Appeals Court Strikes Down Illegal DOJ Gun Control Policy

Second Amendment

California DOJ sent a letter notifying firearms dealers in the state of a new policy that prevents Californians who hold both a federal firearms license and a state Certificate of Eligibility, or “COE”, from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period.

SACRAMENTO, CA –-( In a published decision issued today, California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal has issued an important new ruling striking down an illegal California Department of Justice (DOJ) gun control enforcement policy on multiple grounds. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision can be viewed here.

The lawsuit, filed in 2014, was brought by two individuals after the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms sent a letter notifying firearms dealers in the state of a new enforcement policy that prevents Californians who hold both a federal firearms license and a state Certificate of Eligibility, or “COE”, from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period. After nearly two years of litigation, and in spite of both the requirements of the State’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and legal precedents on how to interpret statutes, the Sacramento Superior Court upheld the DOJ’s policy. But the Court of Appeal ultimately found that the policy was illegal, agreeing with the plaintiffs on both counts.

“This decision stands for the proposition that Attorney General Becerra and his Department of Justice are not above the law,” explained Brandon Combs, executive director for The Calguns Foundation. “They can’t simply make up the law as they go, without following the rules or having a legal basis in the statutes. The DOJ fabricated and enforced an illegal policy and we put an end to it with this case.”

Combs added that the decision is important for other issues as well, especially because it is citable as precedent. “Today’s decision is perhaps even more important because of the state’s new ammunition and assault weapon laws. Attorney General Becerra has been doing similar things in other areas of state law, and we are eager to show that, like their illegal policy here, those also must be enjoined and struck down.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Benbrook of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group hailed the decision. “We are gratified that the court affirmed the important principle that the State can’t take shortcuts when it tries to regulate citizens,” commented Benbrook. “It has to follow the rules.”

Doe, et al. v. Attorney Genera Xavier Becerra, et al. was supported by two California-based civil rights advocacy organizations: The Calguns Foundation, which focuses on legal efforts to protect individuals’ gun rights, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearms industry group.

The Calguns Foundation is participating in a lawsuit challenging the DOJ’s “bullet button assault weapons” regulations on similar grounds. More information about that case can be found at

About the Calguns FoundationCalguns Foundation

The Calguns Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

About the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees ( (CAL-FFL) is a 501(c)6 nonprofit organization serving its members and the public through direct and grassroots issue advocacy, regulatory input, legal efforts, and education. CAL-FFL’s membership includes firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, licensed collectors, others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.

Source link

Articles You May Like

Brownells BRN-601 Rifle & LMT M203 37mm “Grenade” Launcher Giveaway
GPO USA PASSION 10×42 HD Binocular Wins Best Overall Binocular Award
Ruger Precision Rifle & Sightmark Riflescope Winner Announced!!
Tulster IWB Holsters for Glock 43X and Glock 48
Blue August Represents Naroh Arms


  1. Leave our amendment two rights alone.these rights is what haves.kept our country free from being taken over by foren countrys. God bless america and our president

  2. The following thought comes to mind re the referenced court decision. The California bureaucracy had been told about, warned of the legal/constitutional problems of and with their antics, yet they went ahead. They knew that they were on thin ice, that is fact.

    Given this, and that they went ahead despite complaints and warnings against their antics, they should face criminal sanctions, same as the private citizen would, have been found in violation of the law. Realistically speaking, I expect that there are four chances of this happening, Fat, Slim, Little and No. That aside, criminal sanctions should be levied against the culprits, for as the French are won’t to say, For The Encouragement of Others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *