B.L.U.F. The 9th Circuit court is about to hear oral arguments on the California Unsafe Hand Gun act. Everybody wants to get their oar in the water, here is one such oar.


Peace Officers Research Association of California, The California State Sheriffs’ Association, The California Police Chiefs Association, The California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, that is who is filling this Amicus Curiae brief.

More formally:

Pursuant to Rule 29(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), and the California Reserve Peace Officers Association (CRPOA) respectfully submit this Amici Curiae brief, with the consent of all parties, in support of Plaintiffs/Appellees Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or party’s counsel contributed money to fund this brief. No person other than Amici Curiae made any monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, No. 23-55276, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir.)

The first three pages are introductions of the different organizations.

The Argument

Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on The Merits

The injunction issued by the district court should be affirmed because the UHA’s 2006, 2007 and 2013 amendments violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the appropriate standard for Second Amendment analysis in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) stating as follows:

We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Id. at 2129-30.
id. at 6

Wait? What? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? These groups representing a huge swath of law enforcement officers are advocating for gun rights, not gun infringements.

The Bruen Court further explained that the government has the burden of proving that the challenged regulation is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” by analogy to historic regulations which imposed a “comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and [ ] that [the] burden is comparably justified.” Id. at 2133. In reaffirming the standard set forth in Heller, the Court rejected “interest-balancing inquiries” as inappropriate for Second Amendment analysis. Id. at 2129. Consequently, the State’s reliance on Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969, 986 (9th Cir. 2018) applying intermediate scrutiny in holding the UHA was “reasonably tailored to address [a] substantial problem” is misplaced in light of Bruen. (Opening Brief at pp. 10, 24.) Appellant has failed to sufficiently prove a history of prohibiting retail access to firearms not equipped with specific safety features aimed at reducing user error.

This is a little dense but some excellent points. First, they clarify that Bruen was affirming the standard set forth in Heller. This is not a new standard. It is the standard that has been in place since 2008. The fact that so many courts choose to ignore the standard put forth by the Supreme Court doesn’t make that standard “new” in 2022.

Next, they make a strong statement that relying case law developed on the two-step shuffle, prior to Bruen, is in correct.

Currently, two circuit courts have heard oral arguments on Second Amendment cases post Bruen. The 2nd Cir. and the 4th Cir. are deliberating. The question before the 4th Cir. is whether —Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F. 3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) is still good law.

The case —Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh, No. 21-1255 (Court of Appeals) before the 4th Cir. was GVR’d from the Supreme Court. Bianchi v. Frosh was originally decided by the 4th Cir. in favor of the state, based on Kolbe v. Hogan. The state’s entire argument at the time was, “You already decided this in Kolbe“.

Here, the state is attempting to make the same type of argument. Can we still use Circuit Court opinions from before Bruen?

The answer should be a resounding and quick “NO!”. Any decision that was based on the two-step shuffle, means-end, is bad law post Bruen

The good guys, in this brief, flatly accuse the state of failing to meet their burden of proving history and tradition.

Sarcasm alert!

To be sure, the handgun features required by the UHA may prevent an accidental discharge through its “dumbing-down” of responsible gun ownership, reducing the need for vigilant safety practices inherent in possessing, using, and maintaining a lethal weapon. Perhaps such features should be available to those who wish to have them so as not to be burdened by the cardinal rule of treating every gun as loaded; maybe they would rather rely on an indicator that, if functioning as intended, presumably assures them there is no round in the chamber. But in terms of the Second Amendment, there is no relevant historical analogue for regulations limiting gun ownership, and thus availability, to what today the Legislature may consider to be the most advanced features in safety.
#42 in Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta (9th Cir., 23-55276), No. 23-55276, slip op. at 7

The sarcasm is just dripping in that paragraph.

If the UHA is sanctioned by this Court, the State of California will continue its gradual impairment of the Second Amendment by imposing incremental and ever-increasing “safety feature” requirements that are unnecessary and unrelated to the proper functioning of a handgun when maintained and used responsibly. Even if manufacturers began creating handguns that satisfy the UHA’s onerous requirements today, there will always be tomorrow’s advancements such as biometric fingerprint technology. If the UHA’s infringement of self-defense rights is condoned, the State will surely continue to conjure new safety requirements to further constrict access to arms protected by the Second Amendment.
id. at 7–8

It is a bit repetitive after this point. Part of the problem is that there are only so many ways to say “Bruen reaffirmed Heller, if the proposed conduct touches fingers with the Second Amendment, then that conduct is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. The exceptions are if an arm is unusually dangerous AND unusual, or if the state can provide proof of historical regulations that are a good match for the proposed infringement.”

  1. Access to Modern Handguns is Presumptively Protected Under the Second Amendment.
  2. Appellant (bad guys) Has Failed to Identify Any Relevant Historic Analogues Which Limited Access to Modern Weapons.
    1. Gunpowder Storage Regulations Are Not an Analogue.
    2. Barrel Testing Regulations Are Not an Analogue.

One of our long-standing arguments is that the state and the courts treat the Second Amendment as a second class right. No other right is denigrated and shat upon as much as the Second. Here, the brief uses the words of the Bruen court to make this exact point.

“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012). “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). The Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. Bruen. 142 S. Ct. at 2130.
id. at 20–21


It is so disheartening to listen to the state attempt to steal our rights. They will twist every word, looking for even one small gap in the wording to justify their abhorrent behavior.

When you are forced to watch the Col. of the Maryland State Police, sit in front and testify how all the infringements wanted are what they want too, you cringe. Because that worm is lying. His introduction says he is representing some voluntary membership group, while his uniform says that he is representing The Police.

These groups make the claim that they represent real law enforcement officers within the state of California. I have no reason to doubt them.

Today, they stood up with us.

Thank you.

Spread the love

By awa

One thought on “Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, CA UHA (9th Cir.)”

Comments are closed.