Gun Rights Groups Move for Restraining Order in First Amendment Lawsuit

Plaintiffs want to publish TV ads opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All Act” gun control ballot initiative and pending gun control bills but cannot due to California law criminalizing use of Assembly video footage for political purposes

California State Flag
Gun Rights Groups Move for Restraining Order in First Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California Political Speech Ban
Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

Sacramento, CA -(AmmoLand.com)- Attorneys for two civil rights groups opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” gun control ballot initiative, two Emmy Award-winning filmmakers, a San Diego-based civil rights activist, and a candidate for Congress filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Eastern District of California federal court to prevent enforcement of California Government Code section 9026.5, a statute that bans the use of Assembly video footage in political advertisements.

A violation of section 9026.5 is a misdemeanor crime that carries penalties of up to 1 year of jail time and a $1,000 fine per occurrence. Today’s request for a temporary restraining order in Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al., v. California Attorney General Kamala Harris may be heard as early as next week.

The brief filed today in support of the plaintiffs’ request argues that “[section 9026.5] has chilled Plaintiffs’ exercise of core political speech and inhibited the free-flow of discussion about public issues” and that “discussion of public issues is integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”

“This is really a straightforward case about one of the most fundamental rights we have,” said Brandon Combs, the chairman of the Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee PAC“Our Republic depends on the freedom to speak freely about political issues and elected politicians, especially those that could drastically affect other fundamental rights like the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

As the plaintiffs’ brief notes, “The Assembly carries on the legislative business on behalf of the citizens of California and it creates video footage that captures those proceedings. California cannot restrict its citizens from sharing that footage with fellow citizens in furtherance of their fundamental speech rights.” 

The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.

A copy of the petition for temporary restraining order for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpcsadc-v- harris-tro- brief.

A copy of the complaint for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpcsadc-v- harris- complaint.

About FPCSADC:

Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee (FPCSADC) is the official pro- gun grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative. FPCSADC was formed days after Newsom announced his intention to put his gun control scheme on the November 2016 ballot and has been fighting against the initiative since its inception. More information about FPCSADC can be found at https://www.fpcsadc.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a grassroots, nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

More information about FPC can be found at www.firearmspolicy.org.

  • 4 thoughts on “Gun Rights Groups Move for Restraining Order in First Amendment Lawsuit

    1. These guys are wackos! Do they think any of this crap will stop criminal behavior? It’s only going to make criminals out of law abiding citizens that are just trying to even the playing field by using firearms to protect themselves and their families.

    2. If the “Safety For All” gun control ballot initiative fails you can bet that somewhere in ‘Moonbeam Land’ they’ll find a ‘judicial panel’ that will go against the 2nd Amendment.

      1. Oh, they’ve got their bases covered in California. Here’s the list.

        AB 156 – The Gutted and Amended Ammo Restriction Bill
        AB 857 – The Gutted and Amended Restriction On Curios, Relics and Home-Built Firearms
        AB 1135 – The Gutted and Amended “Assault Weapons” Ban
        AB 1511 – The Gutted and Amended Bill that Criminalizes Loaning Firearms
        AB 1663 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban, Adds “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Firearms and Curios and Relics
        AB 1664 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Firearms
        SB 880 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Rifles, Pistols
        AB 1673 – Expands Definition of “Firearm” to Include Non-Firearm Materials
        AB 1674 – Expands the 30-day purchase limit to all firearms; deletes the “private party” exemption
        SB 894 – Mandatory Law Enforcement Reports for Lost or Stolen Firearms
        SB 1446 – Ban on ALL Magazines that were Designed to Hold More than 10 Rounds
        SB 1407 – Retroactive ‘Ghost Gun’ Registration and Regulation
        AB 2607 – Expanding Gun Violence Restraining Orders
        AB 2510 – Eliminates Uniformity of CCWs
        AB 1695 – Expansion of Prohibitions and Threatening Letters from DOJ to Gun Owners
        SB 1006 – UCs to infringe on the Second Amendment

        1. Your right Jeff. There are two tracks. Legislative and initiative process. Either way it’s an infringement.

    Leave a Comment 4 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *