The Second Amendment enshrines a fundamental constitutional right for law- abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times, with “the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,” ordinary law- abiding people feel a need to possess handguns to protect themselves against violence. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2158 (Alito, J., concurring). This may be because they “live in high- crime neighborhoods,” or because they “must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities,” or because they “reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.” Id.
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 UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. 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.
DATED: March 20, 2023
We shall seeThe decision:
We shall see if the state appeals.