California is one of a handful of states that restricts all gun sales to people aged 21 or over. This is a curtailment of their civil liberties, of course, and needs to be struck down. That means lawsuits.
Of course, lawsuits are a pain, especially for people under the age of 21.
Yet there’s another group impacted by these laws and that’s gun stores. Now, one of them is joining a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s laws.
A Fallbrook gun shop is a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s gun law banning the sale of firearms to those under 21. The lawsuit recently filed in San Diego argues that adults over age 18 who are not convicted felons or mentally ill should have access to the full scope of the Second Amendment.
Thomas Furrh of Vista and Matthew Jones of Santee, both under 21, are listed as plaintiffs, along with four gun advocate groups and three retail gun shops in San Diego County.
The four gun advocate groups include the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation. The three retail gun shops include Poway Weapons and Gear, North County Shooting Center in San Marcos and Beebe Family Arms and Munitions in Fallbrook. The lawsuit was filed by John Dillon, associate attorney with the Carlsbad-based law firm of Gatzke Dillon and Ballance LLP.
“Once individuals turn 18, they are considered as adults in the eyes of the law,” Dillon said. “Therefore, law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.
“We’re asking the court to rule the state’s law as an unconstitutional infringement so that law-abiding adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 can exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to purchase and possess firearms. The state’s actions and policies to deny Californians their fundamental rights are unconstitutional and wrong,” he said.
It’s interesting because one would be hardpressed to successfully argue that gun stores lack standing for such a lawsuit. It’s not hard to demonstrate they’re impacted negatively by such laws. After all, how many sales per year are they losing out on because of such unconstitutional measures?
While it’s impossible to guess the actual number, even one represents lost income and provides sufficient standing to be party to such a lawsuit.
Frankly, I’d like to see more gun stores join in these lawsuits as it becomes much more difficult to argue a lack of standing, which is the default first tactic for all governments being sued over their insane gun control laws. Gun stores invariably have standing because even if a particular individual didn’t try to buy a gun, someone else did and those gun stores can’t sell them.
I like it, especially with regard to age limits. Those laws need to die horribly because it’s idiotic to tell an adult they aren’t old enough to enjoy all of their constitutional rights. With luck, the courts will strike these laws down so hard that there’s no need for the Supreme Court to get involved, but if that can’t be, then at least let the Supreme Court smack them down permanently.