Harris

Tracy Rifle & Pistol LLC v. Harris

Good Law
118 F. Supp. 3d 1182·2015 WL 4395025·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92711
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 16, 2015No. 2:14-cv-02626-TLN-DADCalifornia6,962 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nunley, J.

ORDER

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Tracy Rifle and Pistol LLC (“Tracy Rifle”), Michael Baryla, Ten Percent Firearms (“Ten Percent”), Wesley Morris, Sacramento Black Rifle, Inc., Robert Adams, PRK Arms, Inc., Jeffrey Mullen, Imbert & Smithers, Inc. (“Imbert & Smithers”), and Alex Rolsky’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants Ka-mala D. Harris and Stephen J. Lindley, acting in their official capacities, oppose the motion. (ECF No. 18.) The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised in the parties’ filings, and for the reasons discussed below, DENIES the motion for a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs — retail firearms dealers — argue that California Penal Code § 26820 violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore seek to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the section. Section 26820 provides: “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.”

Specifically, on September 12, 2014, the California Department of Justice Bureau…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.