By Dave Workman
The State of California has agreed to pay more than $1.3 million to the plaintiffs in a First Amendment lawsuit which challenged the state’s Marketing Firearms to Minors statute, a 2022 law which essentially prevented firearms manufacturers from advertising in Junior Shooters, published by Junior Sports Magazines.
The settlement document may be read here.
The lawsuit was brought by Junior Sports, the Second Amendment Foundation, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Inc., Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, the CRPA Foundation, and Gun Owners of California, Inc.
Last September, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion for a Ninth Circuit Court panel in which he stated the statute “does not directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests in reducing gun violence and the unlawful use of firearms by minors. There was no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad.”
Writing at “X,” the Second Amendment Foundation declared, “Gavin Newsom passed a law to attack the First Amendment because he was mad about a .22lr rifle that was meant for junior shooters. That little stunt has cost California taxpayers over a million dollars, not including whatever (California Department of Justice) spent on their own lawyers. $350k to SAF, $550k to the CRPA coalition of plaintiffs in the same lawsuit, and another $480k in the parallel Safari Club International case on the same issues. Will Newsom apologize to taxpayers for this waste?”
Writing for the court in his majority opinion, Judge Lee observed last September, “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,” the judge continued, “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.”
In his conclusion at the time, Judge Lee observed, “California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth. But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors. But given that California allows minor to use firearms under adult supervision for hunting, shooting, and other lawful activities, California’s law does not significantly advance its purported goals and is more extensive than necessary.”
The court ruled that the California law “is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” and the case was remanded for further consideration. The settlement included this language: “IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Section 22949.80, in its entirety, violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.”
Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
