B & L Productions, Inc., a gun show operator, challenged California statutes that prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on state-owned property, including the Del Mar and Orange County Fairgrounds. The state laws, specifically AB 893, SB 264, and SB 915, do not ban gun shows entirely or prevent vendors from advertising firearms. Instead, they prohibit the act of contracting for the sale of firearms on state property, meaning vendors and attendees cannot formally agree to a purchase while physically present at the fairgrounds. B & L argued these laws effectively shut down gun shows by removing the commercial anchor of firearm sales, violating the First Amendment by suppressing pro-gun speech and the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The district court dismissed the claims in one case and granted a preliminary injunction in another, leading to this consolidated appeal.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed the First Amendment and Second Amendment claims separately. Regarding the First Amendment, the court determined that the statutes regulate the specific conduct of accepting an offer to sell firearms, which is the act that formally consummates a binding contract. The court cited precedent establishing that consummating a business transaction is nonexpressive conduct, distinct from the expressive elements of speech. Because the statutes do not prohibit offers to sell or the expressive activities that occur at gun shows, such as lectures and discussions, they do not directly regulate protected speech. Furthermore, the court found that the laws do not have the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity, as they apply to all vendors regardless of whether they engage in speech. The court rejected arguments that the economic impact on gun shows constituted a First Amendment violation, noting that incidental burdens on speech resulting from regulations on nonexpressive conduct are permissible. On the Second Amendment, the court applied the plain text test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court held that the Second Amendment's text protects the right to keep and bear arms but does not explicitly cover the commercial act of contracting for sales on state property. The court relied on its prior decision in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, which held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to have a gun store in a particular location unless access is meaningfully constrained. The court found that B & L essentially conceded that the statutes do not meaningfully constrain an individual's ability to keep and bear arms, as attendees can still view offers, leave the premises, and complete purchases through other licensed dealers or online channels. The court concluded that eliminating one specific venue for sales does not impair the core right to acquire firearms.
The decision affirms the validity of California statutes prohibiting firearm sales on state property, allowing the state to continue enforcing these bans at fairgrounds and other state-owned venues. The vacatur of the preliminary injunction means the restrictions are now fully in effect while the underlying litigation concludes. The ruling clarifies that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to conduct commercial firearm sales at specific locations unless those restrictions meaningfully constrain an individual's overall ability to acquire firearms. It leaves open the question of whether a ban on all sales in a region would constitute a meaningful constraint, but confirms that location-specific bans on state property do not.