There’s a new development in the Franklin Armory Title 1 lawsuit concerning the California Department of Justice. It seems the state has finally added an "other" option to their Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) system, a move that could potentially impact the ongoing legal battle. This update comes after Franklin Armory filed lawsuits challenging the state’s inability to process these types of firearms.

Key Takeaways

• The California DOJ has added an "other" field to its DROS system.
• Franklin Armory sued the state because this option was missing, preventing sales of their Title 1 firearm.
• Franklin Armory and its supporters argue this change is too late and designed to "moot" the lawsuit.
• California has also passed legislation (SB 118) that now classifies "others" like the Title 1 as "assault weapons."
• A registration period for these "other" firearms is now open.

The Franklin Armory Title 1 and the Lawsuit

Franklin Armory, a manufacturer based in Nevada, makes firearms that comply with California laws. They produce items like the CA7, CA9, and CA11, which are pistols listed on California’s handgun roster. They also created a firearm called the Title 1. This firearm was considered an "other" – meaning it didn’t fit California’s definition of an "assault weapon" or federal restrictions on rifles, pistols, or shotguns.

Because it wasn’t classified as a prohibited firearm, people in California should have been able to own it. However, the state wasn’t happy about this. They amended their laws, specifically Penal Code 30515, through SB 118, to include "others," like the Franklin Armory Title 1, as prohibited items. This was generally done by banning the possession of "other" firearms unless they were registered with the state.

The bigger issue for Franklin Armory was that they couldn’t actually sell the Title 1 to customers in California. When a firearm is sold through a dealer in California, it needs to be entered into the DROS system. Dealers have to select a specific category for the firearm, like rifle, pistol, shotgun, receiver, etc. The problem was, the DROS system didn’t have an "other" option. Even though the state was told to add this option, they didn’t.

This failure by the Department of Justice to provide the "other" option became the basis for two lawsuits filed by Franklin Armory against the state.

The State’s Response and the "Other" Option

Previously, the lawsuit survived a challenge from the state of California, meaning the case could move forward to trial. Now, there’s an update. Franklin Armory released a statement noting that the California Bureau of Firearms has modified the DROS system to include the "other" field. This change was made shortly after the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit argued that the DROS system’s inability to accept data for "other" firearms, combined with the DOJ’s refusal to offer alternative transfer methods, prevented non-prohibited citizens from lawfully acquiring these firearms. The suit also alleged that the DOJ intentionally delayed correcting the system and pursued legislation to ban these firearms.

However, Franklin Armory’s statement suggests this change might be too little, too late. They argue that the DOJ’s update doesn’t actually lift the ban on "other" firearms. The way the "other" option is restricted, they claim, makes its function "illusory" for the transfer of lawful firearms like the Title 1. They believe these actions only strengthen their case.

Is This a Tactic to End the Lawsuit?

It appears the state’s move to add the "other" option is an attempt to make the lawsuit moot. This tactic isn’t new. We’ve seen similar situations where states change laws after a lawsuit is filed, arguing that the case is no longer relevant. This happened in New York, and the Supreme Court agreed, allowing the case to be dismissed.

Adding to the complexity, California has already passed SB 118, which classifies "other" firearms like the Title 1 as "assault weapons." Furthermore, a registration period for these "other" firearms, now considered "assault weapons" by the state, began on October 1st and will run until the end of the year.

So, while the DROS system now has an "other" option, the state has already prohibited these firearms through legislation and is moving forward with a registration process. This makes the DOJ’s recent change seem like a hollow gesture, primarily aimed at getting the lawsuit thrown out.

This case is definitely one to watch, especially with the registration period now underway. It remains to be seen how this lawsuit will affect the registration process for "other" firearms in California.