Judge Grants Injunction Against Parts of CA Handgun Roster

Yesterday, Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney granted an injunction for the plaintiffs in court case Boland v. Bonta. The plaintiffs challenge3 requirements in California’s restrictive handgun roster that prohibits Californians’ ability to purchase the latest handguns, and in doing so, unnecessarily restrains their Second Amendment rights.

Injunction Issued in Bolan v. Bonta—

The plaintiffs, Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel and California Rifle and Pistols Association, Inc. filed their complaint back in August 2022. This complaint, and many others across the nation, quickly followed the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Bruen case was monumental for its ruling that states’ “good cause” requirements for concealed carry licenses are unconstitutional. But Bruen changed the standard by which courts looked at cases pertaining to the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Bruen said that when deciding on the constitutionality of a law that restrains the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms, courts needed to consider at the historical application and understanding of the Second Amendment. We see this requirement in the many favorable rulings in the many cases challenging gun control laws across the county. So as it is with this case, Boland v Bonta.

For some context, in 2001, California passed the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). The law created a list of criteria that handguns had to satisfy before manufacturers could sell them to California residents. In 2007, California added new restrictions to the law, making it more and more restrictive. Some of these requirements were so restrictive that no gun manufacturer used them. For example, the law requires a gun to have a “micro stamping” feature. This required that each firing pin stamp a unique number into the shell casing that was linked to that specific firearm.

california microstamp law

Micro stamping sounds like a great idea to someone who knows nothing about how firearms work. For firearm manufacturers and gun owners, this requirement was impractical. This requirement alone essentially banned every modern firearm and subjected Californians to a list of firearms that were grandfathered in.

Except for Law Enforcement, a Californian could not purchase a 4th or 5th generation Glock. The gen 4 Glock came out in 2010, which means Californians haven’t been able to purchase the newest Glock handgun model made in over a decade. Californians also can’t purchase one of the most popular everyday carry (EDC) handgun, the Sig Sauer P365.

Ohio Constitutional Carry

This case claims micro stamping and two other safety requirements set forth in the Unsafe Handgun Act are unconstitutional. The first is the loaded chamber indicator, or what the court refers to as chamber loaded indicator (CLIs). Second, the magazine disconnect mechanism (MDMs).

In his decision to grant the injunction, Judge Carney says:

Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the Unsafe Handgun Act’s chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements do exactly that.

In this statement from Judge Carney, we see Carny recognize the irony of the Unsafe Handgun Act. The California Legislature passed the UHA claiming that the restrictive list would ensure Californians would only have “safe handguns”. In reality, it keeps residents of the state from purchasing the newest model of firearms.

springfield hellcat

A few features of prohibited firearms provide the carrier a superior firearm for self defense. For example, prohibiting guns such as the Sig Sauer P365, Glock 43, and Springfield Hellcat keep a gun that provides a 13-15 rounds capacity in a small, easily concealed handgun. Many people prefer the ergonomics and changes Glock made in their 4th generation handguns. Yet Californians can’t benefit from these. Additionally, today, nearly every new gun comes from the manufacturer ready to accept a red dot optic. Many find it is easier to use these optics, especially those who use eyeglasses.

Judge Carney again makes this point when he says,

If CLIs and MDMs truly increased the overall safety of a firearm, law enforcement surely would use them, but they do not. Instead, they choose to use ‘newer, improved and safer generations of handguns’ that are Off-Roster.

A separate part of Judge Carney’s ruling, we see the precedent set in NYSRPA v. Bruen:

Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

Going Forward—

This injunction doesn’t repeal the law, and the Unsafe Gun Act remains in effect. The injunction gives Attorney General Bonta two weeks to respond by removing the requirement or appealing the court’s decision. It doesn’t seem clear what Bonta’s office will do, but he responded to the ruling by saying,

We will continue to lead efforts to advance and defend California’s gun safety laws, as we move forward to determine next steps in this case, Californians should know that this injunction has not gone into effect and that California’s important gun safety requirements related to the Unsafe Handgun Act remain in effect.

What do you think will happen in this case? Will California remove the requirements, or will the AG try to argue in defense of the restrictions? Even if the California AG removes those restrictions, it’s anyone’s guess what new scheme they will imagine to hinder law-abiding citizens’ rights.

guardian nation join

Leave a Comment