Rupp v. Becerra

401 F.Supp.3d 978

Steven RUPP, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Xavier BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, and Does 1-10, Defendants.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed July 22, 2019

Sean Anthony Brady, Carl Dawson Michel, Michel and Associates PC, Matthew Dunbar Cubeiro, Long Beach, CA, John Parker Sweeney, Pro Hac Vice; Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Nicole F. Reaves, Pro Hac Vice; Peter A. Patterson, Pro Hac Vice; Cooper and Kirk PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

John D. Echeverria, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Peter H. Chang, CAAG-Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice San Francisco, CA, for Dependants.

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On May 9, 2018, the Court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' due process and takings claims and denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. (May 2018 Order, Doc. 49.) The issue now before the Court is whether California's Assault Weapons Control Act ("AWCA") violates the Second Amendment.¹ After considering the papers, holding oral argument, and taking the matter under submission, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Attorney General's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND ²

A. The AWCA

The AWCA, originally passed in 1989, makes it a felony to manufacture assault weapons within the State of California, or to possess, sell, transfer, or import such weapons into the state without a permit. (May 2018 Order at 2; Cal. Penal Code §§ 30600, 30605.) At the time of its passage, the AWCA included a list of specific assault weapons identified by their make and model. Cal. Penal Code § 30510. The legislature found that each of these firearms "has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings." Cal. Penal Code § 30505(a).

After the AWCA was enacted, gun manufacturers began to produce weapons that were "substantially similar to weapons on the prohibited list but different in some insignificant way, perhaps only the name of the weapon, defeating the intent of the ban." (See S.B. 880 Report, 2015–2016 Reg. Sess., Assembly Committee on Public Safety (June 14, 2016) at 4, attached as Ex. 29 to Chang Decl., Doc. 76-29.) Thus, in 1999, the AWCA was amended to allow legislators to define a new class of restricted weapons according to their features rather than by model. Under the 1999 amendments, a weapon was an "assault rifle" if it had "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine," and any of the following features: a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a thumbhole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; a grenade launcher or flare launcher; a flash suppressor; or a forward pistol grip. (See S.B. 23, § 7, attached as Ex. 34 to Chang Decl., Doc. 76-34.) If a magazine required a "tool" to detach a magazine, the magazine was not considered detachable, and thus gun manufacturers developed technology, referred to as "bullet buttons," that enabled a magazine to be "removed and replaced in seconds" while not being technically "detachable." (S.B. 880 Report at 5.)

In 2016, the California legislature again amended the AWCA to close the bullet button "loophole" in response to a December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino where two assailants used weapons equipped with bullet buttons to shoot 36 people in less than four minutes. (S.B. 880 Report at 8.) S.B. 880 amends the definition of assault weapons so that, rather than referring to a weapon "with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine," it refers to a weapon "that does not have a fixed magazine" in combination with other features. Cal. Penal Code § 30515. A fixed magazine is defined as "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action." Cal. Penal Code § 30515(b).

To summarize, there are two avenues by which a semiautomatic rifle can be defined as an "assault weapon" and thus banned pursuant to the AWCA: first, if it is listed by make and model in California Penal Code § 30510 ; and second, if it has certain features described in § 30515. As is relevant to this action, § 30515 classifies a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle as an "assault weapon" if it does not have a fixed magazine and has one of the following features: a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a forward pistol grip; a thumbhole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; or a flash suppressor. Cal. Penal Code § 30515(a)(1)(A)-(F). These features are defined by regulation as follows:

• A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon "allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed beneath or below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(z).

• A forward pistol grip is "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(t).

• A thumbhole stock is "a stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471 (qq).

• A flash suppressor is "any device attached to the end of the barrel, that is designed, intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(r).

• A telescoping stock is one that "is shortened or lengthened by allowing one section to telescope into another portion." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(oo).

• A folding stock is one that "is hinged in some fashion to the receiver to allow the stock to be folded next to the receiver to reduce the overall length of the firearm." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(nn).

Further, per § 30515(3), a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that is less than 30 inches in overall length is an "assault weapon," and "[f]olding and telescoping stocks shall be collapsed prior to measurement." See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471(x).

B. The Litigation

The Individual Plaintiffs—Rupp, Dember, Johnson, Jones, Seifert, Valencia, Willis, and Martin—all reside in California and are legally eligible to possess firearms. (Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts ("SUF") ¶¶ 1–3, Doc. 77-2.) Plaintiffs Valencia, Dember, and Johnson do not currently own rifles within the AWCA's scope but would immediately acquire one if not for their fear of prosecution under the AWCA. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs Rupp, Jones, Seifert, and Martin have parts that they would immediately assemble into a rifle within the AWCA's scope if not for their fear of prosecution under the AWCA. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9–10.) Plaintiffs Willis, Siefert, and Martin all own weapons within the AWCA's scope and wish to be free from the AWCA's transfer and use penalties. (Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 8.) Plaintiff Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., represents its members who are similarly situated to the individual Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 18–28.)

Plaintiffs bring a facial Second Amendment challenge to the "AWCA's restrictions on all rifles, whether listed as ‘assault weapons’ by their make and model or defined as ‘assault weapons’ by their features." (Plaintiffs' Mem. at 4, Doc. 86.) Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the following California Penal Code sections: 30510(a) (list of assault weapons by make and model);³ 30515(a)(1)(A-C) and (E-F) (defining the additional features which, in combination with a non-fixed magazine, render a weapon an "assault weapon"); 30515(a)(3) (defining as an assault rifle any semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches); 30520 ("duties of Attorney General," allowing the California Attorney General to designate and/or describe weapons); 30600 (prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift, or loan of assault weapons); 30605 (penalties for possession); section 30925 (required actions for those bringing an assault weapon into the state); and section 30945 (conditions for possessing a registered assault weapon). (Third Amended Complaint, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1–2, Doc. 60.) The prayer for relief asks the Court to declare the code sections "unconstitutional facially and to the extent they apply to ‘assault weapons’ or, alternatively, to the extent they prohibit any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine having a ‘pistol grip,’ ‘flash suppressor,’ ‘thumbhole stock,’ or ‘telescoping’ stock, or any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that is over 26 inches in overall length." (See Third Amended Complaint, Prayer for Relief ¶ 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in that party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is proper "if the [moving party] shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is "genuine" when there is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue in the non-movant's favor, and a fact is "material" when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. But "credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Acosta v....