Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
In a robust response to California’s newly enacted SB 1384, a cluster of gun rights organizations has filed a federal lawsuit to contest what they deem unconstitutional surveillance requirements on gun dealers.
The suit, brought forward by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Gun Owners of California (GOC), and by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), challenges the law’s demand for high-level surveillance on gun sales, arguing a breach of several constitutional amendments.
The law, set to go into effect on January 1, 2024, requires every gun dealer to install advanced surveillance equipment capable of recording video and audio for every transaction.
Dealers are expected to shoulder the cost of these systems, which could amount to tens of thousands of dollars—some major retailers have already spent upwards of $250,000 for compliance at a single location.
Additionally, the law mandates dealers grant state officials access to these recordings upon request and inform customers about the surveillance through posted signage.
This provision also applies to home-based dealers, forcing them to integrate state surveillance equipment into their private residences.
The legal challenge highlights a series of constitutional concerns:
- First Amendment: The suit raises several claims, including violations of free speech, association, and anonymous speech, as well as compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination against gun owners.
- Second Amendment: The plaintiffs argue that the Founding Fathers would not have approved government surveillance of gun rights exercise.
- Fourth Amendment: They contend that the law acts as an unconstitutional “general warrant,” infringing upon private property rights and the reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Fifth Amendment: The lawsuit alleges that the law results in an unlawful appropriation of private space for government use.
- Fourteenth Amendment: The law is accused of discriminating against gun stores by subjecting them to regulations not applied to other businesses.
- California Constitution: The lawsuit also cites the right to privacy as stipulated in the state constitution.
The lawsuit has drawn strong statements from key figures in the gun rights community.
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, has critiqued the new restrictions for their resemblance to the dystopian surveillance depicted in Orwell’s “1984.”
“These new restrictions from Governor Newsom and his cabal in Sacramento read as though they were scripted straight out of 1984,” said Pratt. “These are the most intrusive and egregious violations of privacy imaginable, and we will not stop until they are defeated.”
Sam Paredes of GOC has also condemned the law for its potential to suppress speech and deter gun ownership, highlighting the intrusiveness of the law, particularly for home-based dealers.
SEE ALSO: Gun Control Advocates Wonder Why New Yorkers Turn to the 2A
The suit, which consolidates the efforts of several gun rights advocates, is backed by SAF.
Alan Gottlieb, founder of SAF, has criticized the law for invading privacy and imposing potentially ruinous costs on small dealers, while Adam Kraut, SAF Executive Director, has underscored the invasiveness of the state’s surveillance methods.
“Requiring firearms retailers to video record their transactions is not only an egregious violation of privacy,” said Gottlieb, “it involves an expense that is both cost-prohibitive, and could literally drive small dealers out of business.”
“In addition, it would be impossible to record such transactions at gun shows, because at such events, dealers are merely vendors, operating in a large facility where such equipment would be impossible to install,” he added.
With the filing of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the contested surveillance measures.
This case, titled Richards v. Newsom, adds to a series of legal challenges spearheaded by SAF, which is actively engaged in numerous lawsuits across the United States, all aimed at contesting these extreme gun control measures.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Can I buy a gun by presenting a tiny little note, and not having to say anything (like robbing a bank)?
Next, a DNA profile must be maintained and updated at every store after every purchase of a firearm or related gear and ammo at the stores expense.
would pissing on an atf agent or politician count as a dna sample????
I do believe so, although I wouldn’t piss on an ATF agent, even if he was on fire.
well i would wait for the fire to burn out on it’s own then piss