Fouts v. Bonta
Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 19-cv-1662-BEN (JLB) |
Citation | 561 F.Supp.3d 941 |
Parties | Russell FOUTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rob BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Alan Alexander Beck, Law Office of Alan Beck, San Diego, CA, Stephen Dean Stamboulieh, Pro Hac Vice, Stamboulieh Law, PLLC, Olive Branch, MS, for Plaintiffs.
John Darrow Echeverria, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Since 1917, the State of California has made it a crime for the average citizen to possess a weapon known as a billy. Like S&H Green Stamps, over the years the billy's popularity has come and gone, yet the billy law remains. But for the threat of violating the criminal statute, Plaintiffs would possess a billy or baton for self-defense. Plaintiffs challenge the law as an infringement on their federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In this case of first impression, both sides move for summary judgment. Because the 104-year-old state law qualifies as "longstanding," it is a permissible restriction on a dangerous, but less-than-lethal, unusual weapon. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied and Defendants’ motion is granted.
(Emphasis added). The statute does not define "billy." Plaintiffs use the terms "billy" and "baton" interchangeably.3 Defendants use the terms "billy," "billy club," and "baton" interchangeably.4 But "billy" is an old name given to an old wooden police tool, while the collapsible metal baton is a modern police invention. What the instrument or weapon that is commonly known as a "billy" looks like is not at all clear at this point in history, as both the term and the tool have gone out of style.5
Id. (emphasis added). California courts, then, have decided that § 22210 ’s prohibition of the billy includes both the historical billy, as well as other ordinarily harmless clubbing objects in circumstances where possession demonstrates an immediate atmosphere of danger. With this understanding in mind, it is time to review the regulation under Second Amendment doctrine.
The standards for evaluating a motion for summary judgment are well known and have changed little since discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a trilogy of cases from 1986. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. , 9 F.4th 1102, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2021). A scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position is insufficient. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202. When parties cross-move for summary judgment, a court evaluates each motion separately. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n , 605 F.3d 665, 674 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this case, both parties agree that a billy is an "arm" as described by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.7 And both parties agree that a Second Amendment analytical approach is proper. Under this approach, the Attorney General argues that a billy is beyond Second Amendment protection for two reasons. First, the 104-year old statute qualifies as a "longstanding" prohibition. Second, a billy is a dangerous and unusual weapon. This Court agrees that Cal. Penal Code § 22210 is a longstanding regulation.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, that ends the matter.
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. "[I]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill. , 561 U.S. 742, 778, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) ; District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). This right is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald , 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894.
In Heller , the United States Supreme Court created an analytical framework for understanding and applying the Second Amendment. In this Court's view, one first asks is the arm dangerous and unusual? "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ " Heller , 554 U.S. at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783. If it is not unusual, then the question is asked, is the arm commonly possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes? If the answer is "yes," that should end the inquiry as to whether the arm can be owned or possessed. Nowhere, in either Heller or Caetano v. Massachusetts , 577 U.S. 411, 411, 136 S.Ct. 1027, 194 L.Ed.2d 99 (2016), did the United States Supreme Court then go on to apply a level of scrutiny: strict, intermediate, or rational basis.
Second, the Court said, "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller , 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783. So, what does that mean? A citizen may not own or possess (with regulatory exceptions) a bazooka, a flamethrower, or an automatic weapon like the M-16. It also means that a citizen may not bring an otherwise protected weapon, for example an AR-15 rifle, into a school, the Capitol, a courthouse, a church, or other sensitive places where a legislative body has prescribed reasonable regulations. Id. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial