Judge strikes down 95 year old CA ban on handgun ads

Mar 2012
48,177
31,555
New Hampshire
#1
A federal judge has struck down a 95-year-old California law banning firearms dealers from placing ads for handguns or images of handguns on their storefronts.

In a decision made public on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento, the state’s capital, said the law was “unconstitutional on its face” because it violated dealers’ commercial speech rights under the First Amendment.

State officials said allowing the ads could spur people with “impulsive personality traits” to buy more handguns, and the law advanced California’s interests in reducing handgun crime and handgun suicides. “The government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally-protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road,” the judge wrote.

Judge strikes down 95-year-old California ban on storefront handgun...
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Jul 2014
38,359
33,321
Border Fence
#2
State officials said allowing the ads could spur people with “impulsive personality traits” to buy more handguns, and the law advanced California’s interests in reducing handgun crime and handgun suicides.

But Nunley found the law too narrow, saying dealers could still use print or radio ads or even display large neon signs trumpeting “GUNS GUNS GUNS.” It was also too broad, by restricting speech to all adults regardless of their personality traits, he ruled.

“The government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally-protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road,” the judge wrote.
No one from the state's defense team was even alive when the original law went to effect.

Who knows what the fuck lawmakers were thinking a 100 years ago...but I'm sure it was not the quoted shit this OP article claims was the state's rational.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
67,556
35,222
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#5
Who knows what the fuck lawmakers were thinking a 100 years ago...
Legislatures often keep records of who said what. The legislation itself may also contain recitals indicating the purpose of the law. Legislative history can play into the meaning of a law, its extent, and thus its constitutionality.

Whether that was considered in this case is another matter. Do we have a written decision to work with?
 
Likes: bajisima
May 2016
2,872
649
california
#6
Maybe those state officials should find and restrict those people with "impulsive personality traits". They sound dangerous to me. Just an impulsive thought though, maybe a longer view is warranted.
 
Last edited: