Plaintiffs Seek Injunction in 2A Lawsuit Challenging CA Gun Ban for Adults under 21

New Federal Lawsuit Over California's Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases
Plaintiffs Seek Injunction in 2A Lawsuit Challenging CA Gun Ban for Adults under 21

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion seeking a preliminary injunction in the case of Matthew Jones, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., a federal Second Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on gun purchases by young adults over age 18 but under age 21. The court filings are available online at www.firearmspolicy.org/jones.

“The State of California must be prevented from stripping adult individuals their fundamental rights solely based on their age,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, John Dillon. “Our motion makes it clear, there is no historical support for age-based firearms restrictions on adults in the United States. Evidence also shows that age-based firearms restrictions have no effect on reducing homicides, suicides, or mass shootings. The State’s reasoning for such an unlawful ban relies on pure speculation and conjecture – and shockingly – outdated, bigoted, and racists laws that were once used to deprive Native Americans and slaves the ability to defend themselves. It’s disgusting. Adults ages 18-to-20 are not felons. They are not mentally ill. And they should not be treated as if they were.”

“The State of California has singled out a class of individuals based on their age and impermissibly infringed on their ability to acquire, keep, and bear arms. No other constitutional right is denied to those who reach the age of majority,” said FPC Director of Legal Strategy, Adam Kraut. “It is unlikely the State of California would argue that an individual over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 is not mature enough to engage in protected speech or should not be free from unlawful searches and seizures. However, it takes an obscene position that individuals in that age bracket should not be able to lawfully keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or their families. Such a position is untenable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.”

“The Supreme Court made clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment’s scope is defined by the understanding of the right at the time of its ratification. When the Second Amendment was ratified, virtually every male (and some females) in the country between 18 and 21 was required to own firearms,” explained FPC Director of Research, Joseph Greenlee. “Moreover, by the time of ratification, there had been hundreds of laws throughout the colonies mandating gun ownership among these young adults, and no law prohibiting it. Thus, 18-to-20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment, and any law prohibiting them from acquiring firearms violates their rights.”

The motion for preliminary injunction’s declaratory testimony, and nearly 2,000 pages of exhibits, include the scholarship and research of attorney, historian, and legal scholar David T. Hardy; economist and crime researcher John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center; and sociologist, researcher, and retired attorney, Thomas B. Marvell, who authored the study, “The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession,” published in the Journal of Law and Economics (Vol. 44, Oct. 2001, pp. 691-713).

The plaintiffs in the case are 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 (FPC); Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF); California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF, formerly known at The Calguns Foundation); and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Background

  • California law prohibits law-abiding adults aged 18-to-20 from acquiring any firearm (Penal Code section 27510(a)-(b)).
  • FPC, FPF, CGF, SAF, and individuals aged 18-to-20 brought this action, Jones, et al. v Becerra, et al., alleging that the prohibition violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
  • Plaintiffs seek a temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the prohibition, so young adults can acquire firearms and exercise their Second Amendment rights.

About Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit 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, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

5
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
TionicoMICHAEL JJohnRockQuatermain Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
MICHAEL J
Member
MICHAEL J

Congress leads the nation in hypocrisy when it comes age discrimination.  On one hand, democrats desperate to stay in power have floated the notion to allow 16 year olds to vote. That old Barry McGuire song “Eve of Destruction” where “you’re old enough to kill, but not for voting” became the mantra for 18 year old children being drafted and killed without a say.  Finally they got to vote and watch R rated movies, but that’s about it. As if by magic, turning 21 the government graciously grants you the previlege to gamble, drink, buy cigarettes and do just about… Read more »

John
Member
John

Before reaching the age of 21, probably the most decorated soldier of all time, comes home from war and told he is not old enough, or competent enough and is banned from purchasing a rifle. Imagine how that would have been received if some ideologue of that time told that to Audie Murphy or countless others who returned home from war! Fast forward to today, how many 18 to 20 year olds, trained and sent to war, serve Honorably, come home and are now told they are not old enough or competent enough to purchase a rifle. How many 18… Read more »

Rock
Member
Rock

Sad, EVERYONE paying taxes and a legal U.S. citizen is stripped of EVERY “legal” right in Kalifornia… That is, UNLESS you have slipped into this country illegally OR have a criminal record. IF you have one or both of these Dem honored prerequisites…. In that case Kalifornia welcomes you with open arms ! They then give you a spot on a Serta Perfect equivalent sidewalk to sleep on, the drugs of your choice AND a gutter OR alley to shit and piss in… They also offer an endless supply of dummed down taxpayers you can harass 24/7 WOOHOO !!! The… Read more »

Quatermain
Member
Quatermain

We need a standard age of adulthood be it 18 or 21, I don’t care. The only reason it is 18 is because of the Constitutional Amendment passed so that 18 year olds could be drafted without an obviously strong legal challenge. Something needs to be worked out with the states on this so it is standard.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Something needs to be worked out with the states on this so it is standard. and that’s part of what this lawsuit, (which SHOULD be totally unnecessary, but. California……) What MUST be brought to bear on ALL these renegade states is the US Constitution, which every one of them ratified (agreed to) when they became states. That IS the standard, and any so-called “states” refusing to comply are the ones renegade. And they MUST be brought into line, per their own agreement. I think its the 14th Article of Ammendment deals with this issue as well…. an enumerated right valid… Read more »