498 F.Supp.3d 1317
S.D. Cal.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs (18–20-year-olds) challenge California Penal Code § 27510 (as amended by SB 1100 and SB 61), which restricts FFL sales/transfers/possession of firearms to persons under 21 and limits certain long-gun and semi-automatic centerfire rifle sales.
- Plaintiffs argue the statute violates the Second Amendment (Heller/McDonald), abridges core self‑defense rights, cannot survive strict or intermediate scrutiny, and that statutory exemptions (hunting license, military, law enforcement, family transfers) are largely illusory.
- Defendants contend § 27510 is a limited commercial regulation with training‑based exemptions that advances public safety by restricting access to potentially dangerous weapons for an age group prone to impulsive behavior.
- Key statutory details: SB1100 restricts most long‑gun sales to under‑21s absent exemptions (hunting license, military, peace officer, honorable discharge); SB61 further restricts semi‑automatic centerfire rifle sales to under‑21s, with narrow law‑enforcement/military exemptions.
- The court applied the Ninth Circuit two‑step framework (Chovan) and the Duncan four‑part inquiry; it found the regulated firearms are "arms" in common use and that age‑based regulation has historical pedigree sufficient to be presumptively lawful.
- Holding: U.S. District Court (S.D. Cal.) denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Nov. 3, 2020), finding plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on the merits, failing to show irreparable harm, and that the public interest and balance of equities favor denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27510 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment | §27510 abridges Young Adults’ right to keep and bear arms for self‑defense | Statute regulates commercial sales with exemptions; not a categorical ban on arms | Court: firearms are "arms" in common use but age restriction is historically rooted; plaintiffs not likely to succeed |
| Whether age‑based restriction is "longstanding" and presumptively lawful | No colonial/founding‑era analogue; 18‑year‑olds served in militias | Historical regulations and Founding‑era practices support age‑based limits; minors historically treated as under 21 | Court: history/tradition support that age‑based rules are longstanding and presumptively constitutional |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny (strict vs. intermediate) | Plaintiffs: restriction implicates core self‑defense rights and requires strict scrutiny (citing Duncan) | Defendants: statute is limited, allows alternatives and exemptions, so intermediate scrutiny applies | Court: intermediate scrutiny applies because statute does not categorically ban commonly used arms for self‑defense |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm; balance/public interest) | Deprivation of constitutional rights is irreparable; existing safeguards make enjoinment safe | Plaintiffs delayed seeking relief; no clear irreparable harm; public safety weighs against injunction | Court: plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or that equities/public interest favor an injunction; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense; acknowledges longstanding regulatory exceptions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (two‑step Second Amendment framework)
- Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (Duncan four‑part inquiry and strict scrutiny discussion for near‑categorical bans)
- National Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir.) (age‑based handgun sale prohibition held consistent with longstanding tradition)
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (use of historical sources to assess longstanding regulation)
- Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 417 F. Supp. 3d 747 (W.D. Va.) (age‑based prohibitions treated as longstanding)