Welcome to a weekly series here on Pew Pew Tactical dedicated to the gun news you need to know.
So, keep reading for this week’s notable news headlines…
Table of Contents
Loading…
Game Over for California’s Gun Ad Ban?
Gun rights advocates scored a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as the court denied California’s request to rehear a case challenging the state’s ban on certain gun advertisements.
The decision marks a setback for anti-gun advocates who were hoping to prevent gun makers from being able to market through advertising.
The case centered on AB 2571 – a law signed into effect in June 2022 by California Gov. Gavin Newsome. The law banned “marketing of firearms and related products” to minors under the age of 18 – setting a $25,000 penalty for each instance.
This forced many retailers and gun makers to require age verification on their sites to comply. Further, it hampered the efforts of pro-gun groups to the point that the California State High School Clay Target League was forced to disband – afraid that even emails to members might put them in the doghouse under the new state law.
Ultimately, a band of pro-gun groups, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, Junior Sports Magazine, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Gun Owners of California, and The CRPA Foundation filed a lawsuit against the state. A panel of judges heard the case in 2023 and ruled the law was likely unconstitutional.
The state appealed, hoping to have the decision vacated. It appears, though, that won’t be happening as the 9th Circuit Court rejected the argument to rehear the case en banc, siding with the lower court.
“While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal,” the court ruled.
“California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.”
Gun rights advocates heralded the decision as another step in protecting First and Second Amendment rights for Californians.
“This nefarious law, passed by the legislature as AB 2571, essentially put an end to youth shooting sports in California by preventing anyone from speaking to a person under 18 years of age about anything having to do with any firearms-related product that could be attractive to youth. Naturally, the case raises concerns not only about Second Amendment restrictions but also free speech under the First Amendment,” the CRPA said in a blog post.
“While the injunction is not in place yet (we have to wait for the case to be remanded officially to the trial court), this is a great win for freedom-loving youth in California.”
From here, the state can appeal to the Supreme Court, but, in the meantime, the lower court’s ruling stands – preventing enforcement of AB 2571 until a final decision on the matter is made.
NY Judge Shoots Down Toilet Test for Gun Permits
A New York judge ruled that the state cannot require urinalysis in order for concealed carry applicants to obtain permits.
The case began with Nassau County, which requires a bevy of information from residents attempting to get a concealed carry permit in the county.
Among the list of required items are all former and current social media accounts used for the past three years, a notarized statement listing any minors that live with the applicant, and a urinalysis to prove the applicant is drug-free.
A lawsuit was filed not too long after the requirement, challenging the constitutionality of the urinalysis. It seems a NY judge agrees, granting an injunction against the licensing requirements.
New York Supreme Court Justice James P. McCormack said some of the requirements, such as judging “good moral character,” are within the county’s discretion, but the urinalysis goes too far.
“Forcing an applicant to submit to urinalysis, in essence, requires them to give up their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” McCormack wrote in the decision.
“This court cannot imagine a scenario, under current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, where that would be allowed. The court is therefore constrained to find the urinalysis requirement is unconstitutional.”
A hearing on some remaining aspects of the lawsuit is scheduled for late March.
From Set to Court: Armorer on Trial in Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Shooting
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on set during the deadly Rust shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, faces prosecutors this week as the trial to determine her part in the shooting begins.
Gutierrez-Reed is accused of bringing live ammunition on set and demonstrating “sloppy” work that ultimately contributed to the death of Hutchins.
Though actor and producer of the film Alec Baldwin was holding the revolver when it discharged, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza, prosecutors say Gutierrez-Reed is culpable for bringing live ammunition to set that made its way into the gun. Additionally, they allege she failed to routinely check firearms on set to ensure dummy rounds were in use.
“We will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that by failing to make those vital safety checks, the defendant acted negligently and without due caution,” prosecutor Jason Lewis told jurors, as reported by the Associated Press. “And the decisions that she made that day ultimately contributed to Ms. Hutchins’ death.”
But Gutierrez-Reed’s defense attorneys disagreed with prosecutors. According to her defense, Gutierrez-Reed is being scapegoated and is ultimately not to blame for the death as she was consistently rushed, and her requests for help remained unanswered during the shoot. The defense says the blame rests on Baldwin, who pointed the gun at Hutchins and pulled the trigger.
“What they’ve tried to do, and what you’re seeing in this courtroom today, is trying to blame it all on Hannah, a 24-year-old. Why? Because she’s an easy target, she’s the least powerful person on that set,” lead defense counsel Jason Bowles argued in his opening statement.
“He either had his finger on the trigger, and the hammer cocked, or he pulled the trigger, as he was pointing that at Ms. Hutchins and Mr. Souza,” Bowles continued. “You’re not going to hear anything about her being in that church or firing that weapon. That was Alec Baldwin.”
Baldwin maintains he did not press the trigger but simply pulled the revolver’s hammer back, and the gun fired on its own.
“You’re going to hear that Ms. Gutierrez-Reed specifically requested to train Mr. Baldwin in a cross-draw,” Bowles said. “You’re also going to hear that he did not do that training.”
Baldwin’s name does not appear on pretrial witness lists.
The actor was originally indicted in April for involuntary manslaughter, but that charge was dismissed when investigators were told the gun had been modified — resulting in a malfunction. Further analysis of the firearm determined otherwise, determining that the trigger “had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer.”
As a result, Baldwin was re-indicted for involuntary manslaughter in January 2024. A trial date has not been set for him.
Gutierrez-Reed’s trial is set to run through March 6, with over 40 witnesses potentially testifying. Though she has pled not guilty to the charges, if found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, she faces up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
1 Leave a Reply
Why not "Eddie Deagle"? Missed opportunity..