A handful of gun store owners are challenging state law in federal court, arguing a gun advertising law infringes on their First Amendment rights.
On the outside of Tracy Rifle and Pistol, in Tracy, several large pictures are displayed, showing firearms. These cover sections of the windows.
Store owner Michael Baryla said Monday he posted the photos to make the building look better and to show the public what type of guns he sells.
Baryla said he was recently cited by the Department of Justice for having the pictures of the handguns up.
"It’s kind of silly, because if you look right outside on the window, we have an AR-15 rifle right next to a handgun," Baryla said. "The AR-15 is 100 percent fine -- the hand gun, on the other hand, isn’t fine."
Baryla is referring to a state law, penal code 26820, that prohibits using handgun ads that can be seen from the outside.
Baryla and three other gun store owners are challenging the law in federal court. A suit was filed Monday.
Baryla argues the California law infringes on his First Amendment rights.
"We, as a business, have the right to fairly advertise and speak our minds," Baryla said. "There’s no justification for banning the advertisement of something that is constitutionally protected."
"It’s kind of silly, because if you look right outside on the window, we have an AR-15 rifle right next to a handgun," Baryla said. "The AR-15 is 100 percent fine -- the hand gun, on the other hand, isn’t fine."
ReplyDelete"The defense further argued that although gun store owners can’t advertise their wares, gun control protestors are not restricted from showing such images, which shows a “viewpoint-based discrimination” and is thus unconstitutional."
http://www.guns.com/2014/11/10/california-gun-dealers-sue-firearms-bureau-over-window-advertising-citation/
It seems blatantly unfair to me, but then this is California we're talking about. I especially like the part about the scary black rifle is completely ok, but the less powerful handgun mustn't be seen.
Yeah, it does seek kinda weird. But what if a community of people overwhelmingly feel offended at the sight of gun advertising? Can't they request a local ordinance to prohibit the use of those offending images?
DeleteWhat if a community overwhelmingly feel offended at the site of two men kissing or holding hands? Can't they request a local ordinance to prohibit this behavior?
DeleteBut what if a community of people overwhelmingly feel offended at the sight of gun advertising?
DeleteI would suggest the entire community seek intensive psychological counseling immediately.
Seriously, though--do you really want to go there? What if a community of people overwhelmingly feel offended at the sight of the Planned Parenthood sign/logo? Would it be legitimate to ban such signs at their facilities?
Of course you know Kurt? there are still laws on the books in parts of America which makes it a crime to kiss (heterosexual) in public.
DeleteAdvertising limitations have been constitutional for other legal products. I see no reason to exempt guns from advertising limitations.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that this law was passed in the aftermath of the 1965 Watts riots, in hopes of not tipping off rioters to which gun shops had handguns, so they wouldn't break in and steal them.
ReplyDeleteIf Alabama had such a law, for such a reason, we would probably hear it being called "racist."
I remember in the '80s in Jersey City NJ, there was a ban on boom boxes. The city even fabricated street signs with the red circle and line over the portable music player that was in vogue with the inner-city (black) residents. Was that a violation of their 1st amendment rights too?
DeleteI don't know if it's a First Amendment issue or not (I acknowledge that one could plausibly make the case that it is), but it certainly strikes me as nanny-state overreach (what I've come to expect from New Jersey). One would think that the desired end could be met with properly crafted and actively enforced noise statutes (assuming that "the desired end" is reduction of noise pollution).
DeleteIt was a ban on offending noise, much like loud pipes on cars. Some people cant read anything but a picture, like no walking signs are also a picture sign and so on. Loud music, loud cars, loud motorcycles, loud machinery and so on, no matter how much SOME people like it, is a noise law violation. Lots of towns have such noise laws that also include "boom boxes".
DeleteThe ban on tobacco and liquor ads were based on health and safety, especially to children. In fact we no longer see cigarette machines. The courts have backed those measures. There is precedent for limitations on legal products, not only ads, but the manner in which those products can be sold.
DeleteThat sounds right. Prohibiting gun images in public might be akin to prohibiting cigarette advertising. They're both public health issues.
DeleteWhat do guns have to do with "public health"? Baffling.
DeleteThere you go again Kurt.
DeleteGuns are killing innocent people by the thousands.
That's a public health issue.
Kurt, you're OK with cars, cigarettes and toys being considered public health issues but not guns, is that it?
DeletePretty much. Cigarettes are linked to 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S. (which would be around 30 times the number of non-suicide gun deaths), and car accidents kill in the tens of thousands. Deaths by gunshot are overwhelmingly the intention of the person using the gun. It's that intention that's the "public health issue."
DeleteI'm well aware that gun loon killers like Kurt think it's just fine that thousands of innocent people and children are killed by guns every year, and they could care less. That just shows their shit character; it doesn't prove we don't have a problem with guns.
DeleteSo, Kurt, in other words if there were more accidental gun deaths, then it would be a health issue?
DeleteSo, Kurt, in other words if there were more accidental gun deaths, then it would be a health issue?
DeleteIf the rate of unintentional death by gunshot were vastly higher than it is, the case for gun policy as a "public health issue" would be stronger than it is currently--although that of course ain't exactly setting the bar very high.
And then, of course, I still haven't seen anyone even attempt to explain how prohibiting images of guns on gun shop signs contributes at all to combating any social ills.
DeleteAnd as the gun store owner quoted in the article points out, the fact that signs showing pics of the ever-demonized AR-15 are completely legal, while those showing a 19-century revolver are verboten, is a nice, vividly ironic demonstration of the idiocy of the law.
I feel that the relatively few accidental shooting deaths that happen each year are more then enough to justify calling it a public health issue. But, I also consider the murders and suicides, which you conveniently exclude. I figure many of them happen due to the easy access to guns, without which many of those people would live.
DeleteAbout the images, in the same way that prohibiting the display of smoking images helps prevent smoking, that's how.
I don't exclude murders and suicide for "convenience," but for logic.
DeleteAbout the images, in the same way that prohibiting the display of smoking images helps prevent smoking, that's how.
And how does "prohibiting the display of smoking images helps prevent smoking"? More to the point, really, what evidence is there that that it does?
How many gun shot deaths would you consider a public health issue Kurt?
DeleteShould have bet the house I would not get a response.
Delete"And how does "prohibiting the display of smoking images helps prevent smoking"? More to the point, really, what evidence is there that that it does?"
DeleteYou're playing dumb again, Kurt. Now. I'm bored.
I'll take that to mean I shouldn't expect my questions to be answered.
DeleteShould I assume that means you have no answers to give? I am, of course, generally somewhat reluctant to make assumptions, but this one is looking pretty safe.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.
DeleteI just came across an interesting article by Eugene Volokh, who has been hired to consult in this case and has thoughtfully shared the motion for an injunction in regards to this case which brings up some of the arguments tossed about here and provides some good information.
ReplyDelete"I blogged last week about Tracy Rifle & Pistol LLC. v. Harris (E.D. Cal.), a case in which I’ve been hired to consult, and which the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, The Calguns Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation are supporting. The case is a First Amendment challenge to Cal. Civil Code § 26820 (which was first enacted 1923, but is still being enforced today):
No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/18/can-california-ban-gun-stores-from-advertising-handguns-on-their-signs-2/
An interesting article.
Yeah--I was clearly wrong in my understanding that California's censorship law was a response to the 1965 Watts riots--my apologies.
DeleteVolokh certainly makes a powerful case for the unconstitutionality of the law.
By the way, Mikeb, now that you've become such a champion of the right to free speech, and have been sticking it to those damned hypocritical French who silence the poor, persecuted anti-Semites, are you still on board with banning signs with handgun images on them in gun shop windows?
ReplyDelete