National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. State
210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Penal Code §31910(b)(7)(A) (part of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act) requires that, beginning Jan. 1, 2010, a semiautomatic pistol be deemed an “unsafe handgun” unless it is designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters identifying make, model, and serial number that are etched or imprinted in two or more places on interior surfaces or internal working parts and transferred to each cartridge case when fired (microstamping).
- Appellants NSSF and SAAMI (trade associations for firearms manufacturers and industry standards) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging it is impossible to implement the statute’s dual-placement microstamping requirement for any semiautomatic pistol with current technology.
- The DOJ certified microstamping availability in 2013, triggering the statute; appellants allege impossibility of compliance (pleaded facts taken as true on judgment-on-the-pleadings review).
- The trial court granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding the separation of powers doctrine barred the challenge because appellants did not assert a constitutional attack.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that if the statute is impossible to perform (a statutory proscription under Civ. Code §3531), the judiciary may adjudicate and potentially invalidate the law; appellants may present evidence to prove impossibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separation of powers bars judicial review of a statutory impossibility claim | NSSF/SAAMI: separation‑of‑powers does not bar courts from declaring a statute invalid where compliance is impossible under Civ. Code §3531 | State: courts may not second‑guess legislative policy; plaintiffs didn’t raise constitutional claims, so separation of powers precludes relief | Court: separation of powers does not bar the action; plaintiffs may litigate impossibility because the law ‘‘never requires impossibilities’’ |
| Whether the public‑benefit injunction bar prevents relief | Plaintiffs: exemption does not apply because they seek to show statute is invalid | State: injunctive relief to block a public statute is barred when for public benefit | Court: public‑benefit exemption doesn’t preclude relief where invalidity is shown |
| Whether the phrase “two or more places” can be satisfied by stamping the firing pin twice | Plaintiffs: legislative history and purpose require microstamps on two different internal parts to prevent easy defeat by defacing a single part | State: manufacturers could comply by stamping the firing pin in two places | Court: statutory language and legislative history indicate the Legislature intended stamps on two different internal parts; two stamps on the same part (firing pin) is not a reasonable construction |
| Associational standing of trade organizations to bring claim | Plaintiffs: associations can sue on behalf of members; members need not attempt impossible compliance | State: individual members’ attempts to comply are relevant; participation by members required | Court: appellational associational‑standing requirements satisfied; individual member participation not required given allegation of physical impossibility |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bunn, 27 Cal.4th 1 (California 2002) (describing separation of powers and core functions of the branches)
- Jevne v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 935 (California 2005) (legislative history may be consulted to determine legislative intent)
- Alfaro v. Terhune, 98 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (courts defer to legislative factual determinations unless palpably arbitrary)
- Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, 135 Cal.App.4th 1281 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (pleadings admit properly pleaded material facts on demurrer/judgment on the pleadings)
- Board of Supervisors v. McMahon, 219 Cal.App.3d 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing impossibility of performance as an exception to statutory requirements)