San Diego Judge Blocks Part of Newsom’s Gun Law

San Diego Judge Blocks Part of Newsom’s Gun Law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters at Del Mar Fairgrounds in Del Mar, Calif., on Feb. 18, 2022. (Nelvin C. Cepeda/The San Diego Union-Tribune via AP)
Jill McLaughlin
12/23/2022
Updated:
12/27/2022
0:00
A federal judge in San Diego blocked a part of California’s new gun law that’s modeled after a Texas abortion law after finding the legislation unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued an injunction (pdf) on Dec. 19 preventing the state from enforcing a provision of Senate Bill 1327 that would have allowed the state or local government to collect attorneys’ fees from those who challenge gun laws in court.

In the ruling, Benitez found the “fee-shifting” provision violated federal constitutional rights.

The remaining statutes in the bill will take effect in January, allowing Californians to sue those making, selling, transporting, or distributing illegal assault weapons or ghost guns within the state for at least $10,000 in damages.

The judge’s ruling preserves constitutionally protected freedom of speech rights, legal experts told The Epoch Times.

Attorney Joshua Dale, one of the lawyers representing South Bay Rod and Gun Club, a San Diego-area gun club that sued over the provision, told The Epoch Times clients had been waiting for the matter to be decided before filing lawsuits against gun regulations.

“That was a big disincentive for folks obviously who want to adjudicate their civil rights,” Dale said.

The law made the state a de facto winner in all litigation, he said. Those who sued the state over gun laws would have had to pay the state’s attorney fees, even if they won in some cases.

Benitez was “very cognizant of the unfairness of the law and the unfairness of the state’s position on the law,” Dale said. “Whether you agree or disagree with any one of a number of civil liberty issues, this sort of restriction on access to the courts shouldn’t ever be promoted on any aspect of society.”

The law also favored one group of people over another, placing “viewpoint-based” restriction on speech, San Diego law professor Ken Vandevelde told The Epoch Times.

“This law inhibits speech because of the fact that it penalized someone for engaging in speech,” Vandevelde said. “Bringing a lawsuit to protect your constitutional rights is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The fee-shifting statute also undermined federal civil rights laws that award attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs who challenge unconstitutional action and are successful on at least one claim, he said.

The California law was modeled around the Texas “heartbeat act,” SB 8, which prohibits abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy. That law also allows citizens to file lawsuits for $10,000 against doctors, providers, and others who participate in illegal abortions.

Newsom challenged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott this summer in a Twitter post after signing the legislation: “If Texas can ban abortion and endanger lives, California can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives. If @GovAbbott truly wants to protect the right to life, he should follow California’s lead.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta removed himself from defending the lawsuit on Dec. 8 in a court filing, telling the court he wasn’t in a position to defend the fee-shifting provision and that it was constitutionally problematic. Bonta handed the lawsuit over to the governor’s legal team to litigate.

Bonta has joined a number of other state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.

Despite promoting the gun law and signing it, Newsom applauded the judge’s decision to block the legislation.

“I want to thank Judge Benitez,” Newsom said in a statement. “We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional.”

The fee-shifting provision was a replica of part of the Texas law, according to Newsom. “There is no longer any doubt that Texas’ cruel anti-abortion law should also be struck down,” he said.

Benitez’s ruling only applies to the California law. In his ruling, Benitez didn’t address the constitutionality of the SB 8 law.

He said, “Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen.”

Jill McLaughlin is an award-winning journalist covering politics, environment, and statewide issues. She has been a reporter and editor for newspapers in Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico. Jill was born in Yosemite National Park and enjoys the majestic outdoors, traveling, golfing, and hiking.
Related Topics