218 Cal. App. 4th 661
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Calguns Foundation sued San Mateo County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to preempt an ordinance that prohibits possession/use of guns in county parks, arguing preemption by state law (formally former Penal Code 12050, now 26150).
- Ordinance 3.68.080(o) generally bans firearms in county parks and the refuge, with narrow exceptions for designated shooting areas (p) and related provisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged preemption by state law, focusing initially on former Penal Code 12050 (now 26150) and later arguing Government Code 53071 (preemption of the field of firearm registration/licensing).
- Trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend; judgment of dismissal was entered in favor of the County.
- NRA filed amicus curiae brief supporting appellants; California appellate court granted it and considered NRA arguments in opposition to the trial court’s ruling.
- Court held that there is no state statute preempting the San Mateo ordinance; the County may regulate use of firearms in its parks, and Government Code 53071 does not preempt such local regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state law preempts the County’s gun-use ban in parks | Calguns contends state law preempts local regulation of gun possession in parks. | County argues state law does not occupy the field; local control allowed when not conflicting. | No preemption; local regulation valid |
| Whether Government Code 53071 preempts local gun-use regulation | 53071 occupies the entire field of firearm registration/licensing, preempting local bans. | 53071 limits only registration/licensing, not possession/use in parks. | 53071 does not preempt the park-use ban |
| Relation to Great Western and Nordyke regarding preemption scope | Argues broad preemption per case law supporting statewide uniformity. | Those cases limit preemption to specific areas; local parks use is narrow and permissible. | Authority supports local regulation; no broad preemption |
| Whether Fiscal v. SF preemption applies to this case | Fiscal held Prop. H preempted; argues broad preemption by 53071 and related statutes. | Fiscal is distinguishable; does not control where ordinance is narrow and targeted. | Distinguishable; Fiscal does not govern here |
| Whether other local ordinances imply repeal or override | 3.53/3.53.010 might imply repeal of 3.68.080. | No waiver; specific exceptions in 3.53 do not nullify 3.68.080. | No implied repeal; ordinance remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 853 (Cal. 2002) (statewide preemption limited to specific areas; local control not broadly preempted)
- Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2002) (local regulation may coexist with state gun laws; not all preempted)
- Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 851 (Cal. 1969) (legislature has not indicated intent to occupy entire field of gun regulation)
- Olsen v. McGillicuddy, 15 Cal.App.3d 897 (Cal. App. 1971) (registration/licensing field limited; municipalities may regulate use)
- Doe v. City and County of San Francisco, 136 Cal.App.3d 509 (Cal. App. 1982) (local licensing issues; validity of local regulation regarding firearms)
- Suter v. City of Lafayette, 57 Cal.App.4th 1109 (Cal. App. 1997) (local regulation of firearms; preemption limited in scope)
- California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood, 66 Cal.App.4th 1302 (Cal. App. 1998) (recognizes limited preemption in firearm regulation)
- Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal.App.4th 895 (Cal. App. 2008) ( Prop. H broad preemption; distinguishable from narrow park regulation)