Gun Control



Bauer v. Becerra

Joseph Greenlee June 06, 2017

In Bauer v. Becerra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $5.00 fee on all firearms transfers intended to fund a program that disarms prohibited persons who possess firearms.  

California requires every transfer of a firearm to go through a licensed dealer. California further requires every transferee to pay a fee of $19.00. This fee pays for the $14.00 it costs to run a background check on the transferee—which is directly related to the transfer of the firearm to the transferee—and the fee pays $5.00 towards a program preventing persons who have become prohibited persons from continuing to possess firearms—which is not directly related to the transfer of the firearm to the transferee. [Read More]


Marijuana Use and Firearm Ownership

Joseph Greenlee November 29, 2016

On November 8th, voters approved recreational marijuana initiatives in California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada, and medicinal marijuana initiatives in Florida, North Dakota, and Arkansas (Montanans voted to roll back already existing medical marijuana restrictions). 28 states and the District of Columbia have now passed laws legalizing the medicinal and/or recreational use of marijuana.   

Meanwhile, Americans set a record in each of the last 18 months for the number of National Instant Criminal Background Check System firearm background checks processed, which is the most accurate indicator of the number of firearm sales (because nearly all sales by federally licensed firearm dealers require a background check, as do many private sales). This year almost certainly will surpass 2015 as the year with the most firearm background checks ever. 

Thus, legal marijuana use and firearm ownership are likely both at all-time highs. However, since federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) makes it a felony for an “unlawful user of … any controlled substance” to “possess … any firearm,” and since marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, it is a felony for a user of marijuana to possess a firearm.   [Read More]



Peruta, Flanagan, and the Right to Bear Arms in the Ninth Circuit

Joseph Greenlee August 29, 2016

On June 9, 2016, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its highly publicized, and highly scrutinized, decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego. In its decision, the court clumsily mischaracterized the issue and ignored the complete ban on bearing arms facing the plaintiffs, instead determining only that a concealed carry ban in isolation is constitutional. While the court’s holding was indeed supported by substantial precedent, it failed to even address the argument presented by the plaintiffs—that the Second Amendment protects the right to publicly bear arms in some manner, whether openly or concealed. Thus, after 7 years of litigation, the plaintiffs’ dispute remains completely unresolved. Here is a quick update on what has happened since. [Read More]