Rupp, et al. v. Becerra.

NRA ILA Litigation Counsel informs as follows:

California prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, or import of “assault weapons” within the state. In 2016, the law was expanded to include firearms whose magazines were detached by a “bullet button.”

The AWCA generally makes it a felony to manufacture, distribute, transport, or import into the state, sell or offer to sell, or give or lend an “assault weapon.” Cal. Penal Code § 30600(a). It also punishes possession of an unregistered “assault weapon” as a crime up to a felony. Cal. Penal Code § 30605(a).

Since California first enacted the AWCA in 1989, the state has adopted various definitions of “assault weapon,” continually adding to what qualifies as such. See Cal. Penal Code § 30510 (former Cal. Penal Code § 12276) (listing “assault weapons” by make and model); Sen. B. 263 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) (Cal. 1991) (expanding

make/model list of “assault weapons”); 11 C.C.R. §§ 5495, 5499 (further expanding the list); Cal. Penal Code § 30515(a)(1-3) (former Cal. Penal Code § 12276.1(a)(1-3)

(identifying “assault weapons” by features). The latest definition was created in 2016. Cal. Penal Code § 30515 (added by Assemb. B. 1135, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2016);

Sen. B. 880, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2016)) (defining “assault weapon” as any

semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a “fixed magazine,” if it has at least one of the features enumerated in section 30515(a)).

Essentially, there are now two ways a rifle can qualify as an “assault weapon” under California law. One, if it is semiautomatic and statutorily listed by make and model. Cal. Penal Code § 30510; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 5495-5499. And two, if it has certain enumerated features. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a “fixed magazine” is an “assault weapon” if it has one of these 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).

In April of 2017, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging this prohibition under the Second Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief.

Summary judgment motions were filed by March 25, 2019 and a hearing occurred on May 31, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the United States District Court granted California’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment, holding that “assault weapons” were outside the scope of the Second Amendment and upholding the statute.

On August 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on October 8, 2020.

The case was stayed on February 25, 2021, pending the outcome in Duncan. On December 6, 2021, the Court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Beach (Corlett, Bruen). On June 28, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court.

In October 2022, the District Court set a scheduling order. Discovery has been completed. Dispositive motions were filed in May of 2023. Summary judgment motions were heard on September 8, 2023. The parties await the Court’s ruling.

RETURN TO MAP

Learn More About the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

Browse through the site to discover how the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has provided millions of dollars in support of cases involving individuals and organizations defending the individual right to keep and bear arms and to support legal research and education