BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the long-running California case of Jones v. Bonta have filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of a notice of motion, and a motion for a preliminary injunction or alternatively, a motion for summary judgment.

The case, filed in 2019, challenges California’s prohibition on firearms to young adults in the 18-20-year age group. SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Poway Weapons and Gear, Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, and the North County Shooting Center. The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

“The text of the Second Amendment does not contain any age restrictions,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Yet, California’s law does not allow for young adults, despite the fact they have reached the ‘age of majority,’ to acquire firearms for self-defense or other purposes. As we note in our motion, even if a young adult is accompanied by an individual over 21, Poway Weapons and Gear, North County Shooting Center and other gun ranges cannot rent or provide firearms to them for fear of violating Penal Code section 27510. This arbitrary prohibition clearly violates the Second Amendment rights of young adults.

“Under guidelines established in the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision last year,” he continued, “the state has the burden of justifying its regulation by providing appropriate historical analogues supporting this prohibition. We doubt such analogues exist, and we are asking the court to move forward.

As noted in the motion, once it is established that 18-to-20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights on par with other adults, the next question under Bruen is whether the firearms banned by Penal Code section 27510 are “arms” within the text of the Second Amendment and are not “dangerous and unusual.” Since they are commonly used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting, target practice, and self-defense, centerfire semiautomatic rifles and long guns are commonly owned, bearable arms, fully protected under the Second Amendment text and therefore, under Bruen, the State’s ban is unconstitutional.  

Plaintiffs in this case are represented by attorney John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, in Carlsbad, California.