Federal Judge Blocks California’s Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime

iStock- Jorgenmac

BELLEVUE, WA –-(AmmoLand.com)- A federal judge has declared California’s controversial “fee-shifting” tenet of the state’s new gun control law to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing this provision, known as Section 1021.11.

United States District Judge Roger Benitez has issued an order enjoining the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations.  The Opinion & Order embedded below is must-read break down of this shocking & unconstitutional effort by Gavin Newsom & California Democrats.

It’s a victory for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in their lawsuit challenging the statute. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this is a major setback for the gun control extremism that has been running rampant in California. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

“Christmas came early for Golden State gun owners and rights groups everywhere who find it necessary to challenge the state’s restrictive firearms regulations,” Gottlieb said. “Section 1021.11 would have penalized gun rights groups, and their attorneys, for having the courage to take the state to court.”

SAF was joined by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, P.C., George M. Lee, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, John Phillips, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson and James Miller, for whom the case is named. Representing SAF and its partners are attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook at the Benbrook Law Group, PC, and David H. Thompson at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez observed, “This Court concludes that the purpose and effect of § 1021.11 is to trench on a citizen’s right of access to the courts and to discourage the peaceful vindication of an enumerated constitutional right. Because the state fee-shifting statute undermines a citizen’s constitutional rights, it is this Court’s role to declare its invalidity and enjoin its threat.”

The judge’s ruling also applies to a virtually identical challenge involving SAF’s sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, known as South Bay Rod & Gun Club v. Bonta. CCRKBA and the gun club are joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and several other plaintiffs.

“We’re grateful that Judge Benitez saw this provision for what it is, an effort to chill opposition to California’s increasingly restrictive gun control laws,” Gottlieb concluded.

Read Related:

Opinion And Order Enjoining Enforcement Of California Code Of Civil Procedure § 1021.11

About Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Judge Roger Benitez has been consistant
in defense of the constitution. Bravo.

Green Mtn. Boy

As un Constitutional as each and every gun control law is.


Praise God for common sense protecting our 2A rights!


SB 1327 is straight out of the Jim Crow playbook. Theory in place: isolate, vilify and persecute a vilified minority, in this case gun owners and do so with laws specifically crafted to render there enumerated Constitutional rights moot. When laws are directed at a particular class of people my defenses go up. This is one such case. Progressives and now New Left Progressives have assumed the roles of the old Bull Connors of segregation days and have adopted the same tactics. The only thing that has changed is the composition of the vilified class. In this case it has… Read more »


ouch, i bet that bitch slap really hurt.


Nah, they’ll just move on to the next scam. They intend to bankrupt opposition until no one can financially afford resistance in the courts.


what did the statists in California try to do? I’d like a refresher since I’m not a resident of California and I don’t follow their circus very closely.



My understanding is they tried to force the financial burden of a lawsuit on to the plaintiffs(specifically 2A defenders)even when the state(CA, defendants) loses. If this is wrong, somebody please correct.


A “judge”? They will just ignore it. Laws, reguIations, court ruIings and such don’t appIy to Dems.