The United States Constitution limits the actions of the government against the individual.
Anytime a law limits an individual’s fundamental right, that law should be challenged.
California is again on the wrong side and the forefront of such a violation.
The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In recent years, the Second Amendment has been the subject of intense debate and legal battles.
One such case that has captured national attention is Linton v. Becerra.
According to the Complaint, the question presented by this case is whether the State of California can prevent current California residents who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms if their previously disqualifying offenses, which occurred in other states, have been vacated, and especially when their fundamental, individual rights have been fully restored to them by courts of competent jurisdiction in those respective states.
Asked differently: In their zeal to prohibit as many citizens from owning firearms as possible, may this State ignore the judgments and pronouncements of the courts of other states because they do not prefer the policy outcome?
A synopsis of the facts was taken from the Court’s Order and is as follows: California Penal Code Section 29800 prohibits individuals who have been convicted of felonies from owning or possessing firearms.
Plaintiffs Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones were convicted of felonies in other states several decades ago.
None of the convictions involved a weapon, drugs, or violence, in the ordinary meaning of the word.
Each of the plaintiffs had their conviction vacated, set aside, or dismissed, and their right to possess firearms restored, by the jurisdiction in which they were convicted.
Linton legally acquired firearms in California on prior occasions, and Jones was a career law enforcement officer in California with special training and certification as a firearms instructor.
Even so, California acted to permanently deny Linton, Stewart, and Jones the right to possess or own firearms, solely on the basis of their original convictions.
On February 28, 2024, the Court sided with the plaintiffs and ruled, “After multiple hearings and several rounds of briefing, and in light of the guidance provided by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Court concludes that California has violated the Second Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs.
Consequently, summary judgment is granted in favor of Linton, Stewart, and Jones on their as-applied Second Amendment claim.
This ruling once again empowers the second amendment against those bureaucrats wanting to limit an individual right to bear arms.
As the Courts have previously stated, the Second Amendment is not a second rate right but is fundamental, and this ruling furthers that principle.
If you are facing firearms or other weapons charges, contact the Law Office of H. Charles Gorian for a free, no obligation consultation.