{"id":1277,"date":"2015-07-17T11:34:00","date_gmt":"2015-07-17T11:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2015\/07\/17\/no-preliminary-injunction-in-california\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:25:41","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:25:41","slug":"no-preliminary-injunction-in-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=1277","title":{"rendered":"No Preliminary Injunction In California 1st Amendment Gun Store Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:10367,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2014\\\/11\\\/california-gun-shops-suing-over-first.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10368,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.fjc.gov\\\/servlet\\\/nGetInfo?jid=3466&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10369,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage2.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=0fa8c32b4c&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/us2.list-manage.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10370,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=c8bd520568&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10371,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=af5c56a11d&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10372,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage2.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=9d1aa9dd0c&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/us2.list-manage.com\\\/track\\\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:10373,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\\/news\\\/volokh-conspiracy\\\/wp\\\/2015\\\/07\\\/17\\\/judge-calif-ban-on-gun-stores-advertising-handguns-on-signs-likely-violates-first-amendment-but-wont-be-temporarily-halted&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20201031014340\\\/https:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\\/news\\\/volokh-conspiracy\\\/wp\\\/2015\\\/07\\\/17\\\/judge-calif-ban-on-gun-stores-advertising-handguns-on-signs-likely-violates-first-amendment-but-wont-be-temporarily-halted\\\/&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 21:11:23&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 21:11:23&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nCalifornia law prohibits a gun store from having advertising on the building indicating that they have handguns for sale. Obviously, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the store owners and it was for that reason that <a href=\"http:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2014\/11\/california-gun-shops-suing-over-first.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">they sued California Attorney General Kamala Harris<\/a> last November.<\/p>\n<p>The judge hearing the case, US District Court Judge <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/servlet\/nGetInfo?jid=3466&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Troy L. Nunley, an appointee of President Obama<\/a>, agreed that the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs were being violated. Nonetheless, he refused to issue a preliminary injunction as it &#8220;would alter the status quo&#8221; and he found that this was a greater harm than the damage to the plaintiffs&#8217; Constitutional rights.<\/p>\n<p>Say what?<\/p>\n<p>Please tell me what harm there is to the public by allowing a store to put a Team Glock sign or a S&amp;W logo on their front display window.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ll let the CalGuns Foundation continue the story.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>July 16, 2015 (SACRAMENTO, CA) \u2013 The State of California\u2019s ban on<br \/>\nhandgun-related speech by licensed gun dealers likely violates their<br \/>\nFirst Amendment speech rights, held a federal judge in<br \/>\nSacramento&nbsp;earlier this morning. The order, issued by&nbsp;District Court<br \/>\nJudge Troy L. Nunley, found&nbsp;that the&nbsp;ban is probably unconstitutional,<br \/>\nlikely doesn\u2019t materially reduce crime, and likely irreparably harms<br \/>\nplaintiffs\u2019 First Amendment right to express themselves the way they<br \/>\nwish to. Nonetheless, the judge allowed the restriction to temporarily<br \/>\nstand, while the case progresses further.<\/p>\n<p>The gun dealers&nbsp;argued&nbsp;that&nbsp;California Penal Code section&nbsp;26820\u2014first<br \/>\nenacted in 1923\u2014prevents them from displaying any \u201chandgun or<br \/>\nimitation&nbsp;handgun, or [a] placard advertising the sale or other transfer<br \/>\n thereof\u201d anywhere that can be seen&nbsp;outside their&nbsp;stores and<br \/>\n\u201cunconstitutionally prevents firearms&nbsp;dealers from advertising even the<br \/>\nmost basic commercial information\u2014\u2018Handguns for Sale\u2019\u2014at&nbsp;their places of<br \/>\n business.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In today\u2019s&nbsp;order, Judge Nunley&nbsp;said that the State \u201cdoes not meet its burden of showing that the&nbsp;Central Hudson&nbsp;elements,<br \/>\n in tandem with the additional First Amendment principles discussed<br \/>\nabove, are met. Therefore, Plaintiffs raise serious questions going to<br \/>\nthe merits of their First Amendment challenge to section 26820.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn balance \u2013 based on the arguments and evidence currently before the<br \/>\nCourt \u2013 the Court also finds it is more likely than not that Plaintiffs<br \/>\nwill succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While California Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued that the law<br \/>\nwas useful in preventing handgun-related crime, the Court held<br \/>\nthat&nbsp;\u201cthere is not adequate evidence produced by the Government showing<br \/>\nhow, specifically, limiting impulse buys from passersby helps to manage<br \/>\nhandgun crime and violence\u2026.the Government has not shown that the ban is<br \/>\n narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective of managing handgun<br \/>\ncrime and violence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Drawing an inference&nbsp;that most prospective gun store customers would<br \/>\nbelieve&nbsp;the&nbsp;dealers sell handguns in addition to other types of<br \/>\nfirearms, the Court said&nbsp;that common-sense understanding \u201cperhaps shows<br \/>\nthe pointlessness of section 26820.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the fact that the&nbsp;firearm&nbsp;dealer plaintiffs showed a<br \/>\n\u201clikelihood of irreparable harm\u201d to their&nbsp;First Amendment rights, and<br \/>\nJudge Nunley\u2019s finding that Harris failed to show how the law actually<br \/>\nadvanced&nbsp;public safety, the Court said that the public interest&nbsp;is&nbsp;best<br \/>\nserved by allowing the California Department of Justice to continue<br \/>\nenforcing the challenged law&nbsp;during the course of the lawsuit.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cGranting the injunction would alter the status quo by requiring<br \/>\nCalifornia to alter its regulatory scheme and practices as they pertain<br \/>\nto firearms. Therefore, the Court takes the requisite caution in<br \/>\ndeciding against altering the status quo. With due consideration to the<br \/>\nfree speech considerations raised by Plaintiffs, which are also of<br \/>\npublic interest, a cautionary approach that favors denial greater serves<br \/>\n the public interest than granting the injunction.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The gun dealers noted that judge\u2019s arguments for a \u201ccautionary approach\u201d<br \/>\n in denying the preliminary injunction are undermined by his conclusion<br \/>\nthat the law likely isn\u2019t really reducing crime.<\/p>\n<p>In response to today\u2019s&nbsp;ruling, California Association of Federal Firearm<br \/>\n Licensees (CAL-FFL) President Brandon Combs said that<br \/>\nthe&nbsp;firearm&nbsp;dealers are reviewing the decision and<br \/>\nconsidering&nbsp;their&nbsp;options.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhile&nbsp;we are pleased&nbsp;that&nbsp;Judge Nunley agrees with us on the law\u2019s<br \/>\nlikely unconstitutionality, it\u2019s disappointing that he would allow the<br \/>\nState&nbsp;of California&nbsp;to continue enforcing&nbsp;it&nbsp;during the balance of<br \/>\nlitigation.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf this were a speech case about abortion providers rather than gun<br \/>\ndealers, I doubt very seriously that the Court would&nbsp;have allowed&nbsp;the<br \/>\nlaw&nbsp;to stand while it was being litigated. For that matter, it\u2019s hard to<br \/>\n imagine that Attorney General Harris would have bothered defending it.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe look forward to the plaintiffs\u2019&nbsp;next steps and will continue to<br \/>\nsupport the case until the law is overturned and our dealers\u2019 First<br \/>\nAmendment rights are restored.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Today\u2019s&nbsp;order&nbsp;in&nbsp;Tracy Rifle and Pistol, LLC, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris, et al.&nbsp;and other case documents can be viewed at&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=0fa8c32b4c&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e\" style=\"-ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #cc3300; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">calgunsfoundation.org\/litigation\/trap-v-harris<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit is supported&nbsp;by <a href=\"http:\/\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=c8bd520568&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e\" style=\"-ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #cc3300; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">CAL-FFL<\/a>, California\u2019s firearm industry association, as well as&nbsp;Second Amendment rights groups <a href=\"http:\/\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=af5c56a11d&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e\" style=\"-ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #cc3300; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Calguns Foundation<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/calgunsfoundation.us2.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&amp;id=9d1aa9dd0c&amp;e=4a2f42fb9e\" style=\"-ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #cc3300; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Second Amendment Foundation<\/a>. &nbsp; <\/i>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\n<b>UPDATE: <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2015\/07\/17\/judge-calif-ban-on-gun-stores-advertising-handguns-on-signs-likely-violates-first-amendment-but-wont-be-temporarily-halted\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Professor Eugene Volokh discusses the case at the Washington Post<\/a>. He advised on the case and thinks the judge got it wrong here.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>As we noted in our reply, the \u201cimpulse buying\u201d rationale for the law rests thus on a rather far-fetched argument. It imagines a person who is in the grip of some emotion (presumably anger, jealousy or depression). He \u201cotherwise might not enter [a] store\u201d (to quote the state) to buy a handgun \u2014 even though he is seized by an emotion that presumably makes him contemplate violence, and even though everyone knows that handguns are commercially available.<\/p>\n<p>That the store is free to have a sign saying \u201cGuns\u201d and has signs depicting rifles or shotguns does not influence him at all. But when he sees the word \u201chandguns\u201d or a picture of a handgun, he \u201crespond[s] on impulse,\u201d and then waits 10 days to get a handgun that he otherwise wouldn\u2019t buy. After those 10 days are up, he then proceeds to commit a handgun crime (or commit suicide). <b>His rage or depression is thus strong enough to last 10 days \u2014 but so weak that they wouldn\u2019t drive him to get a handgun, were it not for an ad that specifically depicts or mentions a handgun (as opposed to some other gun).<\/b><\/p>\n<p>The court agrees that this sort of argument isn\u2019t reason enough to justify a restriction on speech promoting handguns. I think it likewise can\u2019t justify keeping in place a restriction that the court has recognized likely violates the First Amendment; instead, as is normal for such likely unconstitutional speech restrictions, the restriction should be preliminarily enjoined while the litigation proceeds.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>California law prohibits a gun store from having advertising on the building indicating that they have handguns for sale.&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[797,2202],"class_list":["post-1277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-preliminary-injunction","tag-tracy-rifle-and-pistol-v-harris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1277"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1277\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10396,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1277\/revisions\/10396"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}