California’s crackdown on ‘less-lethal’ weapons sparks 2A lawsuit targeting Newsom administration

Bryan Ganz is the founder of Byrna, the less-lethal self-defense weapons, which looks like handguns but shoot powerful chemical irritants rather than lethal bullets, designed to immobilize an attacker air intruder. The weapons are legal in all 50 states. But, in California, Ganz told the Globe that the state blocked sales of Byrna’s ammunition and launchers.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Why? We thought a less-lethal weapon (some say it’s non-lethal) would be a wildly popular option, and hailed by California’s Attorney General and law enforcement. The Byrna uses a pepper-gel projectile, like a pepper spray, rather than bullets.

But it’s complicated, the Gun Zone explains, thanks to California’s highly regulated gun control laws. “Because it doesn’t discharge a projectile ‘by means of an explosive,’ as defined by California Penal Code section 16520, it technically falls outside the strict definition of a firearm. However, this doesn’t automatically grant free rein. California law, particularly when dealing with weapons designed for defense, is highly regulated.”

And it’s further complicated by brazen gun control and anti-police politics.

In 2021, California passed Assembly Bill 48 by then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, which outlawed “the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.”

In 2021, with the well-funded George Floyd protests across the country, police  were confronted with violent riots and protesters, and forced to use crowd control measures. Assemblywoman Gonzalez claimed that her bill was in response to the unwarranted force used by law enforcement against protestors, journalists and others in the George Floyd protests. She objected to the injuries caused by rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, foam rounds, and other projectiles, the Globe reported in 2021.

The California Legislature claimed AB 48 only applied to law enforcement crowd control measures, yet they banned the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, which extended beyond law enforcement, as Byrna found out.

“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to challenge California’s ban on the possession and sale of pepper projectile launchers,” the lawsuit states (below). “Pepper projectile launchers are a commonly-used arm that many Americans choose as a non-lethal alternative to firearms. California doesn’t just deny its citizens this choice; it criminalizes the act of selling or possessing such an arm. This inexplicable ban violates the Second Amendment. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, a unanimous Supreme Court held that non-lethal stun guns are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016) (per curiam). The non-lethal arms at issue here are similarly protected.”

It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.

Bottom line: Byrna’s “pepper projectile launchers” are protected under the Second Amendment, according to their lawsuit, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

This is the newest Byrna, the CL for “Compact Launcher,” a “next-generation less-lethal self-defense tool designed for true concealability.”

Californians can use small cans of pepper spray (up to 2.5 oz), but not weapons that shoot tear gas or pepper ball projectiles, like the Byrna HD, a pepper ball launcher designed to incapacitate an aggressor temporarily.

The beauty of the Byrna, unlike firearms, is that it is not deadly, but will stop an intruder or aggressor in their tracks when the chemical irritant makes contact with their skin, gets in their eyes – most people reportedly drop to the ground, giving the victim time to get away.

“Upon contact, these projectiles rupture and release an irritant powder that temporarily incapacitates an aggressor. The impact force is comparable to a recreational paintball, and the irritant effect typically wears off within 30 minutes—thus the common characterization of pepper projectile launchers as non-lethal or less-lethal weapons,” the lawsuit explains.

The bans on Pepper Projectile Launchers “are patently unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare the Pepper Projectile Launcher Bans unconstitutional and enjoin their enforcement.”

According to Gantz, the Byrna is popular with consumers on the left and right, as well as non-gun owners. Two-thirds of their customers are gun owners, and the vast majority merely want to deescalate a dangerous situation or confrontation without lethal force.

California and New York are the only two states that prohibit residents from owning the launchers, Gantz said.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday released a report on the links between domestic violence and shootings, one day before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that could restrict the power of federal lawmakers to regulate gun possession nationwide.

At the heart of the Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that disarms people with certain domestic violence restraining orders. Bonta said the argument against the law is that people who’ve committed violence against family or their intimate partners should be allowed to access guns even after a judge has ruled that the victim survivors need court-ordered protections for their safety.

“These are people who have demonstrated a significant danger of abuse, of violence, who have a higher risk of perpetrating future violence, including mass shootings,” Bonta told reporters at a news conference Monday in Sacramento. “I can’t fathom how this is something we are debating.”

The data released by Bonta showed there were more than 670 total domestic violence gun homicides reported statewide between 2018 and 2022. The report’s figures also showed that during the coronavirus pandemic, the number of domestic violence calls involving firearms spiked dramatically while the number of domestic violence restraining order filings declined.

The case before the Supreme Court is the first among dozens of challenges to gun control laws to reach the justices since their decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Gov. That decision struck down a New York statute regulating concealed carry weapons, and experts then predicted new legal challenges to similar gun laws throughout the country including in California.

Bonta said domestic violence restraining orders have worked “as a common sense tool for safety” to reduce gun violence, and they must continue to be accessible to protect survivors and the rest of the community.

“This is not about encroaching gun rights,” Bonta said. “This is about protecting the rights, the liberty, the safety, the lives of people who are under serious threat. DVROs have been shown to increase survivor safety and prevent gun violence, including mass shootings.”

The 41-page report from Bonta’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention presents data on the impact of firearm-related domestic violence in California. The report’s data and findings included:

▪ From 1993 to 2019, California had a 63% drop in per capita rates of domestic violence-related calls for law enforcement help involving firearms, a 61% reduction in domestic violence-related gun homicides, a 67% reduction in female-victim gun homicide rates, and an 80% reduction in gun homicide rates for children aged 14 and under.

▪ From 2018 to 2022, California’s female-victim gun homicide rate was about half (46% below) the rate for the rest of the United States. For children 14 and younger, the state’s gun homicide rate was 57% below the rate for the rest of the country.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee