California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood

28 Citing cases

  1. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cty

    229 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    Certifying questions to the California Supreme Court but leaving the district court's preliminary injunction in effect in the interim

    Likewise, the state legislature's having expressly provided for the sale of firearms at gun shows may imply that local ordinances, like that of Los Angeles, banning the sale of such weapons are preempted. More recently, however, in California Rifle and Pistol Ass'n. v. City of West Hollywood, 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 78 Cal. Rptr.2d 591 (1998), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California appears to have disavowed the logic underlying the district court's conclusion and the pertinent part of Doe. In California Rifle, the court confronted a challenge, on preemption grounds, to a city ban on sales of certain handguns known as Saturday Night Specials.

  2. Nordyke v. King

    229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    Certifying a question of law where "there is tension in the reasoning underlying several decisions of the Courts of Appeal of the State of California."

    Likewise, the state legislature's having expressly provided for the presence of firearms at gun shows may imply that local ordinances, like that of Los Angeles, banning the possession of such weapons are preempted. More recently, however, in California Rifle and Pistol Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood, 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 78 Cal. Rptr.2d 591 (1998), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California appears to have disavowed the logic underlying the district court's conclusion and the pertinent part of Doe. In California Rifle, the court confronted a challenge, on preemption grounds, to a city ban on sales of certain handguns known as Saturday Night Specials.

  3. Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco

    158 Cal.App.4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 19 times
    In Fiscal, the challenged ordinance purported to (1) prohibit the sale and transfers of all firearms without exception and (2) limit handgun possession to governmental and professional purposes with an option for residents to surrender their handguns to law enforcement.

    With narrow exceptions, section 3 of Prop. H bans the possession of handguns by San Francisco residents, including handgun possession within the sanctity of homes, businesses, and private property. The trial court identified two state statutes, "each of which specifically preempts a narrowly limited field of firearms regulation," which the trial court found preempted section 3. ( California Rifle Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1318 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591] ( CRPA).) These two code sections are Penal Code section 12026, subdivision (b) [prohibiting localities from restricting handgun possession in an individual's home, business, or private property] and Government Code section 53071 [indicating an express intent by the Legislature to occupy the whole field of firearms licensing and registration].

  4. Kasler v. Lockyer

    23 Cal.4th 472 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 143 times
    In Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472, 488, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 2 P.3d 581 (2000), the California Supreme Court detailed the legislative history of AWCA and said, "[t]he Legislature was, in short, confronted with two conflicting societal interests, both of which it recognized as legitimate – the interest of all citizens in being protected against the use of semiautomatic weapons by criminals, and the interest of some citizens in using semiautomatic weapons for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities."

    The Attorney General's analysis finds some support in two recent cases: Benjaminv. Bailey 234 Conn. 455 662 A.2d 1226 ( Benjamin), and California Rifle Pistol Assn. v. City of WestHollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302 ( California Rifle). In Benjamin, the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in the course of considering various constitutional challenges to an assault weapons ban, stated: "The equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions apply only to 'persons.'

  5. American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland

    34 Cal.4th 1239 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that a city ordinance regulating predatory loans was preempted by a state law on the subject

    ) Thus, mortgage lending is unlike the area of gun control law, on which the City and the dissent rely, in which courts have concluded that the Legislature has chosen to legislate narrowly, and "rather than intending to deprive municipalities of their police power to regulate handgun sales, . . . has been cautious about depriving local municipalities of aspects of their constitutional police power to deal with local conditions." ( California Rifle Pistol Assn.,Inc. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1318 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591]; see Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County ofLos Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 853, 865, 866 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, 44 P.3d 120] ( Great Western) [noting state laws regulating gun shows expressly refer to applicable local laws]; dis. opn., post, at pp. 1267, 1272.) As one amicus curiae notes, the City does not demonstrate that in the area of regulating residential mortgages, the Legislature has attempted "to tread lightly on a narrow path."

  6. Calguns Found., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Mateo

    No. A136092 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2013)

    (Great Western, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 864.) These two decisions, both of which were cited approvingly by the Great Western court, are California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302 (CRPA)and Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109 (Suter), a decision by our colleagues in Division One of this court. Both rejected claims that state law preempted local ordinances regarding gun control.

  7. Calguns Found., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Mateo

    218 Cal.App.4th 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times
    Finding an ordinance prohibiting the possession and use of guns in county parks was not a total ban because, unlike a citywide or countywide prohibition on handgun possession in San Francisco, this ordinance "merely regulate[d] the possession or use of firearms on county property."

    ( Great Western, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 864–873, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, 44 P.3d 120.) These two decisions, both of which were cited approvingly by the Great Western court, are California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 (CRPA ) and Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 (Suter ), a decision by our colleagues in Division One of this court. Both rejected claims that state law preempted local ordinances regarding gun control.

  8. Hernandez v. City of Sacramento

    147 Cal.App.4th 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    "In the absence of state preemption, every municipality is authorized by the California Constitution to exercise its police power to deal with local situations." ( California Rifle Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1307-1308 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591] ( California Rifle).) Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, embodying the "home rule" doctrine, reserves to charter cities the authority to adopt and enforce "all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs" even if they conflict with state laws.

  9. American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland

    111 Cal.App.4th 1435 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)

    If the Legislature has the power to regulate a certain area, municipalities have the power to regulate that same area. (California Rifle Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1310 (California Rifle).) The issue is not whether Oakland is constitutionally authorized to regulate predatory lending practices within its borders, but whether the Legislature has acted to remove that power from Oakland.

  10. Horton v. City of Oakland

    82 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    In Horton, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at page 588, the court rejected an argument that it should "retroactively infer... preemptive intent from recent legislative activity" based on the Legislature's passage of Assembly Bill No. 662 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.).

    The ordinance is presumed valid; appellants have the burden of proving otherwise. ( California Rifle Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1331.) Appellants assert that the Oakland ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law.