On June 2, 2023, 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) filed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Amici Curiae Brief in Boland v. Bonta.
The Amici brief supports
the district’s court injunction against the requirements of the Unsafe Handgun
Act (UHA) banning semiautomatic
handguns without chamber load indicators, magazine detachment mechanisms and
microstamping technology. Amici argued the UHA’s 2006, 2007 and 2013
amendments violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, by prohibiting the sale of handguns without these features and requiring
the eventual removal of all grandfathered handguns currently on-roster. While
the UHA purports to ban unsafe handguns, it actually bars members of the public
from obtaining newer, improved, and safer generations of handguns already
approved through California’s Roster of Certified Handguns (“Roster”).
Since 2013, no new handgun has been added to the UHA Roster of approved
handguns. However, the statute requires the Department of Justice to remove
three grandfathered semiautomatic handguns per every one semiautomatic admitted
that satisfies all its operative technological feature requirements.
The practical effect of the requirements under California’s definition
has been to label nearly every semiautomatic handgun in the United States
unsafe and to either immediately or eventually impose a ban. Thus, the UHA
arbitrarily deems as “unsafe” the handguns that thousands of police officers in
the state use to protect society and to protect themselves on a daily basis. In
fact, most officers are issued newer generations of Glocks and Sig Sauers that
are not on the Roster. S.B. 377 would double-down on this contradiction by
prohibiting officers from personally purchasing the handguns they carry on-duty.
If these weapons were truly unsafe, Amici
would never permit their issuance to their members.
Hypocritically, the UHA permits peace officers to carry handguns labeled
as unsafe while on-duty, when the weapon is most likely to be used for
self-defense. Modern semiautomatic handguns without chamber load indicators, magazine
detachment mechanisms and microstamping technology, like the ones prohibited
under the UHA, fit squarely within “the Second Amendment’s definition of
‘arms.’”
If California sincerely desired to reduce gun violence and promote
public safety, the Legislature would enact laws and fund enforcement to keep
guns out of the hands of prohibited persons and impose meaningful
consequences when guns are used in violent crime. Unfortunately, the
Legislature instead targets the self-defense rights of all Californians while
reducing or eliminating sentencing enhancements for committing gun crimes. These concerns over California’s lax enforcement
of serious gun crimes were recently echoed by the Association of Los Angeles
Deputy District Attorneys in “California Could Further Reduce Gun Violence. If Only We’d Do It.”
As the brief concludes, “It is critical to the safety of the public
that we keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons and disincentivize the
unlawful use of firearms through both enforcement and criminal enhancements.
The provisions of the UHA presented in this appeal do not further these
common-sense goals.”
The Amici Curiae brief
was filed by David E. Mastagni and Timothy K. Talbot.
