By Dave Workman
One day after filing a motion for preliminary injunction against California’s ban on Glock handgun sales, the Second Amendment Foundation has announced a settlement of “remaining claims” against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
California has been one of the main battleground states for gun rights litigation in recent years.
The motion for a preliminary injunction involves a case known as Renna v. Bonta, which challenges not only the Glock ban, but also the state’s Handgun Roster. SAF is joined in Renna by the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several individuals and licensed gun dealers.
The settlement announcement comes in a separate case known as California Rifle and Pistol Association v. LASD. SAF notes in a statement to the media that the settlement “remains subject to final approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board,” and does not resolve the ongoing Department of Justice lawsuit against the sheriff’s department. SAF is joined in this case by the California Rifle and Pistol Association (for which the lawsuit is named), Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and several private citizens.
According to SAF, the settlement comes after the LASD’s “representation that it is now processing concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit applications within the 120-day period required by California law.” The agency had been accused of deliberate foot dragging, sometimes lasting more than a year, in the processing of CCW applications, and remains under the thumb of legal action initiated by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
Kostas Moros, SAF director of Legal Research and Education, noted, “This case was ambitious from the start, tackling several different obstacles Californians and visitors faced when trying to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry. While we settled the remaining claims against LASD once they demonstrated compliance with the statutory timelines, the broader impact of the litigation is clear: California residents and nonresidents alike now have more Second Amendment freedoms thanks to the diligent work of SAF and its partners. We will continue monitoring to ensure these gains are not rolled back.”
Among the important issues resolved by the settlement, according to SAF, are:
- A preliminary injunction forcing California to begin issuing CCW permits to qualified nonresidents – the first ruling in the country confirming that the right to carry does not stop at state lines. That relief was later made permanent when the Legislature enacted AB 1078, which essentially codified the terms of the injunction.
- A preliminary injunction against LASD’s extreme multi-year wait times, which, combined with pressure from a parallel U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that was filed after our case, led the department to bring its processing times into compliance with state law.
- Changes to California law eliminating automatic five-year bans on CCW eligibility based solely on temporary restraining orders that were dissolved without a full hearing.
- Reforms by the City of La Verne, which subsidized its psychological exam requirement and modestly reduced related fees after being sued over the high total cost of obtaining a permit; the fight on the high fees issue now continues in our lawsuit against Santa Clara.
“Lawmakers and officials in California have long treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed, “and this settlement proves we will not stop until those who wish to trample our constitutional rights are held accountable. Litigation remains one of the most effective tools we have to force compliance with the Constitution when government agencies refuse to do so on their own. This settlement marks meaningful progress, but our work to secure full recognition of the right to carry – including true interstate reciprocity – continues.”
Speaking of litigation, SAF’s motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case was launched in response to the California Legislature’s passing of Assembly Bill 1127 last October. The measure prohibits Golden State firearms retailers from selling or delivering what it calls “any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” This bill targets Glock and similar pistols, which can be illegally altered with a device known as a “Glock switch,” converting the handgun to fire full-auto.
The motion asserts California’s ban is an effort to prevent citizens from owning “commonly possessed handgun models” and that Section 27595 of the law banning a cruciform-trigger-bar “is flagrantly unconstitutional.”
“It’s no surprise that fearmongering lawmakers in California have decided to categorically ban one of the most commonly owned handgun platforms in America,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We’ve seen these kneejerk reactions time and time again in California and have routinely fought them as the Second Amendment infringements that they are. This case is no different.”
In addition to California, other Second Amendment battleground states include Illinois, New York, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey. SAF legal actions in Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut, challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” in those jurisdictions, will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after it convenes in October.
Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
