No. 2 1 - 56039 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit RUSSELL FOUTS AND TAN MIGUEL TOLENTINO Plaintiff s - Appellant s , v. ROB BONTA , IN HIS O FFICIAL C APACITY AS THE A TTORNEY G ENERAL OF THE S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA , Defendant - Appellee Appeal from a Judgment of United States District Court For the Southern District of California Civ. No. 3: 19 - cv - 0 1662 - BEN - JLB United States District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez Ap p ellants ’ Opening Brief ALAN ALEXANDER BECK 2692 Harcourt Drive San Diego, California 92123 Telephone: (619) 905 - 9105 alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 4 28 Olive Branch , MS 38654 Telephone: (601) 852 - 3440 stephen@sdslaw.us Attorneys for Appellant s Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 1 of 68 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ ................................ ................... iii INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................ ................................ .......... 4 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR REVIEW ................................ ....................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................ ................................ .................. 5 I. California Law Bans the Ownership and Possession of Batons in the Home ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5 II. Procedural History ................................ ................................ ........................... 5 A. Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Challenge to California’s Baton Ban ........... 5 B. The District Court’s Grant of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Judgment ................................ ......... 6 1. Summary of the District Court’s Order ................................ ...... 6 2. The District Court’s Judgment ................................ .................... 6 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................ ................................ ........ 7 ARGUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 I. Legal Standard ................................ ................................ ............................... 10 II. California’s Ban on Batons Violates the Second Amendment ..................... 10 A. California’s Ban on Batons is Not Longstanding ............................... 10 B. Batons Are Not Dangerous and Unusual ................................ ............ 21 C. The Prohibition on Carrying Dangerous and Unusual Weapons Refers to Types of Conduct ................................ ................................ ............ 27 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 2 of 68 ii III. Applying the Appropriate Level of Scrutiny ................................ ................. 43 A. California’s Ban Is Categorically Invalid ................................ ........... 43 B. Strict Scrutiny Should Apply ................................ .............................. 44 C. Even if Intermediate Scrutiny Applies, California’s Ban is Unconstitutional ................................ ................................ .................. 46 D. There is not a Reasonabl e Fit Between the Ban and Public Safety .... 51 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................ ................................ ... 54 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................ ................................ ....... 55 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................ ................................ ................ 56 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 3 of 68 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Arizona Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett , 564 U.S. 721 (2011) ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 0 Avitabile v. Beach , 368 F. Supp. 3d (N.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................ ................................ .. 26, 2 7 Bannon v. U.S. , 156 U.S. 464 (1895) ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 1 Baron Snigge v. Shirton , 79 E.R. 173 (1607) ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 Binderup v. AG of United States , 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) ................................ ................................ .......... 1 8 , 19 Broussard v. Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley , 192 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Caetano v. Massachusetts , 577 U.S. 411 (2016) ................................ ................................ ......................... 8, 2 1 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 City of Akron v Rasdan , 663 NE2d 947 (Ohio Ct. App., 1995) ................................ ................................ .. 2 7 City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. , 535 U.S. 425 (2002) ................................ ................................ ................. 48, 49, 50 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 475 U.S. 41 (1986) ................................ ................................ ............................... 49 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 4 of 68 iv District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ................................ ................................ ..................... passim Duncan v. Becerra , 265 F. Supp. 3d (S.D. Cal. 2017) ................................ ................................ ......... 2 0 English v. State , 35 Tex. 473 (1871) ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 1 Fasset v. Smith , 23 N.Y. 257(1891) ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 1 Friedman v. City of Highland Park , 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................ ................................ ............... 1 5 Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale , 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................ ................................ ............... 1 3 Grace v. District of Columbia , 187 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016 ) ................................ ................................ ...... 49, 50 Griffin v. State , 47 A.3d 487, 2012 Del. LEXIS 319 (Del., June 18, 2012) ................................ 2 7 Heller v. District of Columbia , 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................ ................................ ..... 14 , 49 Heller v. District of Columbia , 801 F.3d 264 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Jackson v. City & Cty. of S.F ., 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ....... passim Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ .................. 4 5 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly , 533 U.S. 525 (2001) ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 8 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 5 of 68 v Maloney v. Singas , 351 F. Supp. 3d (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................ ................................ ........ 2 6 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n , 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) ................................ ................................ ......................... 5 0 McDonald v. City of Chi. , 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 5 , 4 8 Miller v. Bonta , No. 19 - cv - 1537 - BEN (JLB), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105640 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2021) ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 Miller v. Johnson , 515 U.S. 900 (1995) ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 3 Minority TV Project, Inc. v. FCC , 736 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................ ................................ ............. 5 3 N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Corlett , 209 L.Ed.2d 590 (U.S. 2021) ................................ ................................ ............... 1 0 NRA v. BATF , 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ ... 12, 14, 1 8 Neilson & Sarrazin v. Dickenson , 1 Des. 133 (1785) ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 5 New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo , 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................ ................................ ................ 2 3 O’Neill v. State , 16 Ala. 65 (1849) ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 0 Packingham v. North Carolina , 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 8 People v. Mercer , 42 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (1995) ................................ ................................ .......... 4 4 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 6 of 68 vi People v. Webb , 2019 IL 122951 ................................ ................................ .............................. 27 , 44 People v. Yanna , 824 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) ................................ .............................. 4 4 Powell v. McCormack , 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ................................ ................................ ............................. 15 Ramirez v. Commonwealth , 479 Mass. 331 , 94 N.E.3d 809 (2018) ................................ ................................ 4 4 Rex v. Dewhurst , 1 State Trials, New Series 529 (1820) ................................ ................................ 36 Rex v. Knight , 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (K.B. 1686) ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Rex v. Rowland Phillips , 98 E.R. (1385) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 Seminole Tribe v. Fla. , 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 3 Silvester v. Harris , 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................ ................................ ............... 4 6 Simpson v. State , 13 Tenn. Reports (5 Yerg.) 356 (1833) ................................ ......................... 41 , 42 State v. Blocker , 291 Ore. 255 (1981) ................................ ................................ ............................. 2 6 State v. Dawson , 272 N.C. 535 (1968) ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 State v. Deciccio , 315 Conn. 79 (2014) ................................ ................................ .......... 2 0 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 27 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 7 of 68 vii State v. Delgado , 692 P.2d 610 (1984) ................................ ................................ ............................. 2 7 State v. Griffin , 2011 Del Super LEXIS 193 (Del Super Ct, May 16, 2011) ................................ 27 State v. Herrmann , 873 N.W.2d 257 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015) ................................ ................................ 2 7 State v. Kessler , 289 Or. 359 (1980) ................................ ................................ ................... 1 7 , 2 5, 26 State v. Langford , 10 N.C. (3 Hawks) 381 (1824) ................................ ................................ ............ 4 1 State v. Lanier , 71 N.C. 288 (1874) ................................ ................................ .............................. 4 1 State v. Montalvo , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) ................................ ................................ ...................... 22 , 27 State v. Norris , 2 N.C. 429 (1796) ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 5 The King v. Oneby 92 E.R. 465 (Court of the King’s Bench 1727) ........................ 30 Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div. , 450 U.S. 707 (1981) ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 5 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 520 U.S. 180 (1997) ................................ ................................ ....................... 4 7 , 5 2 Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 837 F.3d 678 (6th Cir.) ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 United States v. Chovan , 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................ ................................ ....... 4 6, 47 United States v. Hare , 26 F. Cas. 148 (C.C.D. Md.1818) ................................ ................................ ........ 3 0 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 8 of 68 viii United States v. Henry , 688 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ ..... 8, 2 1 , 2 5 United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939) ................................ ................................ ....................... 2 0 , 24 U.S. v. Mitchel , 2 U.S. 348 (Pennsylvania circuit court 1795) ................................ ...................... 35 United States v. Skoien , 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) ................................ ................................ ............... 19 U.S. v. Vigol , 2 U.S. 346 (1795) ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting , 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................ ................................ ............... 4 7 Warder v. Arell , 2 Va. 282 (1796) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 5 Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 2017) ................................ ................................ ......... 11 , 49 Young v. Hawaii , 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................ ................................ ....... passim Yukutake v. Conners , No. 19 - 00578 JMS - RT, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153586 , __ F.Supp.3d __, 2021 WL 3625307 ( D. Haw. Aug. 16, 2021) ............ 13, 1 7 , 4 3 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 9 of 68 ix 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 28 U.S.C. § 1343 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 28 U.S.C. § 2202 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 Cal. Penal Code § 16590(m) ................................ ................................ .............. 2 , 4, 5 Cal. Penal Code § 18010(b) ................................ ................................ ................... 2, 5 Cal. Penal Code § 22210 ................................ ................................ ................ 1, 2, 4, 5 Cal. Penal Code § 22290 ................................ ................................ .................... 2, 4, 5 D.C. Code § 22 - 4514 ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 2 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11 - 47 - 2(a)(1) ................................ ................................ ............... 2 2 RULES Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) ................................ ................................ ... 17 4 William Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1769) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 36 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 10 of 68 x St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and the Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia 1803 ................................ ........... 30, 32, 33, 40 An Universal Etymological Dictionary (R. Ware, W. Innys and J. Richardson, J. Knapton (and twelve others)) (1675) ................................ ................................ ... 33 David Caplan, The Right of the Individual to Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend , DET. L. C. REV. 789 (1982) ................................ ............................. 36, 37 William Lawrence Clark , William Lawrence Marshal New York, Fred B Rothman & Co., A Treatise on the Law of Crime (1905) ................................ ... 12 COMMENT: SECOND AMENDMENT DECISION RULES, NON - LETHAL WEAPONS, AND SELF - DEFENSE, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 853 (Spring 2014) ...... 22 Timothy Cunningham, A new and complete law - dictionary 1789 ............. 28, 29 , 30 John A. Dunlap, THE NEW - YORK JUSTICE (1815) ................................ ........... 37 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, book 1, ch. 28, sec. 4. 40 ................................ ......... 42 Charles Humphreys, A COMPENDIUM OF THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN KENTUCKY (1822) ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 D. Kopel, ‘The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century,’ 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20 , 24 Robert Dowlut, The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? 36 OKLA. L.REV. 65 (1983) ................................ ...................... 12 Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment (2008) ......................... 17 O. Hogg, Clubs to Cannon 19 (1968) ................................ ................................ ...... 17 Giles Jacob, The law - dictionary 149 (P. Bryne 1811 first American from the second London edition) (1811) ................................ ................................ ............ 35 Joyce Lee Malcolm, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGINS OF AN ANGLO - AMERICAN RIGHT (1994) ................................ ................................ 37 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 11 of 68 xi National Shooting Sports Foundation , https://www.nssf.org/nssf - releases - firearms - production - figures/ ................................ ................................ ................ 22 William Oldnall Russell, A TREATISE ON CRIMES AND INDICTABLE MISDEMEANORS (1826) ................................ ................................ .................. 38 Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328) ................................ ................... 27 , 36 Symposium: The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms After D.C. v. Heller : Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self - Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 23 The Collegiate Law Dictionary (James John Lewis ed., The American Law Book Company 1925) ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 34 The Cyclopedia Law Dictionary (Walter a. Shumaker and George Foster Longsdorf, ed. Callaghan and Company 1922) (1901) ................................ 33, 34 TREATISE ON THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN (Leach ed., 6th ed. 1788) .......... 37 F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States (1852) .. 33 , 38, 39 James Wilson, WORKS OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES WILSON (Bird Wilson ed., 1804) ................................ ................................ ........................... 34, 37 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 12 of 68 1 INTRODUCTION Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino (“Plaintiffs” or “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgement to the Defendant Rob Bonta, in his Official Capacity as the Attorney General for the State of California (“California”) in their challenge to the State of California’s ban on the possession of bill ie s/ batons 1 Plaintiffs are both military veterans. Both have received training in the use of batons. Plaintiffs Fouts received training while working as a security guard. ER 06 9 And Plaintiff Tolentino received training while serving as a military police officer and through martial arts training. ER 06 6 Plaintiffs wish to purchase collapsible batons as well as any other batons typically issued to police officer. ER 0 6 6 , ER06 9 They wish to own them for self - defense and other lawful purposes in their home and would acquire, possess, carry and where appropriate use a baton/billy to protect themselves ER08 1 - ER08 2 Thus, they have raised both an as - applied challenge and a facial c hallenge to California 1 The offending statutes themselves refer to the items they prohibit as a “billy”. Throughout this brief, Plaintiffs refer to these arms as batons because it more accurately describes the weapons they wish to own. California agrees that the term billy and baton mean the same thing for purposes of this litigation. See ER 04 1 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 13 of 68 2 Penal Code § 22210 and all other relevant statutes which restrict the ownership of batons 2 See ER 08 3 (Prayer for Relief) California ’s baton ban was first enacted in 1917. ER 03 8 - ER0 40 The trial court erroneously found that it was bound by this Court’s precedent to find that California’s ban on batons is longstanding This Court’s precedent expressly finds that twentieth century laws are not longstanding. “ We are not inclined to review t wentieth - century developments in detail, in part because they may be less reliable as evidence of the original meaning of the American right to keep and bear arms. ” Young v. Hawaii , 992 F.3d 765, 811 (9th Cir. 2021) . Therefore, courts should look to see wh at restrictions were permissible in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified to determine what laws are longstanding. Even if it were permissible for the trial court to look to more recent laws, it was impermissible for the trial court to cite to bans on the carrying of batons and prohibition on their use in crime to justify a ban on the possession of batons in the home for self - defense T he lower court’s order can be reversed on those grounds alon e However, as this Court will likely address Pl aintiffs’ claims in full, it is important to note that the lower court o rder also contained several mistakes 2 California Penal Code section 16590(m) designates a billy as a “generally prohibited weapon.” A billy is also designated as a “nuisance,” subject to confiscation and summary destruction by law enforcement under California Penal Code section 18010(b) pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 22290. Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 14 of 68 3 regarding the record Notably, the trial court’s order suggests that Plaintiffs wish to own an older style billy weapon which is no longer in fashi on. The Court selectively quotes from Plaintiffs’ declarations to justify this position. (“I desire to purchase the same type of baton/billy that policemen are usually issued.”) The full quote in both declarations is “ I desire to purchase the same type o f baton/billy that policemen are usually issued and an expandable baton for self - defense and other lawful purposes for use in my home, business, while traveling between these locations and in all other lawful locations .” ER 06 6 , ER06 9 The State agrees that collapsible batons are prohibited under the challenged statutes. ER 04 8 - ER04 9 And California typically issues them as well as fixed batons to its police officers. ER 04 8 - ER04 9 The trial court’s order agrees that collapsible batons are typically issued to police officers but inexplicably ignored the evidenced provided to it by the State that fixed batons still are commonly issued as well. (“Nevertheless, while police no longer carry a billy on their equipment belt, preferring instead a collapsible metal baton [.]” ) ER 02 5 The trial court’s failure to grapple with the record before it may have contributed to its next error which is its statement made without any analysis that batons are “ dangerous and unusual ” weapons. ER 01 3 Neither modern collapsible batons or traditional batons/bill ie s are dangerous and unusual weapons pursuant to this Circuit’s precedent. And as shown below, the term as used in District of Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 15 of 68 4 Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , refers to prohibitions on particular manners of carry and does not concern the particula r type of “arm.” As will be fully argued below, batons are constitutionally protected arms. The arms Plaintiffs wish to own are currently typically used for lawful purposes. California’s ban on these arms is not longstanding. Therefore , its ban on in t he home possession is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Under any level of scrutiny, California can not justify a ban on an arm which is much less deadly than the handguns that the Supreme Court found could not be banned in Heller The trial court’s decision should be reversed. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The district court had jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988. This Court has jurisdiction over this appea l under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s final judgment was entered on September 22 , 202 1 See ER 037 The Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal on September 23 , 202 1 See ER 00 3 S ee also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR REVIEW 1. Does California’s restriction s on the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, or transportation in the State of any baton comport with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? See Cal. Penal Code §§ 22210 ; 16590(m) ; 22290 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 16 of 68 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. California Law Bans the Ownership and Possession of Batons in the Home California Penal Code § 22210 , in relevant part, prohibits the ownership of billies which are also known as batons. California Penal Code section 16590(m) designates a billy as a “generally prohibited weapon.” A billy is also designated a] “nuisance,” subject to confiscation and summary destruction by law enforcement under California Penal Code section 18010(b) pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 22290. These laws amount to a n unconstitutional infringement on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. They are challenged in this lawsuit. II. Procedural History A. Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Challenge to California’s Baton Ban Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on September 1, 2019. against Defendant - Appellee Xavier Bec erra , in h is Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of California 3 ER 071 - ER088 The Complaint asserted that California’s ban on batons violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights and sought an Order declaring Cal. Penal Code §§ 22210 and all other relevant statutes unconstitutional and violative of the Second Amendment as - 3 The Defendant was automatically substituted under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25(d) to the current Attorney General, Rob Bonta. Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 17 of 68 6 applied to them and facially ER 082 - ER083 The Complaint also sou ght injunctive relief via an Order, preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendant and all those in concert with Defendant, from enforcing the offending statute s as applied to them and the general public ER 083 B. The District Court’s Grant of Defenda nt’ s Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Judgment On August 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims ( ECF# 21). Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims on August 11 , 2020 ( ECF# 22 ) After briefing , but without oral argument, on September 22 , 202 1 , the district court issued an Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement and granting Defendant ’ s Motion fo r Summary Judgment ( ER008 - ER 036 ) and entered judgment in favor of Defendant ER 037 Summary of the District Court’s Order The district court upheld California’s ban on the possession of batons by holding that “ [u] nder controlling precedent precluding further analysis, because the 104 - year - old regulation is longstanding, it is therefore beyond the sweep of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendant ’ s cross motion for summary judgment is granted. ” ER 0 35 - ER036. The District Court’s Judgment The district court entered final judgment in favor of Defendant - Appellee on September 22, 2021 ER 037 Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 18 of 68 7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Plaintiffs wish to possess collapsible batons and other batons typically issued to law enforcement for purposes of lawful self - defense. The State of California bans their possession. This ban violates the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the possession of arms which are typically used for lawful purposes. B atons are bearable arms Heller creates a presumption that a bearable arm is used for lawful purposes. California has made no attempt to rebut that presumption. Nor could they because batons are commonly sold throughout the vast majority of the United States to both civilians and police. Therefore, the batons whic h Plaintiffs wish to obtain are constitutionally protected. California contends that the law at issue evades review because it is longstanding. That is because California’s baton ban began in 191 7 ER 038 - ER040 California believes that a law of this age f alls within Heller ’s longstanding language , and is thus, outside of the Second Amendment’s protection. This argument is a misapplication of the longstanding doctrine. The government may only prohibit carrying in “‘well - defined and narrowly limited’ category of prohibitions ‘that have been historicall y unprotected’” Jackson v. City & Cty. of S.F .,746 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2014). In this circuit, “[w] e are not inclined to review twentieth - century developments in detail, in part because they may be less reliable as evidence of the original meaning of t he American right to keep and bear arms. ” Young v. Hawaii , Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 19 of 68 8 992 F.3d 765, 811 (9th Cir. 2021) The original meaning of the American right to keep and bear arms is determine by the scope of the right as envisioned by the Framers at the time of Ratification o f the Second Amendment in 1791. “ “ [T] he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ” Caetano v. Massachusetts , 577 U.S. 411 (2016) . The trial court erred in relying on a string of state laws which ban the carrying of batons. First, these bans are too recent to be relevant. Second, even if the laws cited to were old enough to be relevant, they are not relevant because they are bans o n carry and not possession. Others deal with the criminalizing the use of batons while engaged in criminal acts , a nd have no relevance in analyzing a ban on possession for lawful self - defense. Thus, most of the laws which the trial court relied upon are in apposite. The trial court was only able to identify two other states with baton bans in the early twentieth century. Even if early twentieth century laws could demonstrate a longstanding regulation, three states demonstrate outlier s, not a constitutional r ule. California’s baton ban is not long standing. California also claims that batons are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are dangerous and unusual weapons. In this circuit , the only case to address the question is United States v. Henr y , 688 F.3d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 2012) which found machine guns are dangerous and unusual weapons. Unlike machine Case: 21-56039, 11/23/2021, ID: 12296196, DktEntry: 4, Page 20 of 68