A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled last week that a California law authorizing the state’s attorney general to share information firearms purchases does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The case involved Assembly Bill 173, which permits the California Department of Justice to provide universities access to online databases of gun and ammunition purchasers.
“Plaintiffs here maintain that the relevant conduct is their ability to purchase firearms and ammunition and obtain CCWs. The Second Amendment appears to cover such conduct, but this is not conduct that AB 173 regulates,” wrote senior circuit judge Mary Schroeder.
The term “CCW” refers to a concealed carry permit.
Rob Bonta, the Golden State’s attorney general, lauded the ruling as a boon to the state’s efforts to cut gun violence.
“The information shared under AB 173 is pivotal: It enables groundbreaking research that supports informed policymaking aimed at reducing and preventing firearm violence and saving lives.” said Bonta.
Schroeder’s opinion rejected a claim that the statute “chills” the exercise of a constitutional right to possess a firearm. Plaintiffs argued that the law would open up gun buyers to harassment, which would make them less likely to obtain weapons.
“Plaintiffs’ fears of public exposure . . . appear to be speculative and lacking in empirical foundation,” wrote Schroeder. “AB 173 authorizes disclosure of biographical information only to accredited research institutions, and as the district court explained, research institutions are prohibited from publicly disseminating personal information.”
The panel also brushed aside a claim that the California statute amounts to an invasion of personal privacy and that it violates the Due Process Clause.
California has mandated collection of firearm purchase and ownership data by the attorney general since the 1950s.
Judges Patrick Bumatay, a Donald Trump appointee, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., joined Schroeder’s opinion.
The case is Doe v. Bonta, No. 23-55133.
About Author
