San Diego, CA –-(Ammoland.com)- On April 1, 2012, the National Rifle Association (NRA) through their attorneys at Michel & Associates, P.C., weighed in on the state preemption case of Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo.
The case is now before the California Court of Appeal. If the appellate court upholds the trial court’s ruling against the plaintiffs, the case could set bad precedent for future cases challenging local regulation of firearm possession on legal preemption grounds.
The Calguns Foundation (CGF) case challenges a San Mateo County ordinance that bans the possession of firearms in county parks and recreation areas, without providing an exception for people licensed to carry handguns in public. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Government Code section 53071, as interpreted in the favorable opinion achieved by the NRA in Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, “preempts” local ordinances and prevents local governments from passing ordinances that interfere with the authority granted by state-issued licenses authorizing the carrying of handguns in public (“carry licenses”).
The NRA’s amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) brief presents the court with two preemption arguments that were not raised by the parties, through which the court should find that the county ordinance is preempted and void. The NRA brief argues primarily that because the ordinance prohibits holders of carry licenses from carrying a firearm pursuant to their valid, state- issued-and-regulated license while in certain areas (i.e. parks), it contradicts with state law and so is preempted.
The NRA brief also argues that the state implicitly occupies the entire legal field of regulating carry licensing and regulation, to the exclusion of further local regulation. CGF conceded the “implied preemption” argument in its briefs. The NRA’s brief seeks to resurrect that valid preemption argument.
In 2008, the NRA and attorneys at Michel & Associates, P.C., brought a preemption challenge to San Francisco’s Proposition H, which banned handgun possession entirely and banned the manufacture, distribution, and sale of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco. That court victory in the Fiscal case established valuable legal precedent and set the stage for other preemption lawsuits. The Fiscal decision was relied on heavily by CGF’s attorneys in their briefs.
Copies of the court filings in Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo can be viewed here.
Please help us inform and recruit grassroots activists to our network by forwarding this e-bulletin to your friends and reposting it wherever possible. Please attribute to calgunlaws.com.
CalGunLaws.com, CalGunLaws’ e-Bulletins, the Self-Defense Defense, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, MichelLawyers, and Shooting Range Lawyers informational Facebook pages and the @MichelLawyers Twitter feed are produced as a pro bono public service by Michel & Associates, P.C., a full service law firm. We appreciate all your legal business inquires and client referrals. These help support the many pro bono public services we provide on behalf of your right to keep and bear arms.
Submit A Free Case Evaluation
About:
CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.
It’s maddening enough that we have a federal constitutional provision requiring that states grant “full faith and credit” to acts of other states that is good enough for marriage and drivers licenses, but not good enough for CPLs. That a subdivision of a state should attempt to negate the validity of a license issued by a superior jurisdiction within the state (in fact, the state itself) is pure hubris.