California Gun Control Gets Flattened Again

Published on February 29, 2024
Duration: 12:38

This video provides an expert-level analysis of the *Linton v. Bonta* case, where a California law permanently prohibiting felons from owning firearms was struck down as applied to specific plaintiffs. William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, details how the court rejected California's arguments, emphasizing the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate historical precedent for such broad disarmament, especially when prior convictions were set aside or vacated. The ruling highlights the post-Bruen legal landscape and the importance of individual rights restoration.

Quick Summary

In *Linton v. Bonta*, a California law permanently prohibiting felons from owning firearms was struck down as applied to plaintiffs with vacated convictions. The court ruled California failed to provide historical evidence for such broad disarmament, emphasizing the burden of proof on the state post-Bruen.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Felons & Rights Restoration Post-Bruen
  2. 00:40California's Permanent Firearm Prohibition Challenged
  3. 01:14Case Overview: Linton v. Bonta
  4. 01:34Product Spotlight: Mantis X10 Elite Training System
  5. 02:41California Penal Code § 29800 Explained
  6. 03:40Federal vs. California Law on Rights Restoration
  7. 04:25Plaintiffs' Backgrounds and Disarmament Issues
  8. 05:20California's Rejected Legal Arguments
  9. 05:54Court's Assessment of Plaintiffs' Misconduct
  10. 06:23As-Applied vs. Facial Constitutional Challenges
  11. 07:20California's 'The People' Argument Rejected
  12. 08:30Lack of Historical Analog for California's Stance
  13. 09:32Court Rejects 'Helicopter Parent' Role for State
  14. 11:10Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs
  15. 11:50Conclusion: Linton v. Bonta Ruling

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the outcome of the Linton v. Bonta case regarding California's firearm ban?

The case *Linton v. Bonta* resulted in a summary judgment against California's law (Cal. Penal Code § 29800) as applied to the plaintiffs. The court found that permanently denying firearm rights to individuals with vacated felony convictions, despite restoration of rights in other states, violates the Second Amendment.

Why did the court reject California's arguments in Linton v. Bonta?

California's arguments regarding standing and 11th Amendment immunity were rejected. Crucially, the state failed to provide historical evidence supporting its claim that individuals with set-aside or vacated felony convictions should be permanently disarmed, a burden placed upon them post-Bruen.

How does Linton v. Bonta differ from federal law on felony firearm possession?

Unlike California's blanket prohibition, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921) and many state laws allow for the restoration of firearm rights if a felony conviction is expunged, set aside, pardoned, or if civil rights are otherwise restored. *Linton v. Bonta* challenged California's refusal to recognize such restorations.

What is an 'as-applied' constitutional challenge, as seen in Linton v. Bonta?

An 'as-applied' challenge targets the constitutionality of a law's application to specific individuals or circumstances, rather than questioning the law's overall validity (a 'facial' challenge). In *Linton v. Bonta*, the challenge focused on how Cal. Penal Code § 29800 was applied to the plaintiffs, not on the law's existence itself.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →