A U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Thursday ruled against California’s ban on certain gun advertisements, saying that the law violates the right to free speech.
The ruling reversed a lower court order that blocked an injunction against enforcing the California law, which was aimed at restricting the sales of firearms to minors. In January, a federal judge in Sacramento had said the law properly regulated commercial speech and the groups were unlikely to succeed in their challenge.
“California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it,” Judge Lee wrote.
While the law is meant to prevent gun advertisers from reaching children, the order noted that it “facially encompasses speech directed at adults,” who are able to “lawfully purchase firearms—whenever that speech might also reach minors.” He added, “That alone refutes the state’s argument that the law inherently concerns unlawful activity.”
The 9th Circuit, which has nearly 30 active judges, is considered to be one of the most left-leaning of all U.S. appeals courts. The three judges on Wednesday’s panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
The California Attorney General’s office and lawyers for the groups that sued over the ban did not immediately release a public statement on the ruling.
Judge Lee’s opinion on Thursday was echoed by 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who said the law is part of a means by California officials to shape how people think about guns. In the opinion, Judge VanDyke accused Mr. Newsom and state Democrats of going after First Amendment protections with the measure.
“California wants to legislate views about firearms,” he wrote in the ruling. “California has thus singled out a particular message it does not like and prohibited its proliferation. Its intent to stamp out this speech is evident from the record. And it crafted a targeted legislative scheme to get the job done.”
The judge added that the First Amendment “demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech,” according to the opinion.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed the measure into law last year, claiming the need for new legislation “as the (U.S.) Supreme Court rolls back important gun safety protections.” It came after the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a New York case that expanded the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home.
That Supreme Court ruling, which said any restrictions on gun ownership must fall within the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” has led multiple courts to strike down other gun control laws.
The law was quickly voted on—and signed by Mr. Newsom—last year following the mass shooting at a school in Uvalde, Texas. State lawmakers had sent a number of gun control bills to the governor’s desk at the time before they left for their summer recess.
Other than Mr. Newsom, other top California Democrats like Attorney General Rob Bonta have praised the law as a necessity “to protect California from this epidemic of senseless gun violence.”
“The idea of marketing dangerous weapons to kids is despicable, and I will not stand for it. Our children and families have endured enough fear and pain from endless gun violence tragedies—it’s time to end this,“ he said in a statement in January. ”My office will continue fighting with every tool we have at our disposal to defend our state’s lifesaving gun safety laws.”
The ruling comes days after New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued a public health emergency order that suspends the right to carry firearms in and around Albuquerque while in public. A number of Democratic officials have criticized the measure, saying it’s likely unconstitutional, and some have said they won’t enforce the rule.
“It’s unconstitutional, so there’s no way we can enforce that order,” Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said in a news conference this week. “This ban does nothing to curb gun violence.”
Similarly, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, also a Democrat, stated that he won’t defend lawsuits against the gun restriction. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster,” he wrote.
