34 F.4th 704
9th Cir.2022Background
- California amended Penal Code §27510 to bar FFL sales of most firearms to persons aged 18–20: long guns only purchasable by young adults with a state hunting license (SB 1100); later SB 61 prohibited FFL sales of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to persons under 21 (no hunting-license exception).
- Plaintiffs (young adults, gun dealers, and advocacy groups) sought a preliminary injunction challenging both laws under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed de novo the legal questions (tier of scrutiny) and for abuse of discretion the district court’s preliminary-injunction decision. Organizational plaintiffs kept the case live despite some individual plaintiffs aging past 21.
- The panel held: the long‑gun/hunting‑license requirement likely survives intermediate scrutiny (so denial as to that regulation was affirmed); the semiautomatic‑centerfire‑rifle restriction burdened Second Amendment rights and was subject to strict scrutiny (or failed intermediate scrutiny), so denial as to that restriction was reversed and remanded.
- The court also concluded the district court abused its discretion in finding no irreparable injury from the semiautomatic‑rifle ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment | Jones: Young adults have historical Second Amendment protections; right to keep/bear arms includes the right to purchase, so both laws burden protected conduct | Bonta: Restrictions are longstanding or conditions/qualifications on sales and therefore do not meaningfully burden Second Amendment rights | Court: Both laws burden conduct within the Amendment’s scope; district court erred in finding no burden |
| Proper tier of scrutiny for the long‑gun/hunting‑license rule | Jones: Burden but not severe; intermediate scrutiny applies because alternatives exist (hunting license exception, transfers) | Bonta: Intermediate scrutiny applies and the rule likely survives as a reasonable fit to safety/training objectives | Court: Intermediate scrutiny appropriate; district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the rule likely to survive |
| Proper tier of scrutiny for semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban | Jones: Law severely burdens core right (self‑defense in the home) because handguns already restricted and the ban removes semiautomatic rifles for most young adults; strict scrutiny applies; alternatively fails intermediate scrutiny | Bonta: Intermediate scrutiny applies; ban is a reasonable fit to reduce gun violence by restricting a high‑risk group from acquiring weapons used in mass and other lethal shootings | Court: Strict scrutiny applies because law severely burdens the core right; alternatively, even under intermediate scrutiny the ban fails the reasonable‑fit requirement; district court erred and injunction should issue pending further proceedings |
| Irreparable harm and preliminary‑injunction factors | Jones: Deprivation of constitutional right is irreparable; exceptions/transfers do not cure the injury | Bonta: Young adults still have means to obtain/use firearms (exceptions, loans, range use) and plaintiffs delayed, so no irreparable harm | Court: District court abused its discretion; constitutional deprivation is irreparable and remaining Winter factors must be reconsidered in light of merits ruling (remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms for lawful purposes, notably self‑defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Young v. Hawaii (en banc), 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (articulates Ninth Circuit’s two‑step framework for Second Amendment challenges)
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (Second Amendment analysis and intermediate scrutiny application guidance)
- Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing core burdens and severity for scrutiny selection)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (Second Amendment protects obtaining items necessary to make arms functional; intermediate‑scrutiny framework discussion)
- Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (recent elaboration on intermediate scrutiny in post‑Heller Second Amendment cases)