On Monday, four California gun dealers filed a federal lawsuit challenging a nearly century-old law that bans the display of handguns in store advertisements.

Under state law, it’s perfectly legal for a gun-control supporter to use images of handguns in a protest outside of a gun store. But if a gun store were to put the same sign in its store window, it would be a violation of state law.

States California Civil Code § 26820, which was first enacted in 1923:

“No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside.”

This isn’t a case of hypothetical free speech scenarios. Earlier this year, a Central Valley gun dealer was cited by the California Department of Justice for breaking the law by displaying a handgun in its window. Tracy Rifle and Pistol, the San Joaquin County firearm retailer that was cited by the Department of Justice in September, points out the obvious content-based speech restriction.

“I run one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,” said Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle and Pistol. “That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.”

Gun stores speak out

One Fresno gun dealer and plaintiff in the case, PRK Arms, told KMPH Fox 26 News’ Erika Cervantes that the lack of proper signage can be confusing for customers.

“We actually get quite a few calls throughout the week from people asking if we sell handguns,” Elijah Smedley, the store’s general manager, told KMPH. “If you look around, there’s plenty of them here. The product itself is not illegal in any way, so why should advertising be illegal?”

Smedley pointed out the obvious double standard.

“You can advertise for just about anything else that you sell,” he said. “There’s grow shops, there’s dirty magazine stores, there’s all kinds of things out there that you can advertise for the exact item you’re selling. Yet, for some reason, handguns are taboo.”

First Amendment scholars join case

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who is considered one of the country’s foremost experts on the First Amendment, has joined the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“The government generally may not ban advertising of lawful products — indeed, of constitutionally protected products — on the grounds that such advertising is offensive, or stimulates consumer interest in such products,” Volokh explained on his legal blog at the Washington Post.

In addition to a double standard for gun owners and gun control advocates, there’s a double standard for weapons. In California, it’s legal for gun dealers to display images of shotguns and rifles on their premises, but illegal to display an image of a handgun. The multiple content-based restriction has helped the gun dealers enlist other constitutional experts in the case, including top-notch attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay.

“The First Amendment prevents the government from telling businesses it disfavors that they can’t engage in truthful advertising,” said Bradley Benbrook, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “This case follows a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting such disfavored businesses from that type of censorship.”

A spokesman for Attorney General Kamala Harris, the lead defendant in the case, declined to comment about it to CalWatchdog.com.

State’s clever gun rights advocates target vulnerable laws

The lawsuit is only the latest effort in a series of savvy moves by the state’s leading Second Amendment advocates. Unable to slow the endless series of new gun-control bills proposed each legislative session, the California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees, Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation have turned to lawsuits and public-records request to overturn laws. And when the mainstream media ignore their achievements, CA-FFL shares its victories directly with its nearly 40,000 Facebook fans.

In August, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period on gun sales violated the Second Amendment rights of certain groups of gun owners. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

The group has also exploited the state’s public records law to obtain information about the uneven administration of conceal-carry permits. In 2011, Calguns Foundation believed then-San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey was failing to comply with California’s conceal-carry laws. Under state law, all agencies that have the authority to issue firearm permits must create and publish a written policy on the process. Thanks to a public records request, the group proved that the sheriff had selectively enforced the law and awarded permits to politically-connected applicants.

San Francisco wasn’t an isolated case, but a part of Calguns’ program to enforce compliance with the law. A similar 2010 request filed by Calguns with the Ventura County sheriff’s office was denied. Calguns was forced to file a lawsuit, which it won.

Whenever it can, California’s gun-rights advocates are looking to form broad-based political coalitions.

“Since we started our Carry License Initiative, Calguns Foundation has had the great pleasure of supporting and, where possible, collaborating with fantastic open government groups like the First Amendment Coalition and CalAware on matters relating to public records and meetings,” said Brandon Combs, one of the masterminds behind the effective political strategy.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed here.

The four measures, which include a ban on home-built firearms and the importation of firearms across state lines, would add more gun laws to the books of a state ranked by Guns & Ammo magazine as 46th of the 50 states in respecting the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

After being pressed for his position on four bills by the state’s leading grassroots Second Amendment group, the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Kashkari said on Twitter he “would veto them” if he was governor.

Kashkari: “I was having lunch. Chill dude”

Twitter user and gun-rights supporter Jay Medina first asked Kashkari for his position on the bills early Friday morning. By mid-day, that Tweet had been picked up CAL-FFL.

“Why is @NeelKashkari dodging @JayMedina’s simple question? Is that Kashkari’s definition of ‘leadership?’ Looks like typical wishy-washy politics to us,” the organization asked on Twitter and Facebook.

Kashkari replied, “@CALFFL @JayMedina because I was having lunch. Chill dude. Would veto them.”

Kashkari, who has previously clashed with gun supporters on Twitter, likely headed off a torrent of social media criticism with his quick reply.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees welcomes news

CAL-FFL President Brandon Combs, who criticized Kashkari earlier this year for his comments on guns, welcomed the announcement as “a change for the better.”

“Neel Kashkari’s views on Second Amendment civil rights has been a trying experience for us, to say the least,” Combs said. “However, we’re certainly encouraged by his new position and welcome the move towards embracing fundamental individual liberties.”

The organization, a member of the Firearms Policy Coalition, has called on its members to inundate the governor’s office with phone calls, emails, faxes and letters urging Brown to veto four measures:

• Senate Bill 808, authored by incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require all gun owners to “obtain a unique serial number or other mark from DOJ prior to making or assembling a firearm” and “within 10 days of making or assembling the firearm, to engrave or permanently affix the unique serial number or other mark to that firearm.” Gun rights advocates say that such a requirement would effectively ban the sale, transfer and inheritance of home-built firearms.
• SB199, also authored by de Leon, would require BB and airsoft guns to “have fluorescent coloration over the entire trigger guard” prior to sale.
• Assembly Bill 1014, authored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would create a new category of restraining orders for gun violence and allow what gun rights advocates describe as “firearm seizure warrants.”
• AB1609, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, would ban “a resident of this state from importing into this state, bringing into this state, or transporting into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident.”

Kashkari winning over Donnelly supporters

Kashkari’s recent statements in opposition to new gun control could help him win over skeptical gun owners, who overwhelmingly backed Tea Party Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, in the June primary.

In February, first-time candidate Kashkari committed his first — and arguably only — unforced gaffe of the gubernatorial campaign, when he offended California’s gun owners with an off-the-cuff remark at a College Republican meeting.

“If you’re a single issue voter, and you just want someone to give you a full capacity assault rifle magazine, God bless you, you can go vote for somebody else,” Kashkari told a group of Sacramento State College Republicans. “I’m not your guy.”

The comment inspired a wave of criticism on social media from the state’s most ardent gun-rights activists. CAL-FFL encouraged its 27,970 Facebook fans to, “Tell Neel Kashkari that he’s WRONG about the Second Amendment on Twitter if you disagree.”

That gaffe was compounded during a May gubernatorial debate with Donnelly on KFI AM 640’s The John and Ken Show. Kashkari attacked the Twin Peaks lawmaker for carrying legislation that would take power away from county sheriffs and adopt sweeping reforms to the state’s handgun carry license laws.

“You introduced a bill recently that takes power away from county sheriffs and puts our gun rights in the hands of Kamala Harris – why would you do that?” Kashkari asked Donnelly during their only gubernatorial debate.

The Donnelly-authored bill in question, AB1563, was sponsored by the CAL-FFL. It would have required the California Department of Justice to issue conceal-carry permits to law-abiding Californians. So Harris’ “hands” would have been limited to following the bill.

Afterword, Combs wrote in an open letter to Kashkari, “I encourage you to educate yourself on history. Get a book on civics. Read up on the Second Amendment and landmark cases like D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.” The cases struck down strict state and local restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun rights advocates appreciate that Kashkari has taken that advice to heart. Combs said, “Perhaps Mr. Kashkari took my advice after all.”