Jones v. Bonta

• Decision Date: 11 May 2022
• Docket Number: 20-56174
• Citation: 34 F.4th 704
• Parties: Matthew JONES ; Thomas Furrh; PWGG, L.P., dba Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range; North County Shootingining Center, Inc.; Beebe Family Arms and Munitions LLC, dba BFAM and Beebe Family Arms and Munitions; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; Firearms Policy Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; Second Amendment Foundation; Kyle Yamamoto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rob BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; Martin Horan, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms; Does, 1–20, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

34 F.4th 704

Matthew JONES ; Thomas Furrh; PWGG, L.P., dba Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range; North County Shootingining Center, Inc.; Beebe Family Arms and Munitions LLC, dba BFAM and Beebe Family Arms and Munitions; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; Firearms Policy Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; Second Amendment Foundation; Kyle Yamamoto, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.Rob BONTA,^* in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; Martin Horan, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms; Does, 1–20, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56174

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2021 Pasadena, California

Filed May 11, 2022

Haley N. Proctor (argued), David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and John D. Ohlendorf, Cooper and Kirk PLLC, Washington, D.C.; John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group APC, Carlsbad, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jennifer E. Rosenberg (argued) and John D. Echeverria, Deputy Attorneys General; Mark R. Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; Defendants-Appellees.

Sarah A. Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General; Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General; Kwame Raoul, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, Illinois; William Tong, Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut; Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware; Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawaii; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Maura Healey, Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts; Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan; Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, Trenton, New Jersey; Hector Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany, New York; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Josh Shapiro, Attorney General, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, Providence, Rhode Island; Thomas J. Donovan Jr., Attorney General, Montpelier, Vermont; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Olympia, Washington; for Amici Curiae Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Hannah Shearer, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, San Francisco, California; J. Adam Skaggs, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, New York, New York; Robert A. Sacks and Leonid Traps, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York; Angela N. Ellis, Jackson Froliklong, Rachel H. VanGelder, and Madeline B. Jenks, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Brady, and American Federation of Teachers.

Glenn Rothner, Rothner Segall & Greenstone, Pasadena, California, for Amicus Curiae California Federation of Teachers.

Lisa Kobialka, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, California; Darren A. LaVerne, Karen S. Kennedy, and Daniel M. Ketani, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, New York; Janet Carter, William J. Taylor Jr., and Lisa M. Ebersole, Everytown Law, New York, New York; for Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety.

Jason Walta, National Education Association, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae National Education Association.

Neal Goldfarb, Washington, D.C., pro se Amicus Curiae.

Before: Ryan D. Nelson and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges, and Sidney H. Stein,^** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge R. Nelson ;

Concurrence by Judge Lee ;

Dissent by Judge Stein

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.

California has restricted the sale of most firearms to anyone under 21. Plaintiffs challenged the bans on long guns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles under the Second Amendment. The district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enjoin the requirement that young adults obtain a hunting license to purchase a long gun. But the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles. First, the Second Amendment protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them. The district court reasoned otherwise and held that the laws did not burden Second Amendment rights at all: that was legal error. Second, the district court properly applied intermediate scrutiny to the long gun hunting license regulation and did not abuse its discretion in finding it likely to survive. But third, the district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. And even under intermediate scrutiny, this ban likely violates the Second Amendment because it fails the "reasonable fit" test. Finally, the district court also abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs would not likely be irreparably harmed. We thus affirm the district court's denial of an injunction as to the long gun regulation, reverse its denial of an injunction as to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

A

California regulates the acquisition, possession, and ownership of firearms with a multifaceted scheme. Peruta v. County of San Diego , 824 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). To start, some general requirements apply to everyone, not just young adults.¹ First, except for some intrafamily transfers and loans,² the state requires that all transfers of firearms happen at a licensed firearms dealer. Cal. Penal Code §§ 27545, 28050. And second, the purchaser must have a valid firearm safety certificate ("FSC"). Id. §§ 31615, 27540(e). Exempt from the FSC requirement are people with hunting licenses, active and reserve peace officers, federal officers or law enforcement agents, and active or honorably retired members of the armed forces. Id. § 31700(a)–(c).

California also regulates young adults' commerce in firearms. Specifically, after first banning only the sale of handguns, California then prohibited the sale to young adults of almost any kind of firearm. The only exception was for sales of long guns to young adults who (1) have a state hunting license, (2) are peace officers, active federal officers, or active federal law enforcement agents and are allowed to carry firearms for their work, or (3) are active or honorably discharged members of the military. 2017 California Senate Bill No. 1100, California 2017–2018 Regular Session.³

Several young adults, gun shops, and advocacy groups sued, asking the district court to enjoin the long gun regulation under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, while the suit was pending, California again amended the law, banning sales of semiautomatic centerfire rifles⁴ to young adults, and excepting only law enforcement officers and active-duty military, but not hunting license holders. In response, Plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction, amended their complaint to challenge the new ban, and again sought a preliminary injunction, now of both the long gun regulation and the semiautomatic rifle ban.

B

The district court declined to preliminarily enjoin the laws, holding that Plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits, both because the laws did not burden Second Amendment rights and would likely survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court also held that Plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm and that the balance of interests did not favor enjoining the laws.

First, the district court observed that other courts had held that similar laws do not burden Second Amendment rights at all. Jones v. Becerra , 498 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1326–27 (S.D. Cal. 2020).⁵ The district court noted that these courts found that similar laws were "longstanding, do not burden the Second Amendment, and are therefore presumptively constitutional." Id. at 1327. The district court then reasoned that "[i]ndividuals under the age of 21 were considered minors or ‘infants’ for most of our country's history without the rights afforded adults" and therefore they are among those "believed unfit of responsible firearm possession and use." Id. at 1327. It did address the tradition of militia members who were under 21 years old, but reasoned this tradition actually supported the constitutionality of the laws. Id. In the district court's view, "[m]ilitia members were required to possess their own firearms if they complied with accountability and maintenance regulations" and thus the "strict rules surrounding militia duty" show that the "right to firearm possession came with obligations to ensure public safety." Id.

Because of other courts' holdings, the longstanding history of similar regulations, and its militia analysis, the district court reasoned that California's laws "do[ ] not burden the Second Amendment." Id. The district court thus held that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits.

Second, because it found no burden on Second Amendment rights, the district court did not need to apply any tier of scrutiny. Still, "in an abundance of caution," the district court also determined that intermediate scrutiny applied and that the laws likely survived it. Id.

In determining whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny, the district court reasoned that the laws neither implicated the core Second Amendment right nor severely burdened that right. Id....