on the panel decision, from September.

From Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, decided today [Sept, 13, 2023] by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judges Randy Smith and Lawrence VanDyke:

"This case is not about whether children can buy firearms. (They cannot under California law.) Nor is this case about whether minors can legally use firearms. (California allows minors under adult supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting, target practice, and other activities.) And this case is not about whether California has tools to combat the scourge of youth gun violence. (It does.)

Rather, this case is about whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad "reasonably appears to be attractive to minors." So, for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California. Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it "materially" and "directly" advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary. California likely cannot meet this high bar.

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. ............."

[CFW]

Interesting article on the history of the case.

Another article here from BearingArms.com

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/02/20/ninth-circuit-denies-california-ags-request-for-en-banc-hearing-in-gun-law-challenge-n1223899

[Scrambler Bob]

whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”
= = =

This is what has stopped a local gun club from teaching gun safety and usage to young folks.

The program has been successful for over 30 years, but has ceased (hopefully not forever).

[MortMan]

I read the article, but still don’t understand whether the 9th rules correctly. Was California’s law struck down?

[SauronOfMordor]

Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it "materially" and "directly" advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary.

I think the Supreme Court could, and should, strike down this standard. Truth should be absolutely immune from censorship. This is how we got people being cancelled from social media over questioning the COVID vaccine.

[SauronOfMordor]

The appeal request was from the AG, so I guess the law was struck down.

[T-Bird45]

Bottom line - the Ninth Circuit denied an application for a hearing by the entire court of a 3-judge panel decision that said the CA case was formed out of total smoke and mirrors. So, yes they ruled correctly.

[Macoozie]

“This is what has stopped a local gun club from teaching gun safety and usage to young folks.”

Yuuuge problem.

When I was in grade school, we carried our 22 plinkers on our bikes to go shooting.

My High School had a Varsity Letter Eligible Rifle Team.

Now, folks call the cops if they see a pierced paper silhouette target in the papr recycle bin.

[ETCM]

A law has to be pretty bad for the 9th Circus to strike it down...

[A strike]

"Truth should be absolutely immune from censorship." TRUTH THAT !!

[Mark was here]

Steve Lehto just did a video discussing en banc.

Appeals Court Agrees to Rehear ‘Utterly Bonkers’ Case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpOy5knEzL8&t=426s