21-56039 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUSSELL FOUTS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California No. 3:19-cv-01662-BEN-JLB The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, District Judge BRIEF R OB B ONTA Attorney General of California T HOMAS S. P ATTERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General M ARK R. B ECKINGTON Supervising Deputy Attorney General J OHN D. E CHEVERRIA Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 268843 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 510-3479 Fax: (415) 703-1234 Email: John.Echeverria@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California APPELLEE'S ANSWERING Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................... 4 Statement of the Issue .................................................................................... 5 Statement of the Case .................................................................................... 5 A. Historical and Legal Background ................................... 5 1. History of Billies and Police Batons .................... 7 2. -Year-Old Restrictions on Billies .................................................................. 15 3. Law-Enforcement Exceptions to ............................ 17 B. Procedural History ........................................................ 18 Summary of the Argument .......................................................................... 20 Standard of Review ...................................................................................... 24 Argument ..................................................................................................... 24 I. Conduct Protected by the Second Amendment ...................... 26 A. Billies Are Longstanding Regulations that Do Not Burden Protected Conduct ......................................................... 27 B. Billies Are Not Typically Possessed by Law- Abiding Citizens for Lawful Purposes ......................... 39 II. Assumed to Burden Conduct Protected by the Second Amendment, They Would Be Subject to, and Satisfy, Intermediate Scrutiny .............................................................. 47 A. Intermediate Scrutiny Would Apply Because Burden the Core Second Amendment Right ................ 48 California's 104 California's Billy Restrictions California's Restrictions on Billies Do Not Burden California's Restrictions on Even If California's Restrictions on Billies Were California's Billy Restrictions Do Not Severely Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 2 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page ii B. lies Withstand Intermediate Scrutiny.................................................... 52 1. Section 22210 Promotes Important Government Interests.......................................... 52 2. Important Public-Safety Interests....................... 55 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 59 Statement of Related Cases.......................................................................... 61 Certificate of Compliance California's Restrictions on Bil Section 22210 Reasonably Fits the State's .......................................................... 3 62 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 3 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page iii C ASES Binderup v. AG of United States 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 38 Brodheim v. Rowland 993 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................................... 41 City of Seattle v. Evans 184 Wash. 2d 856 (2015) ...........................................................................6 Commonwealth v. Lanzetti 97 Pa. Super. 126 (1929) ......................................................................... 32 District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).......................................................................... passim Duncan v. Bonta 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................... passim Feldman v. A 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 25 Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................ passim Heller v. District of Columbia 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)......................................................... 29, 38 Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 48, 51 John Doe No. 1 v. Reed 561 U.S. 186 (2010)................................................................................. 25 riz. Sec y of State's Office Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 4 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page iv Kanter v. Barr 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 33 Koon v. United States 518 U.S. 81 (1996)................................................................................... 39 Lawrence v. State 475 Md. 384 (2021) ................................................................................. 32 Mai v. United States 974 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................. 26 Mai v. United States 141 S. Ct. 2566 (2021) ............................................................................ 26 McCullen v. Coakley 573 U.S. 464 (2014)................................................................................. 36 Firearms & Explosives 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) ............................................................. 29, 36 Pena v. Lindley 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 28, 56 People v. Baugh 20 Cal. App. 5th 438 (2018) .............................................................. 16, 41 People v. Bell 49 Cal. 3d 502 (1989) .............................................................................. 15 People v. Brite 9 Cal. 2d 666 (1937) ................................................................................ 10 People v. Brown 227 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2014) .................................................................. 16 Nat'/ Rifle Ass 'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 5 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page v People v. Canales 12 Cal. App. 2d 215 (1936) ..................................................................... 16 People v. Davis 214 Cal. App. 4th 1322 (2013) ......................................................... passim People v. Fannin 91 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (2001) .................................................................. 11 People v. Grubb 63 Cal. 2d 614 (1965) ....................................................................... passim People v. King 38 Cal. 4th 617 (2006) ....................................................................... 15, 16 People v. Leffler 2018 WL 3974150 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2018) .................................. 7, 8, 9 People v. Liscotti 219 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (2013) ............................................................ 50 People v. Makovsky 3 Cal. 2d 366 (1935) ................................................................................ 11 People v. Mayberry 160 Cal. App. 4th 165 (2008) .....................................................................6 People v. Mercer 42 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (1995) .................................................................6 People v. Mulherin 140 Cal. App. 212 (1934) .............................................................. 7, 12, 16 People v. Ocasio 28 N.Y. 3d 178 (2016) ................................................................. 12, 31, 34 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 6 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page vi People v. Pendleton 79 Mich. 317 (1890) ................................................................................ 32 People v. Starks 130 N.E.3d 556 (2019) ...................................................................... 14, 35 People v. Williams 100 Cal. App. 149 (1929) ........................................................................ 11 Silvester v. Harris 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 29, 31, 48 State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner 180 W. Va. 457 (1988) ............................................................................ 32 State v. Blocker 291 Or. 255 (1981) .................................................................................. 45 State v. Brown 165 N.W. 520 (1917) ............................................................................... 32 State v. DeCiccio 315 Conn. 79 (2014) .................................................................... 44, 45, 46 State v. Kessler 289 Or. 359 (1980) ............................................................................ 45, 46 Taylor v. Kincheloe 920 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................... 42 Teter v. Connors 460 F. Supp. 3d 989 (D. Haw. 2020)....................................................... 51 United States v. Fairlamb 535 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2021)..................................................... 40, 54 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 7 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page vii United States v. Henry 688 F.3d (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 39 United States v. Phillips 827 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 28 United States v. Sabol 534 F. Supp. 3d 58 (D.D.C. 2021) .................................................... 39, 53 United States v. Skoien 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 28 United States v. Torres 991 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 47 Young v. Hawaii 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................ passim Yukutake v. Conners __ F. 3d __, 2021 WL 3625307 (D. Haw. Aug. 16, 2021)................ 36, 37 C ONSTITUTIONAL P ROVISIONS United States Constitution Second Amendment ......................................................................... passim Fourteenth Amendment ................................................................. 7, 19, 31 S TATUTES United States Code, Title 28 § 1291 .........................................................................................................4 California Business & Professions Code § 7585.9(a) ............................................................................................... 18 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 8 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page viii California Penal Code § 12020 .............................................................................................. 16, 41 § 16590(m)..................................................................................................5 § 22210 ............................................................................................. passim § 22215 .................................................................................................... 18 § 22290 .......................................................................................................5 § 22295 .................................................................................................... 18 § 22295(a) ................................................................................................ 17 § 22295(b) ................................................................................................ 18 § 22295(c) ................................................................................................ 18 § 22295(g) ................................................................................................ 18 Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-12-101(a)(5)..................................................................................... 34 § 18-12-102(2) ......................................................................................... 34 § 18-12-102(4) ......................................................................................... 34 7 Ric. 2, 35, ch. 13 (1383) ............................................................................ 33 33 Hen. 8, ch. 6, § 1 (1541) .......................................................................... 33 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1(a)(1), (2) (2021) ................................................ 35 1763-1775 New Jersey Laws 346 ................................................................. 33 1837 Alabama Laws 7, § 2 ........................................................................... 33 1882 W. Va. Acts, Chapter 135, § 7 ............................................................. 32 1891 Oklahoma Sess. Laws 495, art. 47, § 1 ................................................ 32 1925 Nevada Stats. 1925, ch. 47 (1925) ....................................................... 31 1971 Colorado Sess. Laws, Chapter 121 ...................................................... 30 Act No. 129, Pub. Laws 1887 ....................................................................... 32 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 9 of 73 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page ix Nevada Rev. Stat. 202.350(1)(a) .................................................................. 34 New York Penal Law § 265.01..................................................................... 34 New York Stats. 1909, ch. 93 (1909) .......................................................... 31 Pa. Act of 18th of March, 1875, Pub. L. 33.................................................. 32 Stats. 1917, ch. 145, § 1 ................................................................................ 15 Stats. 1923, ch. 339, § 1 ................................................................................ 16 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1)................................................................................... 34 § 39-17-1308(a)(7)................................................................................... 35 § 39-17-1308(a)(8)................................................................................... 35 Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 10 of 73 1 INTRODUCTION For over 100 years, California has prohibited the civilian possession of eapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, now codified at California Penal Code section 22210. Generally, a billy is a weighted club that is capable of being carried on the body and deployed as a less-than-lethal compliance tool or impact weapon. Billies began to appear in the United States around the mid- to late-1800s, about the same time that cities and counties began to form police departments, and billies were widely adopted as standard-issue police equipment. ER-22 23 (Order) (describing the growth of municipal police departments in the late 1800s and their adoption of the billy as ). At the same time, falling into the wrong hands, billies were increasingly used in crime and violence, gaining an early reputation as a weapon of the rogue or gangster. Throughout the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, numerous states, including California, responded to the criminal use of billies by enacting various laws limiting their possession and use to law enforcement and prohibiting the same for civilians. As a result, billies remained tools of law enforcement and never came into common use among law-abiding civilians. s on the civilian use and possession of billies has been in effect for 104 years. It applies to these law- "any instrument or w " part of the patrolman's standard equipment California's restriction Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 11 of 73 2 enforcement tools as they first appeared (e.g., straight wooden batons and leather models that have receded into history), as well as their modern equivalents, such as weighed expandable police batons composed of metal or composite materials. Plaintiffs, who wish to acquire and possess police batons prohibited under California Penal Code section 22210, challenge restrictions on billies under the Second Amendment. Their claims fail as a matter of law. California Penal Code section 22210 are constitutional at both steps of this -step framework for Second Amendment claims, which asks whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and, if so, whether it satisfies the applicable level of heightened scrutiny. At step one, section 22210 does not burden protected conduct because billies have been the subject of longstanding, accepted regulation since their appearance and adoption for law-enforcement use. California and several other states have restricted the possession of billies since the early twentieth century, and state laws restricting certain uses of billies can be traced back to 1866 (corresponding with the development of municipal police departments). This tradition of regulating billies is sufficient to show that the challenged law does not burden conduct protected by the Second California's 's restrictions on billies Court's two Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 12 of 73 3 Amendment as historically understood. U section 22210 thus qualifies as a longstanding regulation that should be upheld without further analysis. Young v. Hawaii , 992 F.3d 765, 783 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting Silvester v. Harris , 843 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2016)), cert. petition filed , No. 20-1639 (May 25, 2021). Section 22210 is also constitutional at step one because billies are not - a prerequisite for a weapon to enjoy Second Amendment protection. See Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale , 779 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2008)). The California Legislature elected to reserve billies for use by law enforcement, concerned that they were being used illicitly by criminals. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, billies have not been commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and there is no evidence that the modern police baton is in common use for lawful purposes today. To the contrary, billies, including police batons, are specialized compliance tools capable of causing significant injury, or even death, and are properly reserved for use by trained law-enforcement personnel. Even if the Court were to proceed to step two, section 22210 would be constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny would nder this Court's precedents, " " "typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes," Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 13 of 73 4 apply because the on billies do not impose a substantial burden on any core Second Amendment right. The law does not affect the range of weapons or everyday household items that may be lawfully possessed in the home and used for self-defense in lieu of a billy or baton from weapons protected by the Second Amendment (e.g., handguns) to blunt e.g., standard baseball bats). Under intermediate scrutiny, section 22210 -safety objectives by providing police with tools like batons to be used for a wide variety of law- enforcement tasks (e.g., effecting arrests and maintaining crowd control), while ensuring that these tools are reserved for use by law-enforcement officers and are kept out of the hands of criminals. summary judgment, upholding the constitutionality of section 22210, and this Court should affirm. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this timely appeal from the district and denying Plainti judgment in favor of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. State's restrictions objects that are not even "arms" under the Second Amendment ( reasonably fits the State's important public The district court properly granted the Attorney General's motion for court's order granting the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment ffs' motion for summary judgment, and entry of final Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 14 of 73 5 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE California restricts the civilian manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and possession of the compliance tool known as a billy, including the modern police baton. See Cal. Penal Code § 22210. Billies were adopted as a law-enforcement tool and have been subject to regulation since their appearance, dating back to at least the mid-nineteenth century. There is no evidence that billies are commonly possessed by civilians for lawful purposes. And important public-safety objectives by reserving billies, including police batons, for law-enforcement use and reducing their use in crime. comport with the Second Amendment? STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Historical and Legal Background With exceptions for law enforcement, California prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, keeping, selling, or possessing: any leaded cane, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy , blackjack, sandbag, sandclub, sap, or slungshot . . . . Cal. Penal Code § 22210 (emphasis added). id. § 16590(m), and a confiscation and summary destruction by law enforcement, id. § 22290. " " California's restrictions promote "generally prohibited weapon," Do California's restrictions on billies A "billy" is designated as a "nuisance" subject to Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 15 of 73 6 kind commonly known as a billy under section 22210. People v. Mercer , 42 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 6 (1995); SER-87 81-805) (1982)) at 2. 1 1 have People v. Grubb , 63 Cal. 2d 614, 621 (1965), superseded on other grounds by statute . An ordinarily harmless object will not qualify as a on of the object from People v. Davis , 214 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 1327 (2013) (a modified baseball bat with drilled holes and a leather wrist strap qualified as a billy); see, e.g. , People v. Mayberry , 160 Cal. App. 4th 165, 171 72 (2008) (a may rebut evidence that an ordinarily harmless object was a billy prohibited under section 22210 with evidence of Davis , 214 Cal. App. 4th at 1327. Plaintiffs do not challenge this particular interpretation of section 22210, as they do not seek to possess such improvised billies, and they do not assert that this interpretation of the statute would burden the Second being used as billies would not burden the Second Amendment because such See City of Seattle v. Evans , 184 Wash. 2d 856, 872 (2015) (a kitchen knife is not a protected arm under the Second Amendment). California's restrictions on billies apply to the civilian possession of a police baton, which qualifies as an "instrument or weapon of the " (65 Cal. Att'y Gen. 120 (1982) (Op. California Penal Code section 22210's restrictions on billies also been interpreted to apply to "ordinarily harmless objects," but only if "the circumstances of possession demonstrate an immediate atmosphere of danger." prohibited billy absent evidence that the defendant "would use the object for a dangerous, not harmless, purpose," based on a consideration of the time, place, and manner of possession, including any "alterati standard form." "standard workout glove containing a small amount of sand, even when used as a weapon," was not prohibited under section 22210). A defendant "innocent usage." Amendment. Section 22210's prohibition of"ordinarily harmless objects" objects are not "arms" subject to Second Amendment protection. Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 16 of 73 7 1. History of Billies and Police Batons A billy is historically understood to be a specialized club, capable of being carried on the person, and widely adopted by law enforcement as a compliance tool or impact weapon. Generally speaking, People v. Mulherin , 140 Cal. App. 212, 216 (1934); see also Mercer , 42 Cal. App. 4th Supp. at ; People v. Leffler , No. B283175, 2018 WL 3974150, at *2 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2018) (noting that a also ; ER-78 (Compl.) ¶ 35. The billy i.e., [law-enforcement] -4, and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, , later, the United States, see SER-4 8 t in 1829 and early use of billies). 2 The following image depicts a collection of 2 See also SER-26 48 (1967 Federal Bureau of Investigation Handbook on Technique and Use of the Police Baton); ER-21 (Order) " " the term "billy" referred to "a policeman's club." 5 ("Webster's New World Dictionary defines a 'billy' as 'a club or heavy stick; truncheon, esp. one carried by a policeman."' (citation omitted)) "billy" or "billy club" is known as "a policeman's truncheon") "police officer's club, mace, truncheon, nightstick, or baton"-"is as old as the profession itself," SER soon became "the signature tool of early police officers" in the United Kingdom and - (discussing the founding of London's first police departmen (noting that "when the fourteenth Amendment was ratified" in 1868, "the Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 17 of 73 8 from the U.K., showcasing their variety and unique attributes: SER-7 (depicting collection of nineteenth-century billies); see also id. at SER-8 (depicting collection of billies presented to NYPD officers). In the United States, some larger cities and some counties began forming police departments as early as the mid-1800s. ER-23 (Order) (discussing creation of police departments in Boston in 1839, New York City in 1845, and Los Angeles in 1889). In this country, the billy was originally adopted for law-enforcement purposes at approximately the same time as the growth of municipal police departments. See SER-4 billy was only beginning its arc of popularity with policemen as the decorated nineteenth century policeman's billies ("Billy establishment of municipal police departments began to spread"). Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 18 of 73 9 clubs were the first less-lethal weapon used by police officers to subdue criminals and maintain public order. billies were made of a variety of materials and varied in size and shape. They could be wooden as in the preceding images of police billies. See People v. Leffler , No. B283175, 2018 WL 3974150, at *2 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2018) (describing a as a heavy, usually wooden weapon for delivering blows; a short, stout stick used mainly by police officers to defend themselves when necessary, and which may also be known as a baton or truncheon (internal citations omitted)); ER-78 (Compl.) ¶ 35. Billies were also constructed with other materials, including leather, rattan, and lead shot, as illustrated in the following excerpt from a "). Police officers' "billy" " " Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 19 of 73 10 1910 hardware store catalog, advertising certain billies sold by the dozen as Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co., St. Louis, Catalog, at 2980 (1910) (advertising leather billies); 3 see also People v. Brite , 9 Cal. 2d 666, 681 3 This excerpt was obtained from the St. Louis Mercantile Library, University of Missouri-St. Louis. See also Robert Escobar, Saps, Blackjacks and Slungshots: A History of Forgotten Weapons (2018), at loc. 71 (ebook). "Police Goods": POLICE GOODS BEAN'S PATEN T FLEX I BLE POLICE CLUBS The Club is made of Sole L eathe r, cut to required F orm, and br ou ght togelhcr und er h eavy Pr essu re 0\·er Elastic Steel Spring \\ira. and Riveted, and covered wiLh the same M ater ia l, secu ring 8. pcrfoct Surface wiLl1out Break or Scam, an d v ery s li ghtly El ast ic; over this.to H andle, a Cover is n eatly Br aided . A Swivel is secured in the end, thr oug h which the Strap is passed. It is NcatandOrnamcntal ,haua in the Hand, and a Firmer Grip can be had u po n it th a n on any \V ooclen Club. It cann ot be broke n, and will last a Li fetime. It has lxtt t ested , a nd is End orsed as a t once the most Effective and Humane Club in use. Adopted by many ProQlinent Police Depanmc otut Abroad . Every Club Fully Warr anted. Diameter ]J:J inches, All L engths No B4--L ength 8 inches; \Veight 9 ozs . . . ... '' .......... ' ... ........... ...... IUt No. B5-L cogth 10 inches; ~ 'eigh t 10 ozs.... ......•. .. .....•. No. 88 -Length 12 inc hes; \V cig ht 12 ozs.... .. ... .... .......... . • . . No. B7-Leo gtb 14 inches; \Veig ht 14 ozs.... . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . .......... .• •.. .. , ...... ......... ..... ......... llt · · ········ ................. ... 15. II ···· · ···•• • ·• .. .. , ..... ...... I.II Loose Good Quality Cowhide ; Shot Load ed; Lin en Sewed; 9 inch Cowhide Sling Per Dozen J No. 1 -Length 8½ in.; Russet Color; Weight per Doz. 7 lbs . ..... $ !1 .80 No. 2-L ength 9½ in.; Black Color; Weight per Doz.8/lllio ... No. 3 -So lid Lead Ball; Russet Cowhide L eat her, Covered; St iff No. Per D oze n I Rattan Hand le ; Co\ ·ercd wi t h Braided L eat he r; 8 in. Cow- Solid Lead Ball; Ru sset Braided Co• •hideLeathcr, C Flexible Braided L eat her Ha ndle; 71) in. Ray,•hiie Le ngth of Billie 9½ in.; Weight per D oz. 5½ lbs ....... hide Sljng; Length 0£ Billie 8 in.; \Veight per D oz: 3½ lbs .. $18.00 Loose No. 5- Solid Lead Ba ll ; Braided Russet Sheepski n, Covered: Ff eC: - Dozen I ible Rattan Handle; Braided L eather Covered; 7 J1 in. hecpsk1 n ling ; Len gt h or Rillie 7½ in .; \\ "eig ht per Dozen 3½ l bs. . . .. .. .. .. $!1.8 0 No. 6---Solid Lead Ball; Braided Black Sheepskin, Co,~"'1; ible R atta n Handle; Braided Black Lin en Thre ad , C 8½ in. Braided Linen Cord Sling ; Length of Bill~ 7!, Weight per Dozen 5¾ lbs ... ....................... H al £ Dozen in a Box Case: 21-56039, 01/24/2022, ID: 12349663, DktEntry: 15, Page 20 of 73