CALIFORNIA LEGAL AFFAIRS - August 2017 Prepared by: California Rifle & Pistol Association
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CALIFORNIA LEGAL AFFAIRS
August 2017
Prepared by:
This report provides an overview of just some of the efforts the National
Rifle Association of America and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.,
are taking to protect the rights of California gun owners. Although litigation plays
an extremely important role in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms, NRA
and CRPA are heavily involved in many other tremendous and equally important
endeavors throughout California and across the nation.
As has been and always will be the case, NRA and CRPA invest enormous
amounts of resources to protect the Second Amendment at all levels of California’s
government, including all 58 counties, all 482 municipalities, and all state and
local agencies tasked with enforcing the myriad of complex and ever expanding
gun laws.
The digital version of this report, complete with links to relevant documents and
additional information, can be found on NRA-ILA’s California webpage at
https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2017/california/stand-and-fight-california/
and CRPA’s webpage at www.crpa.org.Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................1
FIREARMS LITIGATION REPORT .......................................................................3
LOCAL ORDINANCE PROJECT REPORT ...........................................................9
FIREARMS REGULATORY MATTERS REPORT .............................................13
HUNTING REGULATORY MATTERS ...............................................................17
RANGE MATTERS REPORT ................................................................................19
iiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FIREARMS LITIGATION REPORT
The litigation report provides a brief overview and update on NRA and
CRPA’s recent litigation efforts in California, including amicus and
consulting support in other firearm related cases.
LOCAL ORDINANCE PROJECT REPORT
The Local Ordinance Project (“LOP”) is a joint venture between the NRA
and CRPA to research and actively monitor all of California’s local
jurisdictions to oppose any proposed ordinance, law, or policy that threatens
Second Amendment Rights. LOP efforts include developing and working
with a network of professionals, citizens, local government officials, and law
enforcement professionals to effectively oppose local threats to California
gun owners.
Opposition campaigns typically include the preparation of opposition or pre-
litigation demand letters, grassroots coordination, public information
campaigns, and, in some cases, appearances at city council hearings. In
many instances, these efforts have prompted local governments to vote down
proposals or pull them from consideration. LOP efforts also serve as the
foundation for NRA and CRPA litigation efforts against municipalities that
enact anti-gun legislation.
REGULATORY MATTERS REPORT
NRA and CRPA are also heavily invested in firearm law enforcement issues
through their Regulatory Counsel efforts, which monitors the California
DOJ and local law enforcement's interpretations of California firearm laws
on a daily basis.
Ongoing efforts include drafting regulatory comment letters, providing legal
support to NRA and CRPA lobbyists, drafting NRA and CRPA member
alerts, and providing advice to NRA and CRPA members. Regulatory
Counsel also collaborates with overlapping litigation, legislative, and
regulatory matters to effectively oppose improper actions and incorrect
interpretations of California law by state and local agencies.
Page 1 of 18Regulatory Counsel is responsible for many of the recently published
webinars available on the CRPA’s website which provide gun owners with a
comprehensive analysis of recently enacted legislation and the recently
proposed “assault weapon” regulations from the California DOJ.
HUNTING MATTERS REPORT
Closely related to Regulatory Counsel are NRA and CRPA’s efforts to
monitor and respond to issues impacting hunters throughout California.
These efforts include developing strategies and taking action when necessary
before the Legislature, the Fish & Game Commission, local municipalities,
and other various regulatory agencies.
Hunting Regulatory efforts are also dedicated to pushing back against
rabidly anti-hunting forces such as the United States Humane Society, and to
improve policies impacting hunters in California to effectively promote and
defend the right to hunt in California.
RANGE MATTERS REPORT
Last but not least, NRA and CRPA continually monitor environmental, land
use, and design and safety issues that heavily affect shooting ranges and
areas in California and throughout the nation.
NRA and CRPA’s range assistance efforts include regular range evaluations
and meeting with Club Boards to strategize and assist with coordination of
defense campaigns against “not in my backyard” efforts from environmental
non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies, and municipal
governments.
* In addition to the above mentioned efforts, NRA and CRPA both employ full time
lobbyists in Sacramento to fight on behalf of gun owners in the California
Legislature. NRA and CRPA regularly prepare and distribute comprehensive
legislative updates and voting guides for local, state, and national elections, all of
which are freely available online on the NRA-ILA Stand and Fight California!
Webpage and www.crpa.org.
Page 2 of 18FIREARMS LITIGATION REPORT
NRA/CRPA California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
The case was filed on April 24, 2017, in Plaintiffs will soon be
response to Senate Bill 880 and Assembly conducting discovery and
Bill 1135, and challenges California’s will file a motion for
Challenge to
entire “assault weapon” regulatory summary judgment.
California’s Rupp v.
scheme as a violation of the Second
“assault weapon” Becerra
Amendment, due process clause, and
restrictions.
takings clause of the United States
Constitution.
The case was filed on May 17, 2017, in On July 27, the California
response to Senate Bill 1446 and Attorney General appealed
Proposition 63, and challenges all of the decision to issue an
California’s restrictions against standard injunction to the Ninth
Challenge to
capacity magazines. On June 29, the Circuit. Briefing on appeal
California’s ban on Duncan v.
judge granted CRPA’s request to stay is expected to begin at the
standard capacity Becerra
enforcement of the magazine ban, which end of August.
magazines
was set to take effect on July 1. As a
result, the ban has been put on hold while
the case is litigated.
The case was filed on August 17, 2016 as The challenge to
a direct response to Peruta. The suit seeks California’s ban on the
to force the court to decide whether or not open carry of firearms will
it is willing to uphold a complete now proceed to be litigated
Challenge to CA
prohibition on the right of law-abiding in the district court.
and Los Angeles Flanagan v.
citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. Regardless of the outcome,
Firearm Carry Becerra
On February 23, 2017, the district court the challenge to
Restrictions that
dismissed plaintiff’s claims challenging California’s concealed
Prohibit Both (Formerly
California’s concealed carry restrictions in carry restrictions in light of
Open and Flanagan v.
light of Peruta. California’s total ban on
Concealed Carry Harris)
open carry have been
preserved for appeal.
Page 3 of 18NRA/CRPA California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
CRPA and NRA attorneys are preparing Rupp and Duncan have
multiple challenges to the new laws that already been filed in
were passed in 2016 that improperly response to the
punish law-abiding gun owners. “Gunmageddon” bills and
Additional
Prop 63. Additional
Upcoming
CRPA and NRA attorneys also submitted lawsuits will soon be filed.
Challenges to
a pre-litigation demand letter to the City
“Gunmageddon,” N/A
of Los Angeles demanding that it repeal The City of Los Angeles
Prop 63, and LA’s
its ultra-compact firearms in September has agreed to repeal its
Ultra-Compact
21, 2016. ultra-compact firearms
Firearms Ban
ordinance, and is in the
process of enacting an
ordinance to do so.
On June 26, the Supreme Court issued an While the Peruta case is
order declining to hear the case, but not may now be officially over,
without a strong dissenting opinion from another lawsuit, Flanagan
Peruta v.
newly appointed Justice Gorsuch and v. Harris, seeks to force the
Challenge to California
Justice Thomas, which highlights how the court to decide whether or
“good cause”
“en banc” panel improperly declined to not it is willing to uphold a
requirement for (Formerly
answer the core question of the case. complete prohibition on the
CCWs Peruta v. San
right of law-abiding
Diego)
citizens to carry a firearm
for self-defense in public.
In March 2015, the district court issued an Plaintiffs now have the
Bauer v. opinion upholding California’s use of option of submitting a
Challenge to
Becerra DROS fees to fund APPS and other law petition for review to the
DOJ’s excessive
enforcement activities. On June 1, 2017, United States Supreme
DROS fees that
(Formerly the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court Court.
generated a
Bauer v. opinion. And on July 12, the Ninth Circuit
massive surplus.
Harris) denied Plaintiffs’ request for an “en banc”
hearing.
Gentry v. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint The case is expected to go
Challenges DOJ’s Becerra alleging that the DROS fee is an invalid to trial in 2017.
Use of DROS property tax. The case is currently in the
surplus to fund (Formerly discovery process.
APPS Gentry v.
Harris)
Page 4 of 18NRA/CRPA California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
This case forced DOJ to comply with the Briefing concerning
Challenge to CA Belemjian v. process for enacting regulations, which it attorney’s fees has been
DOJ’s Becerra sought to avoid when implementing the completed. Oral arguments
underground FSC program in February 2015. Plaintiffs are expected to take place
regulations (Formerly appealed the lower court’s denial of in late 2017.
regarding the FSC Belemjian v. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.
Program Harris)
In December 2016, as a result of Prop 63, Plaintiffs’ motion for
Vagueness the California Supreme Court dismissed attorneys’ fees will be
challenge to (AB its review of a Court of Appeals’ opinion heard in 2017. Separate
962’s “handgun upholding the trial court’s order striking litigation is being prepared
Parker v.
ammunition” down AB 962. The Court of Appeals’ to challenge the
California ammunition restrictions in
sales registration decision is now the final opinion in the
requirement and Proposition 63.
case and Plaintiffs are seeking their
mail order ban
attorneys’ fees against the State.
The passage of SB 1446 and Proposition Duncan has been filed to
63 prohibiting the possession of 10+ challenge the State’s 10+
round magazines statewide now preempts round magazine ban. If that
10+ Round the local ordinance and mooted the case. litigation is successful, this
Fyock v.
Magazine The case was dismissed without prejudice case will be refiled against
Sunnyvale
Possession Ban in December 2016. Sunnyvale.
The City agreed to repeal the ordinance as Now that the ordinance has
a result of the lawsuit. been repealed, the case will
Preemption be dismissed.
challenge to LA Bosenko v.
ordinance banning City of Los
possession of 10+ Angeles
round magazines
Page 5 of 18In addition to the previously mentioned cases, NRA and CRPA regularly provide consulting advice and prepare
amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in a number of other firearm related cases. NRA and CRPA have
supported or will be supporting the following cases.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
California and 9th Circuit Amicus and Consulting Support
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
In December 2016, the 9th Circuit Awaiting a decision from
ordered the case to be reheard by an 11- the 11-judge “en banc”
FFL Zoning
Teixeira v. judge “en banc” panel. NRA and CRPA panel of the 9th Circuit.
Alameda attorneys filed an amicus brief on
Restrictions
County January 31, 2017. Oral arguments were
held on March 22, 2017.
On March 10, 2017, the 9th Circuit The case is now closed.
issued an order remanding the case to the
Hawaii CCW Baker v.
District Court in light of the “en banc”
Scheme Kealoha
panel decision in Peruta. On June 22, the
case was dismissed with prejudice.
The federal district court upheld the Awaiting a decision from
California Pena v. Roster in 2015. Plaintiffs appealed, and the 9th Circuit.
Handgun Roster Lindley oral arguments were held on March 16,
2017.
In December 2016, the 9th Circuit issued Plaintiffs can now seek
its decision upholding the 10-day wait as review by the United States
applied to current gun owners. Chief Supreme Court. A petition
Judge Sydney Thomas went even further for review is currently due
10-Day Wait as and stated that the restriction is September 1, 2017.
Silvester v.
applied to current
Harris “presumptively lawful” and therefore
firearm owners falls “outside the scope of the Second
Amendment.” Plaintiffs petitioned the
Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, but that
petition was denied on April 4, 2017.
In July 2015, the district court denied a Awaiting a decision from
Tracy Rifle
request to prohibit enforcement while the the District Court on the
and Pistol v.
case proceeds. That decision was cross-motions for summary
1st Amendment Becerra
appealed, and in February 2016 the 9th judgment.
challenge to
Circuit upheld the lower court’s order
handgun ad (Formerly
within two weeks of oral arguments.
prohibition Tracy Rifle
Cross-motions for summary judgment
and Pistol v.
have been filed in the district court.
Harris)
Page 6 of 18California and 9th Circuit Amicus and Consulting Support
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
The case has been settled. The City has agreed to pay
FFL zoning NSSF v. NSSF over $400,000 in
ordinance Pleasant Hill legal fees
Challenges DOJ The California trial court upheld DOJ’s The case is currently being
regulation barring Doe v. Becerra regulation and the plaintiffs have briefed before the
sale of more than appealed the decision to the California California Court of
one handgun in 30 (Formerly Doe Court of Appeals. Appeals.
days to COE v. Harris)
holders
Challenge to ban At the request of both parties, oral The Army Corps of
on possession and arguments have been cancelled, and the Engineers is reconsidering
carriage of Nesbitt v. U.S. case has been referred to the 9th Circuit’s its firearms policy, and will
firearms on Army Corps of mediation program. work with plaintiffs to
recreational Army Engineer settle the matter outside of
Corps’ lands court.
On December 1, the California Court of The case is currently being
Appeals issued a ruling in favor of NSSF, briefed before the
State Court
allowing the lawsuit to proceed in the California Supreme Court.
challenge to
NSSF v. lower court. But on March 22, 2017, the
California’s micro-
California California Supreme Court agreed to
stamping
rehear the case following a petition from
requirements
the State of California.
Page 7 of 18NRA and CRPA also litigate and provide assistance in a number of critical Second Amendment cases across the
country that could set precedent for future challenges to California gun laws. The following are some of the
more recent and significant examples of these cases.
National Cases with California Interest
Issue Case Name Case Status What’s Next
On February 21, 2017, an “en banc” Several briefs both
panel of the 4th Circuit issued an opinion supporting and opposing
Challenges
upholding Maryland’s ban that referred Plaintiffs’ petition to the
Maryland’s ban on
Kolbe v. to America’s most popular types of rifles United States Supreme
“assault weapons”
Hogan as “exceptionally lethal weapons of war.” Court are expected to be
and 10+ round
Plaintiffs have petitioned the United filed.
magazines
States Supreme Court for review.
On July 25, the D.C. Circuit issued its D.C. can still appeal the
decision declaring Washington D.C.’s decision to a larger “en
Challenges “good reason” requirement for the banc” panel of the D.C.
Washington D.C.’s issuance of a CCW as a violation of the Circuit, or petition the
Grace v.
“good reason” Second Amendment. The Court also United States Supreme
District of
requirement for the issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Court for review.
Columbia
issuance of a CCW D.C. from enforcing the requirement.
permit
Page 8 of 18LOCAL ORDINANCE PROJECT REPORT
The Local Ordinance Project (LOP) is a joint venture between NRA and CRPA to research and actively monitor
all of California’s 58 counties and 482 municipalities to oppose any proposed ordinance, law, or policy that
threatens Second Amendment rights. LOP efforts include developing and working with a network of
professionals, citizens, local government officials and law enforcement professionals to effectively oppose local
threats to California gun owners. Opposition campaigns typically include the preparation of opposition letters or
pre-litigation demand letters, grassroots coordination, public information campaigns, and, in some cases,
appearances at city council hearings. In many instances, these efforts have prompted local governments to vote
down proposals or pull them from consideration. LOP efforts also serve as the foundation for NRA and CRPA
litigation efforts against municipalities that enact anti-gun legislation.
Jurisdiction
Description LOP Response Current Status
and Issue
Continually develop and
LOP works hard to inform
maintain detailed voting
Statewide California gun owners of
histories of local politicians,
Local political candidate's voting Ongoing.
including whether they
Elections records on Second
proposed or supported any
Amendment Issues.
firearm-related legislation.
Alerted members to attend
City Council meetings and
In July 2016, the City Council
voice opposition. Submitted The City agreed to remove
opened discussion on a
two opposition letters, one in the magazine and
number of anti-gun proposals,
July and one in September, ammunition restrictions from
including a duty to report the
Palm Springs warning of the ordinance’s the proposal. But despite the
theft or loss of a firearm, a
Anti-Gun serious legal problems, overwhelming number of
prohibition on the possession
Ordinance including state preemption residents who spoke against
of magazines capable of
Package issues. Published C.D. Michel the proposal, the Council
holding more than 10 rounds,
editorial discussing problems voted 3-2 in favor of
and a requirement that all
with proposal. Sought public enacting the remaining
ammunition sales be
records of communications provisions.
recorded.
between Council members
and anti-gun groups.
Page 9 of 18In June 2016, the City
LA City Council instructed the LAPD In a joint-effort with
Anti-Gun to work with the anti-gun FFLGuard, prepared and The City has not prosecuted
Efforts organization “Crime Gun submitted a letter to all FFLs a single dealer as a result of
Targeting Solutions” to study and located within the City its efforts targeting so-called
Law-Abiding identify so-called “bad apple” warning them of the Council’s "bad apple" gun dealers.
Gun Dealers gun dealers located in the action.
City of Los Angeles.
The Town Council has listed
Moraga
implementation of a “safe
Locked Continuing to monitor Town Town staff have not yet
firearm storage” and “home
Storage and Council agendas for any submitted a draft ordinance
based firearm dealer”
FFL Zoning updates. for review.
ordinance as a proposed goal
Ordinance
for 2017.
In March 2016, several City
Encinitas
Councilmembers asked staff
Locked Continuing to monitor City City staff have not yet
to prepare an ordinance
Storage and Council agendas for any submitted a draft ordinance
requiring the locked storage
FFL Zoning updates. for review.
of firearms and restricting
Ordinance
where FFLs may be located.
In October 2016, Sonoma
County Sheriff Steve Freitas
Submitted opposition letter In November 2016, the
sought approval from the
warning of the proposal’s County Board of Supervisors
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
serious legal problems, such pulled the proposal from
County CCW to impose a mandatory
as how state law capped the consideration and stated it
Fees psychological test for all
psychological testing fee at has no plans for re-
CCW applicants and raise the
$150. introduction at this time.
associated fee from $150 to
$550.
In October 2016, the City
In September 2016, the City
agreed to amend the
introduced an ordinance Submitted opposition letter
Belvedere ordinance to include an
requiring all handguns kept at warning of the ordinance’s
Handgun exception for all law-abiding
home to be stored in a locked serious legal problems,
Storage citizens when carrying the
container, providing an including state preemption
Ordinance firearm, regardless of
exception only for individuals issues.
whether or not they possess a
who possessed a valid CCW.
valid CCW.
Page 10 of 18In November, attorneys for
Under the City’s “Master Fee
the City agreed that the
Schedule,” residents applying
Submitted pre-litigation current fee violates the
for a CCW must pay a local
El Cerrito demand letter seeking repeal statutory $100 cap. As a
processing fee of $961, well
CCW Fees of the City’s excessive result, the City will soon
in excess of the $100
application fee. introduce a resolution to
statutory maximum for such
amend the “Master Fee
fees.
Schedule” accordingly.
As a result of LOP and other
local pro-gun efforts, the
In September 2016, City has dropped most of the
San Jose Councilmembers Ash Kalra Alerted members to attend proposed provisions, but will
Anti-Gun and Raul Peralez introduced Rules and Open Government still pursue a mandatory
Ordinance an anti-gun package for Committee meetings during locked-storage ordinance. A
Package discussion and referral to the early stages of proposal. draft ordinance is expected to
City Council. be introduced to the City
Council in the coming
weeks.
Alerted members to attend
At the request of several anti- meeting and voice support for
gun residents, the Del Mar gun shows. Submitted letter Following the public
Gun Shows
Fairgrounds Board of of comment informing Board discussion, the Board did not
at the Del
Directors held an open members of all of the rules take any action and continues
Mar
discussion in November 2016 and requirements gun show to allow the use of the
Fairgrounds
regarding the use of the operators are required to grounds by gun shows.
grounds by gun shows. adhere to in the State of
California.
NRA and CRPA are working
Prepared a comprehensive hard to bring "shall-issue" to
Many Orange County guide discussing the entire California. In the meantime,
Orange residents to this day are still application process for CRPA will continue to
County CCW confused as to the specific obtaining a CCW in Orange provide gun owners with
Applications requirements for obtaining a County, including what is helpful guides on how they
CCW in Orange County. required to satisfy the can apply for a CCW in their
Sheriff’s “good cause” policy. respective county of
residence.
Following the enactment of
Senate Bill 707, which CRPA provided the Board
In November 2016, the Kern
Kern County restricted CCW holders from with a comprehensive guide
High School District Board
CCW on carrying firearms on school discussing the school’s
voted in favor of allowing
School grounds, the Kern County authority to allow individuals
teachers and staff to carry
Grounds High School Board sought to to carry firearms on school
firearms on school grounds.
allow teachers and staff to grounds.
carry firearms at school.
Page 11 of 18Alerted members to attend the
Public Safety Commission A revised ordinance
On January 12, the Cupertino
Cupertino meeting. Submitted regarding security
Public Safety Commission
Anti-Gun opposition letter informing requirements for firearm
held an open discussion on
Ordinance the Commission of the dealers is expected to come
several proposed anti-gun
Package proposal's serious legal before the Public Safety
measures.
problems not adequately Commission in July.
discussed in staff reports.
On March 20, the City
Council held an open Alerted members to attend The City Council discussed
discussion on a proposed meeting and voice opposition. NRA and CRPA’s
Buenaventura
ordinance requiring FFLs to Submitted a letter of opposition prior to making
FFL Zoning
install vehicle impact security opposition informing the City its decision, but ultimately
Ordinance
devices in the form of of the ordinance’s serious voted 6-1 in favor of the
“bollards” at all entrances to legal problems. ordinance.
the store.
The City is currently in the
process of selecting a new Alerted members to attend a
Chief of Police. The current special meeting soliciting
West Covina
Chief, David Faulkner, input from residents and A decision by the City has
Chief of
refused to honor the City businesses regarding the not yet been made.
Police
Council’s resolution defining recruitment of a new Chief of
“good cause” for a CCW Police.
permit.
NRA and CRPA regularly
seek and obtain public records Responses to these requests
in connection with any anti- often yield valuable results,
Statewide
gun efforts in California. such as which members of a
Public
Such efforts include proposed local government entity are Ongoing.
Record
anti-gun ordinances, gun working with anti-gun groups,
Requests
buyback programs, and other sources of funding, and other
anti-gun regulatory important information.
enforcement issues.
Page 12 of 18FIREARMS REGULATORY MATTERS REPORT
Regulatory Counsel efforts involve the continual monitoring of the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and
local law enforcement interpretations of California firearm laws to protect gun owners and firearm dealers
against unwarranted and unlawful regulatory and enforcement actions. Regulatory Counsel efforts include
drafting regulatory comment letters, providing legal support to NRA and CRPA lobbyists, drafting NRA and
CRPA member alerts, and providing advice to NRA and CRPA members. Regulatory Counsel also collaborates
with overlapping litigation, legislative, and regulatory matters to effectively oppose improper actions and
incorrect interpretations of California law by state and local agencies.
Issue Description Regulatory Counsel Response Current Status
In December 2016, CA NRA and CRPA alerted
DOJ submitted its members to the proposal,
CA DOJ's
anticipated regulations submitted a pre-litigation
"Bullet-Button
regarding the procedures demand letter to DOJ and an These regulations were
Assault
for registering newly opposition letter to Office of withdrawn before they
Weapon"
classified “assault Administrative Law, and went into effect.
Regulations
weapons” under Senate produced a webinar outlining
December 2016
Bill 880 and Assembly the effects of the proposal
Bill 1135. should it become law.
NRA and CRPA again alerted
After withdrawing the On June 26, California’s
CA DOJ's members to the proposed
December 2016 Office of Administrative
"Bullet-Button regulations, and submitted a
regulations in February Law formally rejected
Assault comprehensive opposition
2017, CA DOJ DOJ’s proposed
Weapon" letter. NRA and CRPA also
resubmitted the regulations, sending CA
Regulations May produced a webinar outlining
regulations for “assault DOJ back to the drawing
2017 the new changes and
weapons” in May 2017. board for a second time.
requirements for registration.
Page 13 of 18CA DOJ’s
In July, CA DOJ NRA and CRPA alerted NRA and CRPA attorneys
Proposed
submitted its anticipated members to the proposal and are currently reviewing the
“Ammunition
regulations for the provided members with proposal and will be
Vendor
issuance of ammunition information on how to submit submitting a letter of
Licensing”
vendor licenses. comments on the proposal. comment.
Regulations
NRA and CRPA alerted
members to voice their
CA DOJ's In December 2016, CA opposition and submit On December 29, 2016,
Proposed DOJ proposed a series of comments, and prepared a CA DOJ voluntarily
“Large- “emergency” regulations comprehensive analysis of the withdrew its proposal, but
Capacity” relating to magazines proposed regulations’ effects. could re-introduce the
Magazine capable of holding more NRA and CRPA also regulations for
Regulations than 10 rounds. submitted a letter of opposition consideration at any time.
to the Office of Administrative
Law.
Recently, responses to these
NRA and CRPA regularly requests provided key financial
seek and obtain public analysis reports from CA DOJ
records from CA DOJ and and other state agencies
Public Record local law enforcement regarding proposed firearm
Ongoing.
Requests relating to internal agency legislation. These reports were
policies and subsequently used in drafting
interpretations of CA legislative opposition letters
firearm laws. and veto requests to the
governor.
Given California's Ongoing. In connection
continually evolving and with these efforts, NRA
NRA and CRPA regularly
complex firearm laws, and CRPA produced
work to provide Californians
many gun owners, several webinars on a
with up-to-date information on
manufacturers, and variety of topics, including
New California California laws, regulations,
dealers are often left the loaning of firearms, the
Gun Laws and policies regarding firearms
wondering how best to new “assault weapon”
to help gun owners avoid
avoid being prosecuted for laws, the new ammunition
prosecution and retain their
otherwise unintentional sales laws, and the recently
right to keep and bear arms.
violations that can result proposed “assault weapon”
in serious consequences. regulations.
Page 14 of 18NRA and CPRA NRA and CRPA have a variety
Assistance for continually assist of resources available to
California members with questions members, including the ability Ongoing.
Members concerning California to refer individuals to attorneys
firearm laws. specializing in firearm laws.
California recently
adopted several new NRA and CRPA have
firearm laws. These laws published several webinars that Recordings of the webinars
2016 California
have caused confusion provide gun owners with are freely available on
Firearm Laws
amongst the public, detailed information on each of CRPA's website.
firearm dealers, and these new laws.
manufacturers.
Since January 2016, a new NRA and CRPA published a
law allows law comprehensive guide for
Gun Violence The published guide is
enforcement or immediate judges, prosecutors, attorneys,
Restraining available on the CRPA's
family members to seek a police, and gun owners
Orders website.
“gun violence restraining explaining all aspects of the
order” against another. new law.
The published guide is
To assist CCW holders
As a result of SB 707, available on CRPA's
understand the new
which was signed into law website. Recently, this
restrictions, NRA and CRPA
in 2015 and became effect guide has been provided to
CCW in School published a comprehensive
on January 1, 2016, CCW school administrators who
Zones guide that details the various
holders may no longer are considering allowing
ways in which a person may
carry their firearm on individuals to carry
lawfully carry a firearm on
school grounds. firearms on their school's
school grounds.
campus free of charge.
To better inform the courts and
members of the public
Beginning January 1, NRA and CRPA are
regarding this process, and in
2018, courts will require continuing to monitor the
an effort to avoid confusion
Implementation those convicted of firearm implementation of Prop 63
and inadvertent violations,
of Prop 63 prohibiting offenses to and will submit further
NRA and CRPA prepared and
turn in/transfer firearms letters of comment if
submitted a letter of comment
pursuant to Prop 63. needed.
to the Judicial Council of
California.
Page 15 of 18California law
substantially regulates and NRA and CRPA are currently
restricts the acquisition, assisting these groups navigate
Assistance to
transfer, and loan of CA’s requirements and
Gun Clubs and Ongoing.
firearms. Firearm clubs advising how best to avoid
Youth Groups
and youth groups are unintentional violations of CA
particularly affected by law.
these restrictions
California granted $5
million to create the NRA and CRPA are
California’s “California Firearm continuing to monitor the
Firearm Violence Research center’s activities to ensure
Ongoing.
Violence Center.” The individual taxpayer money is not wasted
Research Center chosen to head this center on biased and unsubstantiated
is a known anti-Second research.
Amendment advocate.
CA DOJ Policies Contrary to California NRA and CRPA submitted a The Office of
Prohibiting law, DOJ prohibits FFLs petition to the Office of Administrative Law
Interstate Private from conducting PPT’s Administrative Law decided not to take action.
Party Transfer of when the seller is not a challenging DOJ’s policy as an Further legal action is
Handguns resident of California. “underground regulation.” being considered.
Page 16 of 18HUNTING REGULATORY MATTERS
NRA and CRPA regularly monitor issues impacting hunters in California and continually develop strategies for
taking action when necessary before the Legislature, the Fish & Game Commission, local municipalities, and
various regulatory agencies. Hunting Regulatory efforts are also dedicated to pushing back against rabidly anti-
hunting forces such as the United States Humane Society. Hunting Regulatory efforts seek to improve policies
impacting hunters in California to effectively promote and defend the right to hunt in California.
Issue Agency Recent Action Status
Prepared two full days of The groups unanimously
presentations developed by NRA and agreed to form a coalition
Coalition Building
CRPA to California hunting groups and develop a coordinated
& Uniting Hunting
laying out a plan for addressing system to effectively and
Groups to Promote N/A
attacks on hunting rights in California. efficiently oppose and roll
and Protect
back anti-hunting
Hunting Rights
regulations.
Prepare memoranda on viability of Ongoing efforts to closely
Potential Legal
Fish & Game lawsuits challenging regulations; monitor current and
Challenges to
Commission, maintain ongoing list of potential legal potential legal challenges to
Regulations
Municipalities, challenges. timely and effectively
Restricting
Regulatory intervene or file litigation as
Hunting Right
Bodies appropriate.
Ongoing monitoring of lawsuits and Ongoing efforts to closely
activities of potential interest to monitor various hunting
hunting related matters in California. related issues to allow for
Regularly submit public records act timely and effective
Fish & Game
requests for documents concerning intervention as necessary.
Commission,
Monitoring anti- efforts of anti-hunting groups.
Municipalities,
hunting forces Analyze Fish & Game Commission
Regulatory
meeting agendas and prepare lobbyists
Bodies
for addressing matters of interest at
FGC & WRC meetings.
Page 17 of 18Developed and distributed computer Ongoing efforts to grow
presentations for distribution by hunting rights coalitions and
coalition of hunting groups that spread awareness.
Increasing Support
outline the attacks hunters are facing.
for Hunting Rights
N/A Presented to Council to Advance
Throughout
Hunting and Shooting Sports
California
regarding issues in California to
garner support.
Prepare alerts regarding new hunting Ongoing.
rules and regulations and advise of
Membership
N/A NRA and CRPA efforts to promote
Alerts
and defend hunting rights in
California.
Development of petitions to repeal or The petition to allow big
amend current regulations that game archery hunters to
Fish & Game
Anti-hunting negatively affect hunters and to carry side arms has been
Commission
Regulations promote adoption of regulations that referred to the Department
benefit hunters. for possible implementation.
Ongoing efforts to prepare Ongoing efforts to challenge
representatives for attendance at HSUS regarding non-lethal
Wildlife Resource Committee coyote policies in cities
hearings on predators. Presented at where pets and family
coyote management symposium members are being attacked.
regarding negative impacts of HSUS Working to broaden
Fish & Game
on predator management policies. coalition of individuals
Opposing HSUS Commission,
Drafted manuscript explaining HSUS opposed to HSUS policies
Predator Policies Municipalities
lies for publication in predator in light of dangers to typical
management circles. Grassroots family households while
organization to mobilize and direct informing industry members
local residents of cities with HSUS of predator management
coyote policies. about opportunities to
oppose.
Page 18 of 18RANGE MATTERS REPORT
Ongoing monitoring of legal issues and counsel assistance efforts for environmental, land use, design and safety
litigation and representation nationwide involving shooting ranges/areas. Regularly perform range evaluations
and meet with Club Board of Directors on behalf of NRA and CRPA to strategize and assist with coordination
of defense campaigns against NIMBY, environmental NGOs, agency and/or municipality matters.
Issue Recent Action Status
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ongoing efforts to assist ranges and
(RWQCB) Region 5R has been inspecting
engage the RWQCB Region 5R
all shooting ranges in the region requiring
representatives to contest the validity of
sampling for potential lead contamination
RWQCB’s actions. Working to prevent
in stormwater runoff, utilizing drinking
Stormwater runoff RWQCB from using the drinking water
water standards. This has the potential to
standards (0.010 mg/L for lead) and
set extremely bad precedent for regulating
invoke the proper stormwater standards
ranges for stormwater runoff (using
(0.262 mg/L), if not stopping RWQCB’s
drinking water standards) and may
actions entirely.
potentially shut down numerous ranges.
Counties are attempting to break shooting
ranges’ grandfathering as a non-
conforming use under County Ordinance.
Once the grandfathered status of a range is
Ongoing efforts to assist ranges in
Non-conforming broken through a use intensification
defending their grandfathered status is
“Use Status” and argument or a subsequent County
crucial in keeping these ranges open and
“Use Intensification” Ordinance requiring a Conditional Use
operating.
Permit under the guise of health and safety
concerns, compliance with current County
Ordinance is effectively impossible and
range closure is certain.
Page 19 of 18You can also read
