AN AMENDMENT TO APPEASE
As The Sportsmen ’ s Advocate headed to press , an amendment to AB 2571 had passed both of California ’ s legislative chambers but still awaited Gov . Newsom ’ s signature . Until he signs it , the original language of AB 2571 is the law .
The amendment reads as follows : " This subdivision does not apply to a communication offering or promoting any firearm safety program , hunting safety or promotional program , firearm instructional course , sport shooting event or competition , or any similar program , course , or event , nor does it apply to a communication offering or promoting membership in any organization , or promotion of lawful hunting activity , including , but not limited to , any fundraising event , youth hunting program , or outdoor camp .”
Although this “ bird ’ s nest ” of language might appear to offer protection for certain groups engaged in specific activities , it ’ s important to note that the underlying premise and purpose of the law is unchanged by the amendment . Judges will remain free to decide which groups and activities are prohibited under the law and subject to massive fines . This amendment — born out of political expediency and nothing else — does nothing to alter what Gov . Gavin Newsom ’ s avowed purpose for the new law was and is : Destroy the constitutional freedoms of individuals and organizations who promote the use of firearms . In short , our lawsuit will proceed .
The only entity immune to California ’ s new law and allencompassing definition of the firearm industry , however , appears to be the state itself . California openly markets the use of firearms by youth through the sale of youth hunting licenses , youth-only hunting seasons and the inclusion of firearm safety and handling as part of its own curriculum , as well as a focus of its hunter-recruitment efforts .
Putting overreaching Big Brother comparisons aside , this simple act overtly proves that viewpoint-based restrictions are the object of the new law . In short , the new law doesn ’ t restrict speech for all , just a particular group of citizens or individuals based on what they believe and do .
Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and Gov . Newsom didn ’ t stop there , however ; a non-exclusive list of products that could trigger violation of the law if they appear to be attractive to minors was included . That list includes clothing like hats and t-shirts , firearm-related products offered in sizes , colors or designs specifically intended for minors ( in other words , every youth-model shotgun and rifle along with all reduced-recoil ammunition on the market ), a marketing campaign designed to appeal to minors ( such as hunter education and organized shooting events ), or an advertisement featuring a minor using a firearm ( such as a father and daughter hunting together ).
The new law states this is not an exhaustive list and is vague around enforcement of it , using a “ totality of the circumstances ” standard , which means violating one or more examples might or might not result in prosecution . Such a vague and capricious standard of law , amounting to nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by the state , leaves the justice system ripe for abuse — and that is something we simply cannot abide .
California AB 2571 prohibits the marketing of any hunting-related item that a court may find appealing to youth , including t-shirts , lowrecoil ammunition and firearms sized for small-statured shooters .
CA . GOV ( LEFT )
Flanked by California Assemblymembers Mike Gipson and Rebecca Bauer-Kahan , Gov . Newsom signed AB 2571 into law on June 30 .
FALL 2022 25