Firearms

Urges Ninth Circuit to rehear panel decision invalidating the ban

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in support of Hawaii’s request to the Ninth Circuit to rehear an appeal defending Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The petition seeks a full en banc review of a panel opinion issued in Teter v. Lopez on August 7, 2023 that invalidated Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban, holding it violates the Second Amendment. In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that the panel’s failure to remand the case after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) is inconsistent with the approach taken in most other appeals involving Second Amendment challenges in the same posture and that the panel’s application of Bruen is flawed.

“Our coalition has filed an amicus brief in support of Hawaii’s petition for rehearing in Teter v. Lopez,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It is crucial that the courts apply a consistent standard when evaluating Second Amendment challenges to protect and uphold the rights of every American and safeguard the ability of states to enact commonsense gun laws. We stand with Hawaii in seeking further reconsideration by the Ninth Circuit. We will continue to defend constitutional and sensible regulations that protect the public from harm, as well as states’ ability to enact such protections.”

In Hawaii, it is a misdemeanor to manufacture, sell, transport, or possess a butterfly knife, a type of knife where a split handle can fully encase the blade and then rotate open to expose the blade. In 2019, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the law, arguing it violated their Second Amendment. The district court granted Hawaii’s motion for summary judgment in 2020, to which plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After the Supreme Court issued Bruen in June 2022, Hawaii filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to vacate the decision below and remand the case to the district court to consider the implications of the Bruen decision in the first instance, or, in the alternative, to order supplemental briefing. In August 2022, a motions panel denied the motion to vacate and remand and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs within 30 days.

In the amicus brief, the coalition of attorneys general:

• Provides examples of the extensive historical analysis typically conducted on remand in post-Bruen cases.
• Identifies how the panel’s legal errors are inconsistent with Bruen, including its discussion about the plain meaning of the term “arms” and its misguided approach to the historical analysis.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a district court decision striking down California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The motion urges the Ninth Circuit to issue a stay of the decision pending appeal to ensure that these vital public safety protections remain in place to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries in California communities while the Ninth Circuit addresses the merits of the case.

“In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 15 or more deaths,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue to fight for California’s authority to keep our communities safe from weapon enhancements that cause mass casualties. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen does not create a regulatory straitjacket for states and that cases should be evaluated on the text of the Second Amendment and its history and tradition of regulation. Instead, the district court’s opinion in this case focuses on the purported popularity of large-capacity magazines, and does not properly apply the legal standards set out in Bruen. The court got this dead wrong. The focus should be on the law, period. We will continue to push for commonsense, constitutional regulations that protect Californians’ rights to go about their business without fear of becoming victims of gun violence, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

The motion urges the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court decision enjoining California’s long-standing restrictions on large-capacity magazines, defined as firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In the motion, Attorney General Bonta argues that the district court’s application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is deeply flawed and ignores relevant historical laws. In fact, since Bruen, 10 other federal district courts have considered Second Amendment challenges to similar restrictions on large-capacity magazines. All but one of those courts have rejected the challenge. These courts have repeatedly recognized that large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment or that restrictions on such magazines are consistent with a historical tradition of regulating particularly dangerous weapons technologies as they spread and cause harm. The district court reached its decision by focusing on the supposed popularity of the technology and by ignoring relevant historical laws despite the guidance laid out by Bruen.

If the district court’s judgment were to take effect, it would create grave, immediate, and irreparable harm to California and its citizens. Without a stay of the district court's order, long-prohibited large-capacity magazines would flood California in large numbers, with no reasonable prospect for their recovery. 

A copy of the motion can be found here.

SACRAMENTO — Today, Attorney General Bonta’s legislation, Senate Bill 2, which was cosponsored by Governor Gavin Newsom, and authored by Senator Anthony Portantino, was signed into law. The bill strengthens California’s concealed carry weapons (CCW) law in a manner consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2024, will further protect the public safety of Californians by providing objective criteria governing who may obtain a CCW license, limiting the possession of firearms in certain sensitive locations, and advancing safety through stronger training requirements on the safe handling and storage of firearms for those who seek CCW licenses. Gun violence remains a growing threat to public safety throughout the nation. In 2020, gunshot wounds became the leading cause of death for children aged 1-17 nationwide and in 2021, more Americans died from firearm-related injuries than any other year on record. In 2021 and 2022, there were over 48,000 firearm-related deaths nationwide each year, more than 130 per day on average. SB 2 strengthens communities’ ability to respond to these threats by requiring stronger vetting and safety training to carry weapons in public and by designating vital community spaces like parks and playgrounds as off-limits to weapons throughout the state.

“Addressing gun violence is critical to protecting public safety; we cannot pretend that they are distinct problems,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “In California, we won’t settle for inaction when it comes to saving lives. Senate Bill 2 will help prevent violence by ensuring that dangerous individuals may not carry concealed guns in public and prohibiting the carry of dangerous weapons in sensitive places where our children gather. With this law, we are boldly advancing California’s successful, data-driven strategy to prevent gun violence and save lives. I sponsored Senate Bill 2 to provide stronger protections for our communities, and am grateful for the partnership demonstrated by author Senator Portantino and our Governor as together we enact this law to better protect California residents.”

“I am grateful for Governor Newsom’s bold leadership on gun safety and thank him for signing SB 2,” said Senator Portantino. “I was proud to partner with the Governor, Attorney General Bonta and amazing grassroots activists across California on this needed effort to strengthen our existing concealed permit laws and to ensure that Californians are made safer from gun violence. SB 2 is constitutional and consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Bruen decision. When SB 2 is implemented, it will certainly increase public safety and I believe save lives.”

Already in 2023, the United States has suffered over 500 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Although the United States is an outlier when compared to gun violence in other wealthy nations, states with strong gun violence protections in place suffer fewer gun-related deaths. Despite having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in the nation, California is not immune to this uniquely American problem, and has a strong interest in maintaining laws that protect the safety of its citizens. 

Research shows that strong firearm licensing laws are effective. States that have weakened these laws have experienced an up to 15% increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation. 

While the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms, it has also recognized that the Second Amendment allows states to adopt a variety of gun regulations. For example, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” and that states may prohibit individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens from carrying firearms in public. 

SB 2 builds on those principles and improves California’s existing CCW license law by:

• Enhancing the existing comprehensive licensing regime that helps ensure those permitted to carry firearms in public are responsible and law-abiding individuals who do not pose a danger to themselves or others.
• Protecting children and young adults from gun violence by setting a minimum age requirement of 21 years of age to obtain a CCW license.
• Advancing safety through stronger training requirements about the proper handling, loading, unloading, and storage of firearms.
• Safeguarding the public by identifying certain sensitive public places where guns may not be carried.

SB 2 adds to California’s successful strategies to prevent gun violence. On August 15, 2023, Attorney General Bonta’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention released its first report outlining California’s success and highlighting important statistics and data including:

• Over the last 30 years, California has reduced its gun violence rate compared to the rest of the United States; once 50% above average, California’s firearm homicide rate is now 33% below the rest of the United States. 
• If the firearm mortality rate in the rest of the United States had matched California’s between 2013-2022, there would have been nearly 140,000 fewer firearm-related deaths nationwide in that decade alone. 
• According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2022, California’s gun death rate was the 7th lowest in the nation, with 8.7 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
• California’s gun death rate for children is substantially lower than most other states, and is 60% lower than the average for the rest of the U.S.
• California’s overall gun death rate is lower than that of every state that does not require permits to carry guns in public, including Mississippi with 29.7 firearm deaths per 100,000 people; 25.9 in Alabama, 24.5 in Montana, 24.4 in Missouri, 22.7 in Alaska, 22.1 in Arkansas, 20.9 in Tennessee, 20.6 in Wyoming, 20.5 in Arizona, 20.1 in Oklahoma; 20.0 in Georgia, 18.9 in Kentucky, 17.6 in Indiana, 17.5 in Idaho, 16.9 in Kansas, 16.5 in North Dakota, 16.3 in West Virginia, 16.1 in South Dakota, 15.7 in Texas; 15.7 in Ohio, 14.0 in Utah; 12.2 in Vermont, 12.0 in Maine, 11.3 in Iowa, and 10.3 in New Hampshire. 

The legislation may be found here. 

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a notice of appeal to overturn a district court decision striking down California’s large-capacity magazine ban. The notice of appeal, filed just hours after the district court issued its decision and temporary stay, is the first step toward seeking a further stay of the decision by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal to ensure that these vital public safety protections remain in place to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries in California communities. 

“In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states — and we believe that the district court got this wrong. We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake. We will not stop in our efforts to protect the safety of communities and Californians’ rights to go about their business without fear of becoming victims of gun violence, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

The notice of appeal can be found here. 

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a district court decision striking down California’s large-capacity magazine (LCM) ban. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found the large-capacity magazine ban unconstitutional but granted the Attorney General’s request for a stay of the decision to allow the Attorney General to appeal to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At this time, the LCM ban remains in effect. Attorney General Bonta will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit and will seek a further stay pending appeal to ensure that these vital public safety protections remain in place to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries in California communities. 

“In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties. In the meantime, if the Ninth Circuit stays the decision pending appeal, large-capacity magazines will remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states — and we believe that the district court got this wrong. We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake. We will not stop in our efforts to protect the safety of communities and Californians’ rights to go about their business without fear of becoming victims of gun violence, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

LCMs are firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. They pose a substantial threat to the public and law enforcement because they allow shooters to fire scores of rounds from the same firearm in a short period of time without needing to reload. In California, it has been illegal to manufacture, import, keep or offer for sale, give, or lend LCMs since 2000. It has been illegal to purchase and receive them since 2013. Proposition 63, which California voters passed in 2016, added a ban on the possession of LCMs. In 2017, the district court enjoined the possession ban from taking effect, pending resolution of the Duncan lawsuit. However, the ban on the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or acquisition of LCMs remained in effect during the appeal. 

In November 2021, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the Duncan decision and upheld the law under the Second Amendment. However, after New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General will now appeal the district court’s latest decision to the Ninth Circuit. 

Gun violence remains a growing threat to public safety throughout the nation. Mass shootings are on the rise throughout the country and frequently feature large-capacity magazines, causing more deaths and injuries. On average, there are over 110 gun deaths each day and nearly 41,000 each year in the U.S. Guns are the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, with U.S. children being more likely to die from gun violence than in any other comparable country. In 2021, California was ranked as the #1 state for gun safety by Giffords Law Center, and the state saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average. According to the CDC, California’s gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation and the gun death rate for children is 58% lower than the national average.

Joins amicus brief in support of Delaware’s assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 18 attorneys general, filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in support of a district court decision denying an attempt to block Delaware’s law restricting assault weapons and large capacity magazines (LCMs). Delaware’s law bans the possession, sale, or transfer of certain assault weapons and LCMs holding more than 17 rounds of ammunition. California law also imposes  restrictions on large capacity magazines and assault weapons.

“We do not need weapons of war on our streets, and the use of such weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Assault weapons and large capacity magazines have been used in many horrific mass shootings around the country, including right here in California. I applaud the district court for declining to block Delaware’s commonsense gun law prohibiting assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and urge the Third Circuit to reject the effort to invalidate Delaware’s live-saving prohibitions.”

In California, it has been illegal to manufacture, import, keep or offer for sale, give, or lend LCMs with more than 10 rounds of ammunition since 2000. It has been illegal to purchase and receive LCMs since 2013. Proposition 63, which was passed by Californians in 2016, added a ban on the possession of LCMs. Since 1989, California law has restricted certain makes and models of assault weapons and, since 2000, has banned assault weapons with certain specific, combat-oriented characteristics, such as a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, or a flash suppressor. 

Firearms equipped with LCMs are estimated to account for up to 36% of crime guns nationwide. In mass shootings where four or more were people killed from 2015 to 2022, 60 percent involved firearms with LCMs and assault weapons accounted for a third of all mass shooting deaths and more than 80 percent of all injuries. LCMs and assault weapons have been used in numerous horrific mass shootings throughout the country, including in California with the tragic shooting at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks in 2018, the shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino in 2015, and the mass shooting in Monterey Park in 2022. While a 2019 study by Columbia University found that, “deaths in high-fatality mass shootings, relative to the population, were more than three times higher in states that did not restrict LCMs,” states such as California remain impacted by the lack of a broader federal ban on LCMs and assault weapons.

The challenge to the law was filed by the Delaware State Sportsman’s Association, which also sought to preliminarily block the law while the district court considers its constitutionality. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. In the brief filed in the Third Circuit, which can be found here, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that district court decision must be upheld because:

• The Sportsman’s Association failed to show that their proposal to possess and use assault weapons or LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment.
• Assault weapons and LCMs are not used for self-defense purposes and pose a unique danger to the public.
• Delaware’s law is consistent with the historical restrictions employed by states and the federal government to protect the safety and well-being of residents, through a range of restrictions, including prohibitions, on dangerous weapons and accessories not used for self-defense.
• Delaware is not alone in restricting assault weapons and LCMs. Currently, 10 states and the District of Columbia restrict assault weapons, and 14 states and the District of Columbia, limit magazine capacity.

Attorney General Bonta stands with partners throughout the state to continue tackling the issue of gun violence strategically and aggressively by:

• Educating the public on gun violence prevention through the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, including through the first-ever data report issued by the office to provide a robust review of gun violence data in California and throughout the U.S. and to help guide policy and strategy discussions related to reducing gun violence.

• Advocating for commonsense gun laws including by sponsoring Assembly Bill 1594 to increase accountability for the firearm industry, working to strengthen federal laws to protect the public from ghost guns, and successfully defending California’s laws to prevent gun violence.
• Seizing guns from prohibited persons in the Armed and Prohibited Persons System, and through multiagency sweeps in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County, conducting operations targeting individuals attempting to illegally purchase guns, and collaborating with local law enforcement partners.
• Ending the sale of illegal firearms through litigation against ghost gun retailers, and by putting a stop to the sale of illegal assault weapons in Orange County.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 25 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to reverse a decision that would endanger domestic violence victims and put guns into the hands of their abusers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in U.S. v Rahimi vacated a criminal conviction under a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) from possessing firearms. In the lower court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit vacated the criminal conviction of a defendant who had possessed a firearm after being subject to a DVRO, which had been issued by a state court in Texas because the defendant had allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the lower court’s decision that the DVRO violated the constitutional right of the defendant puts at risk domestic violence victims who may be harmed or killed by their abusers, curtails the rights of states and the federal government to protect residents’ safety, and conflicts with historical law.

“Violent individuals who would assault or harm another person should not be in possession of a gun,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The federal law prohibiting individuals subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders from possessing firearms is a critical tool in protecting domestic violence victims and the public from known abusers. Should the courts take away this evidence-based, constitutional, and commonsense tool, they will endanger victims and our communities. The government must maintain the ability to protect residents from violence from those who are a demonstrated threat to public safety.”

Red flag laws or protective orders, such as DVROs, authorize courts to issue temporary protective orders that suspend a person’s access to firearms if the court determines that they have demonstrated a serious risk to themselves or others. A DVRO is a written order signed by the court, which includes multiple vital safety protections including prohibiting a named person from harassing or physically abusing a family member or current or former intimate partner. DVROs are a resource available to protect people who have suffered violence, threats, or abuse from a current or former spouse, intimate partners, cohabitants, or other family members. Under California and federal law, DVROs also generally prohibit the named person from accessing firearms while a restraining order is in effect against them. DVROs are a critical tool which have been shown to increase survivors’ safety and prevent gun violence, including mass shootings.  

The states argue that the federal law prohibiting abusers from accessing firearms while they are subject to a DVRO was passed to address a significant public safety risk: The threat posed to victims of domestic violence by the dangerous individuals who abused them and who are likely to reoffend in the absence of protective measures. These efforts have succeeded; studies show that statutes such as the federal law in question can prevent homicide of both intimate partners and law enforcement officers called to intervene, serving the interests of public safety.

Nearly every state in the country has enacted a law limiting access to firearms for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. These laws save lives as an abuser is five times more likely to murder his or her intimate partner if a firearm is in the home. In the United States, 80% of these homicide victims are women, and pregnant women and women of color are disproportionately the targets of intimate partner violence.

In the brief, which can be found here, the coalition urges the Supreme Court to reject the lower court’s decision, because:

• Laws that limit those subject to DVROs from accessing firearms are constitutional.
• Nearly every state that has enacted restrictions on access to firearms for those subject to DVROs.
• State DVROs procedures are well-calibrated to protect the safety of victims and the rights of respondents and the orders are not rubber stamped without consideration of the rights of the individuals involved.
• Invalidating the federal law would undermine a critical tool for protecting the victims of domestic abuse.

California has also been a leader in establishing other civil court protection order processes for people experiencing threats, violence, and abuse. These include the gun violence restraining order, the civil harassment restraining order, the workplace violence restraining order, the elder/dependent adult abuse restraining order, and the private postsecondary school violence restraining order. Under California law, these court orders include a range of safety protections including the suspension of the respondent’s access to firearms as long as the restraining order is in effect.

For more information on how to obtain Emergency or Permanent orders under these provisions in California, go to courts.ca.gov or oag.ca.gov/ovgp/gvro-dvro. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, filed a brief in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division in opposition to a dangerous attempt to invalidate New York’s lifesaving extreme risk protection law, or red flag law, preventing individuals who are a danger to themselves or others from possessing a firearm. States throughout the nation, including California, utilize these lifesaving protective orders — also known as red flag orders — to proactively intervene and stop deadly shootings, including mass shootings, before they occur. The coalition urges the appellate court to overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision overturning the New York law and argues that if upheld, the misguided decision could endanger communities and put the public at dire risk.

“Red flag laws save lives, and a decision taking this critical tool away from our communities will put many people in danger,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This bipartisan solution to gun violence is widely embraced and has been proven extremely effective in preventing crimes, mass shootings, suicides, and death. I urge the court to maintain this vital law and uphold states’ ability to prevent gun violence in their communities.”

Red flag laws authorize courts to issue temporary protective orders that suspend a person’s access to firearms if the court determines that they have demonstrated a serious risk to themselves or others. These laws provide substantial due process guarantees similar to domestic violence restraining orders enacted in all 50 states and are a critical tool for public safety. A petitioner seeking a protective order must prove to the court that the individual poses such a significant risk. After considering evidence, the court determines whether to issue the order, and the length of time the order will be in effect.

California enacted one of the nation’s first red flag laws in 2014, through Assembly Bill 1014, which took effect in January 2016. California calls these red flag orders Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). Since that time, 18 other states and Washington, D.C, have established similar laws. Researchers credited California’s GVRO law with deterring at least 58 potential shootings in the state in the law’s first three years. California law authorizes the following eligible individuals to petition courts for GVROs: law enforcement officers, family members, employers, current and recent roommates, certain coworkers and school teachers, as well as individuals who have had a dating relationship or who share a child with the respondent.
 
California has also been a leader in establishing other civil court protection order processes for people experiencing threats, violence, and abuse. These include the domestic violence restraining order, the civil harassment restraining order, the workplace violence restraining order, the elder/dependent adult abuse restraining order, and the private postsecondary school violence restraining order. Under California law, these court orders include a range of safety protections including by suspending the respondent’s access to firearms as long as the restraining order is in effect.
 
Protective orders save lives and their use has strong bipartisan support, including from gun owners. It has been determined that 77% of Americans support family-initiated extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), and 70% support protective orders when initiated by law enforcement. Studies show that such laws are especially potent in curbing suicides and mass shootings, including school shootings. There are several examples of petitioners using red flag laws to disarm individuals who have threatened to murder others, including by committing mass shootings. Congress recently passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which incentivizes states to pass ERPO laws with $750 million in federal funding to support their implementation.

The coalition urges the court to overturn the New York Supreme Court decision to invalidate New York’s law as these protective orders generally follow the same framework and guidelines, which protect due process and require evidence considered by the court. Additionally, those under the protective order may request a hearing from the court should they wish to terminate the order. New York’s law falls within this framework. 

The coalition further emphasized that the appellate court must reject the lower court’s premise that the law is invalid due to the absence of a medical evaluation requirement, arguing that a required medical evaluation would:

• Undermine the purpose of protective orders and make them far less effective, as hinging these orders on a respondent’s mental health exclusively would fail to capture the full range of dangerous individuals who pose a risk to themselves and others. 
• Slow the process and fail to address immediate and present dangers of crisis situations.
• Pressure states to use mental health issues as direct proxies for dangerousness rather than allowing for a case-by-case risk analysis. 
• Fail to recognize the court’s discretion to require medical evaluations on a case-by-case basis.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

For more information on how to obtain Emergency or Permanent orders under these provisions, go to courts.ca.gov or oag.ca.gov/ovgp/gvro-dvro. 
 
Attorney General Bonta has long-advocated for the increased use of GVROs, and other court protection orders, to prevent gun violence. In October 2022, Attorney General Bonta brought together California's city attorneys and county counsels for a special virtual convening on GVROs. The goal of the meeting was to highlight the lifesaving impact of GVROs and to provide resources and impetus for local agencies to establish GVRO programs in their offices. Attorney General Bonta specifically cited the success of San Diego’s comprehensive GVRO program. Under this program, Deputy City Attorneys apply for GVROs on behalf of officers from the San Diego Police Department. In 2021, over 31% or 435 of the 1,384 GVROs issued statewide were issued in San Diego County. Since the inception of the groundbreaking program, more than 1,500 firearms have been removed from people at significant risk through GVROs. Removing these firearms is believed to have prevented multiple violent incidents, including mass shootings. 
 
Victims of domestic violence who are in immediate danger should call 911. For additional information and assistance call:

• The 24-hour National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233)
• The Victims of Crime Resource Center: 1-800-VICTIMS (1-800-842-8467)

For additional information on resources available to survivors of sexual violence please visit oag.ca.gov/sexual-violence.

Files brief in support of New Jersey law prohibiting guns in public places such as schools, libraries, and places of worship 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of states’ rights to enact laws that protect their residents from gun violence. In the brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse a decision by a district court blocking enforcement of a New Jersey law, which places reasonable restrictions prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without consent and in public places like bars, airports, and places of worship. The brief argues that the law is in line with a long tradition of constitutionally acceptable regulations designed to meet states’ responsibility to protect their residents from gun violence.
 
“At the California Department of Justice, we believe in the power of commonsense gun laws to protect our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. "Nobody should have to fear gun violence while at work, in school, or in prayer. That’s why laws such as New Jersey’s are critical — they keep guns away from sensitive community places where people gather to travel, learn, and work. My office will continue fighting to protect California families from this epidemic of gun violence.”
 
The coalition supports New Jersey in its effort to overturn a district court decision in Koons v. Platkin finding the law to be likely unconstitutional. The attorneys general urge the appeals court to reverse the district court’s order arguing that the law fits within a long tradition of constitutionally permissible gun regulations. New Jersey’s list of sensitive places where firearms are prohibited — including sites of demonstrations and events, zoos, parks, beaches, libraries, museums, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, theaters, stadiums, casinos, health care facilities, vehicles, and private property held open to the public — is reasonable and necessary to protect the public from a heightened risk of gun violence in such locations.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed a brief in support of a Minnesota law setting the minimum age at 21 for securing a permit to carry a handgun in public. The case, Worth v. Jacobson, is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The coalition’s brief argues that a lower court erred in its decision to strike down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and that the court’s reasoning could undermine efforts by states to protect their citizens through the application of similar age-limitations laws. In fact, a majority of states across the nation impose some age-based restrictions on the possession, purchase, or use of firearms reflecting their collective judgment that such laws promote public safety and curb gun violence within their borders.

“States must have the ability to protect their citizens and communities from gun violence,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The district court's decision to overturn Minnesota's law is inconsistent with our nation's historical tradition as well as longstanding state and federal laws imposing age-based restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.  We stand with Minnesota and other states in their effort to curb gun violence through these kinds of commonsense laws that improve public safety."

In the brief, the states assert that Minnesota’s law is constitutional under the Second Amendment and is consistent with states’ authority and a historical tradition of state regulations promoting gun safety and protecting communities from gun violence. The coalition argues that the district court’s decision to strike down Minnesota’s law misreads the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which preserves states’ authority to regulate firearms through laws that are “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Attorney General Bonta urges the Court of Appeals to overturn the district court decision because:

• The Second Amendment allows states to enact varied measures to promote gun safety and protect against gun violence consistent with historical tradition, and states have long exercised this power by enacting laws to promote safety, prevent crime, and minimize gun violence within their borders.
• Minnesota’s age-based restrictions are consistent with measures taken by other states and fall comfortably within states’ authority to regulate firearms. A majority of states and the District of Columbia impose age-based restrictions regarding the use, purchase, or possession of firearms, and a majority of states have determined that those under the age of 21 should be more restricted in their ability to carry firearms in public. Courts have previously upheld these restrictions relying on the historical record as is now required by Bruen.

This continues the ongoing work of Attorney General Bonta to protect the public from gun violence. Recently, the Attorney General launched a first-in-the-nation Office of Gun Violence Prevention, took legal action against ghost gun retailers, advocated for and defended commonsense gun laws, worked on the ground to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and announced Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), to strengthen California's existing concealed carry weapon (CCW) laws. California’s Assembly Bill 1594 (AB 1594), which was sponsored by Attorney General Bonta and signed into law in July 2022, creates a pathway for Californians who have been harmed by gun violence to hold the appropriate parties — including gun manufacturers and distributors — accountable. AB 1594 went into effect in California on July 1, 2023. 

Attorney General Bonta also provided grants to local law enforcement to support activities related to seizing weapons from individuals prohibited from possessing them, called on credit card companies to do their part to end illegal gun trafficking and mass shootings, and promoted the use of the state’s red flag laws to remove weapons from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia in filing the brief.

A copy of the brief can be found here.