Summary: Federal Second Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on firearm purchases by adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21.
Plaintiffs: Matthew Jones, an adult under the age of 21; Thomas Furrh, an adult under the age of 21; Kyle Yamamoto, an adult under the age of 21; PWGG, L.P. (D.B.A. Poway Weapons And Gear and PWG Range); North County Shooting Center, Inc.; Beebe Family Arms and Munitions Llc (D.B.A. BFAM and Beebe Family Arms And Munitions); Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; Firearms Policy Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; and Second Amendment Foundation
Defendants: California Attorney General Rob Bonta; California DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Martin Horan; Does 1-20
Litigation Counsel: David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, and Haley N. Proctor of Cooper & Kirk PLLC; John W. Dillon
Docket: S.D. CA case no. 3:19-cv-01226, Ninth Circuit case no. 20-56174 | CourtListener Docket
Key events & filings:
- 2022-9-14: Scheduling Order
Court of Appeals
- 2022-9-7: Order
- 2022-9-2: Plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
- 2022-8-23: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opposition to Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc
- 2022-7-26: Filed order (RYAN D. NELSON, KENNETH K. LEE and SIDNEY H. STEIN) Appellants are directed to respond to the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed with this court on July 25, 2022.
- 2022-7-25: Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
- 2022-5-18: Filed text clerk order: The motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing en Banc is granted.
- 2022-5-16: Joint Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
- 2022-5-11: Opinion
- 2021-12-29: Response to 28(j) Letter
- 2021-12-24: 28(j) Letter
- 2021-10-5: Response to 28(j) Letter
- 2021-9-30: 28(j) Letter
- 2021-7-30: 28(j) Letter Response
- 2021-7-21: 28(j) Letter
- 2021-7-6: Response to Citation to Supplemental Authority
- 2021-6-25: 28(j) Letter
- 2021-5-13: 28(j) Letter
- 2021-5-12: Oral Arguments
- 2021-5-3: Appellees’ Response to Appellants’ Supplemental Brief
- 2021-5-3: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Responsive Supplemental Brief
- 2021-4-23: Appellees’ supplemental brief
- 2021-4-23: Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Supplemental Brief
- 2021-4-20: Response to Defendants-Appellee’s citation of supplemental authority
- 2021-3-26: Order for Supplemental Briefing
- 2021-2-9: Appellants' Reply Brief
- 2021-1-20: Appellees’ Answering Brief
- 2020-12-4: Appellants' Opening Brief
- 2020-11-10: Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: TSP): The appeal filed November 6, 2020 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. The mediation questionnaire is due three days after the date of this order. If they have not already done so, within 7 calendar days after the filing date of this order, the parties shall make arrangements to obtain from the court reporter an official transcript of proceedings in the district court that will be included in the record on appeal. The briefing schedule shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than December 4, 2020; the answering brief is due January 4, 2021 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b). No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(3). Any request for an extension of time to file a brief must be made by written motion under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.  (AF) [Entered: 11/10/2020 11:12 AM]
- 2021-8-12: Order Granting Joint Motion For Limited Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of Interlocutory Appeal
- 2021-7-29: Joint Motion For Limited Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of Interlocutory Appeal
- 2020-11-6: Appeal filed
- 2020-11-3: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Denied
- 2020-1-14: Order Denying Motions of Giffords Law Center, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for Leave to File Amicus Brief
- 2020-1-3: Brady Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae; Brady Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits) (75MB PDF)
- 2020-1-3: Giffords Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits) (11MB PDF)
- 2020-1-3: Everytown Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits) (14MB PDF)
- 2019-12-27: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declarations ISO Opposition (including declarations and exhibits) (22MB PDF)
- 2019-11-21: Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint
- 2019-11-12: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion; Declarations of Matthew Jones, Thomas Furrh, Kyle Yamamoto, John Phillips, Darin Prince, Matthew Beebe, Anthony Williams, Brandon Combs, Alan Gottlieb, John Dillon, David Hardy, Thomas Marvell, John Lott, and David Bogan in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (note: ~101MB PDF)
- 2019-11-8: Second Amended Complaint
- 2019-10-18: Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal of MPI ("At the [in-person, counsel-only case management conference on October 9, 2019], Plaintiffs’ counsel discussed the likelihood of California Governor Gavin Newsom signing Senate Bill 61 (SB 61) into law, which would make substantial changes to California Penal Code section 27510 – the statute at issue in this case. Predicting this potential change in the law, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that if SB 61 were to be signed into law, Plaintiffs would be forced to file a second amended complaint and refile their preliminary injunction motion. Subsequently, on October 11, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 61 into law. Due to the changes made to Penal Code section 27510 and Plaintiffs’ need to amend their complaint and refile a preliminary injunction motion to account for this change in state law, Plaintiffs withdraw their motion...")
- 2019-10-4: Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion; Declarations of Matthew Jones, Thomas Furrh, Kyle Yamamoto, John Phillips, Darin Prince, Matthew Beebe, Anthony Williams, Brandon Combs, Alan Gottlieb, John Dillon, David Hardy, Thomas Marvell, John Lott, and David Bogan in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (note: ~84MB PDF)
- 2019-10-1: Joint Status Report
- 2019-8-22: Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint
- 2019-7-30-19: First Amended Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief
- 2019-7-1: Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief
Related news releases:
- 2022-9-2: FPC Files Petition for Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging California Age-Based Firearm Purchase Ban
- 2022-5-11: FPC leads Second Amendment win in appeal challenging California’s age-based firearm purchase ban
- 2021-5-4: FPC Completes Briefing in Ninth Circuit Appeal Challenging California’s Age-Based Gun Ban
- 2020-12-4: FPC Fights for 2A Rights of 18- to 20-year-old Adults in Appeal Brief Filed in Challenge to California’s Age-Based Gun Ban
- 2019-11-13: Gun Owners, Dealers Seek Injunction Against Age-Based Ban After Gov. Newsom Signs Gun Control Bills
- 2019-10-7: Plaintiffs Seek Injunction in Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California Gun Ban for Young Adults Under Age 21
- 2019-7-1: Gun Owners, Rights Organizations Sue California, Attorney General Becerra in New Federal Lawsuit Over State’s Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases
How to support this case:
1) Californians who are at least 18 but not yet 21, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms, and who were denied their right to purchase a firearm should contact attorney John Dillon or the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or 855-252-4510 (24/7/365).
3) Share this important lawsuit and news with your friends and family!
Why does this case matter?
All adults not otherwise prohibited from having firearms have the same rights as others. Age-based discrimination in this context is unconstitutional and morally wrong. These adults could be called to fight and die for their country, but the State of California had prevented them from accessing the full scope of constitutional rights entitled to them under natural law and the Constitution.
Individuals 18 years and older are considered adults for almost all purposes. For example, at 18 years old, U.S. citizens can (i) vote, (ii) fully exercise their freedom of speech, (iii) receive the full protections under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, (iv) enter into contracts, and (v) serve in the United States military. Indeed, male citizens over 18 years of age are designated members of the militia pursuant to federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 246(a), and may be selected and inducted for training and service into the United States armed forces, 50 U.S.C. § 3803(a). As such, they are eligible to serve in the military, and to die for their country.
In addition, the “militia of the State” consists of both the organized and unorganized militia. Specifically, the State’s organized militia encompasses the National Guard, State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia. (Cal. Military and Veterans Code Section 120.)
“The unorganized militia consist of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.” (Cal. Military and Veterans Code Section 121.)
The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller recognized that through Congress’ plenary power, it organized all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 as part of the militia in the first Militia Act. (Heller, 554 U.S. at 596.) Thus, the Supreme Court recognized 18-to-20-year-olds as part of the militia; and as such, they necessarily have the right to keep and bear arms. Further, as affirmed in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the militia, reserving an individual right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, “most notably for self-defense within the home.” (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010).)
This case seeks to protect and restore the Second Amendment rights of legal adults who are being prevented from exercising them because of California’s statutes and the Defendants’ policies, practices, laws, and customs they enforce.
What are the plaintiffs seeking?
Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court:
(1) Declare that California’s law, Penal Code section 27510(a)-(b), and Defendant’s policies and practices of enforcing such law, which prohibits adults not otherwise prohibited between the ages of 18 and 20 from acquiring or purchasing any firearm (hereinafter the challenged “California Age-Based Gun Ban”), as an unconstitutional infringement of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
(2) Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing Penal Code section 27510(a)-(b)