Page 1
Ninth Circuit Revives Putative Class Action Over Concealed-Carry Gun Regulations
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Dismissing Lawsuit Alleging That Plaintiffs Suffered Unconstitutional Arrests Because They Were Foreclosed From Getting Permits
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
DOMINIC HUNN rapper |
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a putative class action against the City of Los Angeles by parties arrested for possessing secreted firearms who are asserting Second Amendment claims based on having been prevented from obtaining concealed-carry permits under a strict municipal policy—subsequently rescinded in light of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision—of only issuing licenses to judges and police officers.
In Monday’s memorandum decision, signed by Circuit Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and Danielle J. Forrest and Senior Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, the court declared that the plaintiffs Dominic Hunn, a rapper who performs under the name “Dom Kennedy,” and Jamar Hearns, both Los Angeles residents, adequately alleged that the unconstitutional policy “caused their arrests” and may pursue their Second Amendment claims.
Also suing was Tennessean Garry Matthews who, in addition to claiming a breach of his Second Amendment rights, asserted a Fourteenth Amendment violation based on an alleged impingement on the right to travel. The judges said his claims were properly dismissed as being time-barred.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case of Monell v. Department of Social Services, which extended civil liability for constitutional violations to municipalities. In May 2022, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the city, its police department, and the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners.
They contend that they were each a “law-abiding citizen” who suffered being jailed overnight for carrying concealed weapons in Los Angeles.
Under California law, individuals are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms on their persons or in vehicles without a permit. Los Angeles Municipal Code §55.01 provides:
“No person, except a peace officer shall wear or in any manner carry concealed upon his person, any loaded or unloaded gun…without having…actually in his possession…an unexpired permit so to do issued by the Board of Police Commissioners.”
At the time of the plaintiffs’ arrests, California law specified that a concealed carry weapon (“CCW”) license “may” be issued only upon proof that the applicant is of “good moral character” and upon a showing of “good cause.”
The rules allowed the local police agency to establish policies governing what constitutes “good cause.”
Allegations in Complaint
In the operative complaint, filed in September 2022, the plaintiffs asserted:
“The polices of the City, the [Board of Police Commissioners] and the [Los Angeles Police Department] establish the meaning of ‘good cause’ as a Catch 22…: you are free to carry a concealed handgun outside the home if you get a license from us, but, we will not give you a license; and if you carry a handgun outside the home or place of business without a license, we will arrest you, charge you with a crime, and detain you.
“The only persons who satisfy the Board’s definition of ‘good cause’ are people such as Judges and law enforcement officers.”
Following the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which held that concealed carry licensing schemes that require residents to demonstrate a special need for self-protection are unconstitutional, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 2, which replaced the “good cause” and “moral character” requirements with a shall-issue regime containing certain delineated disqualifications.
After the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), District Court Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha of the Central District of California granted the request in October 2023, saying:
“Here, Plaintiffs do not allege they ever applied for a CCW license, which was impermissibly denied….In essence, Plaintiffs argue that, because Defendants’ application of the ‘good cause’ requirement is now unconstitutional following Bruen, they were permitted to disregard California’s licensing requirement completely….Plaintiffs cite no authority to convince the court to read Supreme Court precedent so broadly.”
Concrete Injury
Addressing standing, the opinion says:
“Appellants have standing pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. They plausibly allege that they suffered a concrete injury when they were arrested and detained, that the cause of their injuries was Los Angeles’s licensing policy and its enforcement of state law, and that their injuries can be redressed through the requested relief.”
Rejecting an assertion that the fact that the plaintiffs never requested a CCW permit changed the analysis, they noted that “a plaintiff need not apply for a benefit before filing suit if doing so would be futile.”
Forrest agreed with that only in part, saying in a separate opinion:
“I concur in the court’s standing analysis only to the extent it holds that Appellants establish causation through the futility doctrine. I otherwise concur in the court’s analysis in full.”
Pre-Bruen Rules
The jurists commented that “because appellants were arrested prior to [the adoption of Senate Bill 2], we consider the then-existing, pre-Bruen rules in assessing their claims.” Applying that framework, they opined:
“The district court erred in dismissing the Second Amendment claims brought by Hunn and Hearns. Hunn and Hearns plausibly allege that when they were arrested, Los Angeles issued CCW licenses only to judges and law enforcement officers (referred to herein as a ‘no-issue’ policy). Under Bruen, Los Angeles’s no-issue policy is unconstitutional….The operative complaint plausibly alleges that Hunn and Hearns would have obtained CCW licenses if Los Angeles had a constitutional policy. If Hunn and Hearns had CCW licenses, they would not have been liable under the California criminal statutes which were the bases for their arrest.”
They continued:
“In other words, the complaint plausibly alleges that if Los Angeles had a constitutional shall-issue licensing regime, under which persons could obtain CCW licenses for the purpose of general self-defense, Hunn and Hearns would have had such licenses, and the officers would have lacked probable cause to arrest them. Accordingly, Hunn and Hearns adequately allege that Los Angeles’s no-issue policy caused their arrests.”
The case is Matthews v. City of Los Angeles, 23-3874.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company