2 P.3D 581 Supreme Court of California Peter Alan KASLER Et Al
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kasler v, Lockyer, 23 CaL4th 472 (2000> 2 P.3d 581 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5321... and Donald E.J. Kilmer. Jr., San Jose, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. 2 P.3d 581 Michael Patrick Murray, for National Rifle Association of Supreme Court of California America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Peter Alan KASLER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, Appellants. V. Steven Silver, Los Angeles, for National Rifle Association, California Rifle Pistol Association, Bill LOCKYER, as Attorney General, & Gun Owners of California, the Second Amendment Foundation *477 and etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Lawyers Second Amendment Society as Amici Curiae on No. So69522. June29, behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Richard E. Gardiner and Steven Silver, Los Angeles, for Law 2000. Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 2000.- Enforcement Alliance ofAmerica as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. * Kennard, J., dissented. Dan Schultz, for Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Congress of Racial Equality, Womens’ Safety Alliance, Taxpayers brought action to enjoin, on several constitutional Doctors for Integrity in Police Research, Prosecutors grounds, enforcement of Assault Weapons Control Act for Responsible Gun Ownership and Lawyers Second (AWCA). The Sacramento County Superior Court, Super. Amendment Society as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs Ct. No. CV5 19977, Ronald B. Robie, J., sustained demurrer and Appellants. without leave to amend except as to one cause of action, Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, and when taxpayers declined to amend, dismissed the action. George Williamson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Taxpayers appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Attorneys General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of General, Paul V. Bishop, Kevin Holsclaw, John A. Gordnier the Court of Appeal, and, in an opinion by Brown, J., held and Timothy L. Rieger, Deputy Attorneys General, for that: (1) it would review equal protection challenge under Defendants and Respondents. rational basis standard; (2) rational basis existed for listing Louise H. Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), D. Cameron specific weapons affected by statute and providing for later Baker, Deputy City Attorney, Owen A. Clemens; O’Melveny addition of other weapons found to be substantially similar & Myers, John A. Crose, Jr., Robert C. Vanderet, Charles to those listed; (3) provision for addition of weapons to list C. Lifland, Jennifer L. Isenberg, San Francisco; Mark D. on judicial determination of petition by attorney general did Polston, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, Brian J. Siebel not implicate constitutional separation of powers doctrine; and Dennis A. Henigan, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, and (4) temporary suspension provision did not, on its face, for Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, California Police violate due process rights to notice or hearing. Chiefs’ Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association and City and County of Reversed. San Francisco as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Mic, 3., concurred with opinion. Respondents. Brown, I., concurred with opinion. Opinion Kennard, J., concurred in part and dissented in part with BROWN, 3. opinion. In enacting the Roberti—Roos Assault Weapons Control Opinion, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 260, vacated. Act of 1989 (Stats.1989, ch. 19, § 3, p. 64; hereafter AWCA), the Legislature imposed restrictions on a class of Attorneys and Law Firms semiautomatic firearms it characterized as “assault weapons.” (Pen.Code, 12275 etseq.)-’ The restrictions ***336 *476 **583 Benenson & Kates, Don B. Kates, were necessary, the Legislature found and declared, Novato; Stephen P. Halbrook, Fairfax, VA; Michel & because each of the semiautomatic firearms Associates, Trutanich & Michel, C.D. Michel, San Pedro; designated as an assault weapon had “such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is i&LvN€ © 2 1© ©s, No dawn Ia oriqnai t S. Gavarnrront Wr© Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Ca 1.4th 472 (2000> 2 P.3d 581, 97 CaLRptr.2d 334, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5321 substantially outweighed ***337 by the danger that it can and that the due process claim fails as a facial challenge to be used to kill and injure human beings.” ( 12275.5.) It the AWCA. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the did not intend, the Legislature stressed, to place restrictions Court ofAppeal. In the discussion that follows, we summarize on weapons “primarily designed and intended for hunting, the relevant provisions of the AWCA as we address each target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges. For the convenience activities.” (Ibid.) of the reader, the full text of the relevant provisions of the AWCA 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further section as amended in 1999 may be found in the appendix. references are to the Penal Code. I. DISCUSSION Prior to amendment of the AWCA in 1999 (the 1999 amendments)(Stats.1999, ch. 129, § 7 et seq.), semiautomatic A. Equal Protection firearms were designated as *478 assault weapons by (1) being listed by type, series, and model in section 12276, or In section 12276, the Legislature listed semiautomatic (2) by being declared an assault weapon under a procedure firearms—rifles, pistols, and shotguns—considered to be *479 set forth in section 12276.5. Under the latter procedure, which assault weapons, specifying such firearms by type, is commonly referred to as the add-on provision, certain series, and model. Plaintiffs contend the AWCA violates superior courts, upon petition by the Attorney General, may the principles of equal protection embodied in the state and be called upon to declare a firearm an assault weapon because federal Constitutions because the Legislature failed to include of its essential similarity to a listed assault weapon. With in the section 12276 list certain weapons that are identical to, its 1999 amendments to the AWCA, the Legislature took or indistinguishable from, listed weapons. The short answer a third approach to designating assault weapons—defining to this argument, the Attorney General contends, is that the them in section 12276.1, subdivision (a) in terms of generic equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions characteristics, for example, a “semiautomatic, centerfire protect persons. Guns are things, not persons. Therefore, rifle **584 that has the capacity to accept a detachable equal protection principles do not protect guns from unequal magazine” and also has a “pistol grip that protrudes treatment. conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.” (Id., subd. The Attorney General’s analysis finds some support in two (a)(1)(A) Stats.1999, ch. 129, 7.) It bears repeating that the § recent cases: Benjamin v. Bailey (1995) 234 Conn. 455, 662 1999 amendments were additive in this respect. Neither the A.2d 1226 (Benjamin). and California Rifle & Pistol Assn. list method of designating assault weapons in section 12276 v. City of West Hollywood ***338 (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th nor the add-on provision of section 12276.5 was abandoned 1302,78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 (California Rifle). In Benjamin, the or textually modified by the 1999 amendments. This case Supreme Court of Connecticut, in the course of considering arose prior to the enactment of the 1999 amendments, and various constitutional challenges to an assault weapons ban, the parties agree that the 1999 amendments do not render the stated: “The equal protection clauses of the federal and issues before us moot. state constitutions apply only to ‘persons.’ [Citations.] The Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the AWCA in plaintiffs’ challenge relates to classifications among weapons, a taxpayers’ suit to enjoin its enforcement. The trial court not persons.... Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not raised sustained a demurrer without leave to amend except as to a claim that falls within the scope of the constitutional one cause of action, and when plaintiffs declined to amend, guarantee they seek to invoke.” (Benjamin, supra, 662 A.2d dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held at pp. 1235—1237, fn. omitted.) In California Rifle, the Court the AWCA unconstitutional on the following grounds: (1) of Appeal reached the same conclusion in upholding a city the section 12276 list of assault weapons violates principles ordinance banning the sale of “Saturday Night Specials.” of equal protection because it is irrationally underinclusive; “The general rule is that persons who are similarly situated (2) the add-on provision of section 12276.5 violates the in relevant respects must be treated equally by the law. separation ofpowers doctrine by delegating legislative power Obviously, a handgun is not a person, and hence there is to the courts; and (3) the AWCA violates due process because no constitutional compulsion for a state’s laws to treat all it is unduly vague and fails to give advance warning of the handguns alike.... The equal protection clause simply does not conduct prohibited by it. We conclude the AWCA does not protect guns from unequal legal treatment.” (California Rifle, violate the equal protection or separation of powers doctrines supra. 66 Cal.App.4th atp. 1326.78 Cal.Rptr.2d 591.) Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 CaL4th 472 (2000) 2 P.3d 581, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5321 economic and social welfare legislation in which there is Holding that only persons, not things, are protected from a “discrimination” or differentiation of treatment between unequal legal treatment was something of a makeweight in ***339 classes or individuals. It manifests restraint by the both cases because the courts went on to consider and reject judiciary in relation to the discretionary act of a co-equal the equal protection challenges on the merits. (See Benjamin, branch of government; in so doing it invests legislation supra, 662 A.2d at np. 1237—1240; California Rifle, supra, involving such differentiated treatment with a presumption 66 Cal.App.4th at p.