From the "you can't make this sh*t up" file:

California Bans 2nd Amendment Clothing for Minors…

Newsom signed AB 2571 which prohibits 2nd Amendment advertising to minors. Written in the bill, specifically, is the inclusion of apparel and merchandise by brands.

[Nor can any firearm part have any symbol or image that could "reasonably be expected to be attractive to minors". Our "reasonably" or theirs? After all, we "reasonably" expect that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means we can exercise that right by bearing arms outside the home for self-defense... them, "no you can't".]

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-assembly-bill-2571-firearms-advertising-to-minors/2230763/

Isn't the ban a 1st A violation?  Or do those under 18 have no rights under the Bill of Rights?

From the "you can't make this sh*t up" file:

California Bans 2nd Amendment Clothing for Minors…

Newsom signed AB 2571 which prohibits 2nd Amendment advertising to minors. Written in the bill, specifically, is the inclusion of apparel and merchandise by brands.

[Nor can any firearm part have any symbol or image that could "reasonably be expected to be attractive to minors". Our "reasonably" or theirs? After all, we "reasonably" expect that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means we can exercise that right by bearing arms outside the home for self-defense... them, "no you can't".]

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-assembly-bill-2571-firearms-advertising-to-minors/2230763/

Agree that this law is vague.  And what it does is it puts the "reasonableness" in the hands of the ones who have the power.  Which is Newsome and his goons.

How they interpret this law might not be how another person(s) see it.  The law is structured so that nobody or no entity will attempt to even try to promote, sell, or distribute anything related to the 2nd Amendment.  The ramifications are so severe it's not worth it.

Just like how Kalifornia implemented a CCW program that is so restrictive that it's almost impossible for a law abiding CCW holder to stay within the stated "laws".

The recent Bruen decision by SCOTUS and the subsequent decision by SCOTUS to hand down the Young vs. Hawaii lawsuit back to the 9th Circuit for review has polarized the nation more on how to handle the 2nd Amendment.

Blue States are utilizing more restrictions, mandates, and training to comply with the decision while the Red States are using the decision to break down restrictive and un-necessary obstacles already implemented in earlier years.

The Blue States like California and (I suspect eventually Hawaii) are blatantly defying the SCOTUS decision by adding more restrictions, mandates, and training.

edited to add:  Apologies for getting off-subject.

I guess that means tv commercials like this would be banned...

no more promoting anything dangerous to kids

Guess it’s all Gadsden flag t-shirts for all the minors now.

Federal court rules students’ pro-gun shirts
are protected by First Amendment

Officials in two Wisconsin school districts came up with a novel way around the Tinker
precedent: redefine what counts as “speech.”

A federal judge swatted down this move in a consolidated case brought by students
whose gun-themed clothing was banned on school grounds. Officials claimed the
clothing “fail[ed] to convey a particularized message,” so it wasn’t constitutionally protected.

“Not only did Plaintiffs intend to convey a clear message in wearing their shirts, it
also seems clear that school authorities understood the message Plaintiffs were
intending to convey, at least to the extent their message included an appreciation
for the right to own firearms,” U.S. District Judge William Griesbach wrote in a short
ruling earlier this month.

The two schools may yet be able to prove they were “justified in prohibiting Plaintiffs
from conveying their messages in the manner and place chosen by them,” he concluded.
But they are wrong that “the shirts lack constitutional protection” as a threshold matter.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/federal-court-rules-students-pro-gun-shirts-are-protected-by-first-amendment/

This was a FEDERAL JUDGE ruling that students wearing pro-gun attire is protected speech.  Any lawsuit in CA should prevail given this federal precedent.

Isn't the ban a 1st A violation?  Or do those under 18 have no rights under the Bill of Rights?

You do not think Calif liberals give a shiite , do you?

They have been ignoring the Constitution for decades.

This was a FEDERAL JUDGE ruing that students wearing pro-gun attire is protected speech.  Any lawsuit in CA should prevail given this federal precedent.

Yup. 2 lawsuits and 10 years later it will be remanded back to District.
9th Circuit.

Oh, and cheap shot on the grammar/proof reading police. (For those of you who have been here a while and catch that.)
Was the FEDERAL JUDGE ruing that students wear pro- 2A T-shirts ? Did he rue the day ? I didn’t read the decision.
maybe he was against his own feelings and actually followed the law. That would actually be refreshing.

For those who haven’t been here that long, the Flappster used to do this petty shi+ to members he disagreed with often. Hope I don’t derail the thread like he used to.
I haven’t railed on Flapp for a while, and his only reply will be I’m a troll. One hit wonder.
But I couldn’t resist.

Isn't the ban a 1st A violation?  Or do those under 18 have no rights under the Bill of Rights?

Look at it from the other side, those who are doing the advertising are over 18. Would be diff if a 15 year old was advertising 2a stuff to other under 18 year olds.

In my UH law class, there was a case study on a crime being video taped by a minor. The tape was thrown out because the filmer was under 18.  I forgot what state or the exact crime that was committed. I don't even remember the ruling. Just the part about being under 18.

It’s the first rule of grooming kids to be sex slaves. Don’t let them know about self defense!

Look at it from the other side, those who are doing the advertising are over 18. Would be diff if a 15 year old was advertising 2a stuff to other under 18 year olds.

In my UH law class, there was a case study on a crime being video taped by a minor. The tape was thrown out because the filmer was under 18.  I forgot what state or the exact crime that was committed. I don't even remember the ruling. Just the part about being under 18.

Virtually every single thing advertised to anyone under 18 is advertised by people 18 and over. Is California going to ban ALL such advertising? Of course not. They are selectively criminalizing advertising related to an actual fundamental individual right enumerated in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. I'd guess there isn't a single (okay, maybe a few) under 18s in management of any company advertising anything to under 18s.

In 1969, the Supreme Court decided in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District that students (minors) “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The expression in this case consisted of black armbands
that protested the Vietnam War. Still, the courts held that school officials could suppress speech
(and expression) if it happened to "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of
the school. Armbands? They’re just armbands. Even if I were extremely bothered by one, there’s
nothing I can do about the student wearing it.

https://www.quora.com/Do-minors-have-constitutional-rights-Like-free-speech-or-right-of-assembly?share=1

It's unreasonable to argue that a shirt or hat that implies or states support for the Second Amendment can ""materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. The faculty trying to rid the classroom of these messages is more of a disruption to the classroom -- the reaction to the message.

I doubt the same response would occur if the shirt were about the good things Islam brings to the world.

The law doesn't make sense, but there are versions of camo bans in some nations (e.g., Philippines) and even the Boy Scouts of America.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/20/debunking-myths-wearing-camouflage-scouting/

Outside of the BSA, how does a father take his son on a coyote hunting trip where the minor cannot wear a camouflage top? Why are divisive shirts supporting BLM or Antifa allowed in public? Don't they incite violence?

https://www.quora.com/Do-minors-have-constitutional-rights-Like-free-speech-or-right-of-assembly?share=1

It's unreasonable to argue that a shirt or hat that implies or states support for the Second Amendment can ""materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. The faculty trying to rid the classroom of these messages is more of a disruption to the classroom -- the reaction to the message.

I doubt the same response would occur if the shirt were about the good things Islam brings to the world.

Alan Beck won a 1a case about something similar in a CA school. I forgot the details.

The law doesn't make sense, but there are versions of camo bans in some nations (e.g., Philippines) and even the Boy Scouts of America.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/20/debunking-myths-wearing-camouflage-scouting/

Outside of the BSA, how does a father take his son on a coyote hunting trip where the minor cannot wear a camouflage top? Why are divisive shirts supporting BLM or Antifa allowed in public? Don't they incite violence?

Don't go hunting in the PI? 

Email from SAF today:

SAF, ALLIES FILE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN CA LAWSUIT

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in a federal lawsuit challenging a ban on communication, advertising and marketing of products and information to young, current and potential shooters, have filed an emergency motion [https://saf.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8160861866a7acfae2e3ebee&id=3ff31cef1b&e=acb2c5789f] for a writ of mandamus in the case. The motion was filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

They are challenging the law, adopted by passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any “firearm industry members” to “advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” They are asking for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law.

SAF is joined by Junior Sports Magazines Inc., Raymond Brown, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Inc., Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, The CRPA Foundation and Gun Owners of California. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel of Long Beach, Calif., and Don Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho.

According to the motion, “Relief is needed no later than August 26, 2022. If the Court requires more time to consider this petition, however, effective relief could be had if the district court either (1) agrees to hear Petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction on a day not usually reserved for law and motion, or (2) elects to decide the matter without hearing on the parties’ papers already on file.”

The motion notes that if relief isn’t granted within the requested time, “Petitioners will suffer ongoing and irreparable harm—i.e., the loss of their fundamental First and Fourteenth Amendment rights—until the district court elects to hear and rule on Petitioners’ pending motion for preliminary injunction.” 

“The clock is ticking,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and we’re really running out of time. This law amounts to a restraint on our rights of speech, press and the ability to participate in lawful activities related to the Second Amendment, as well as the First Amendment. Rights delayed are rights denied.”