Last Friday, February 23, 2024, Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a permanent injunction against California’s ban on the possession of “Billy clubs.” On Monday, February 26, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The AG will no doubt quickly file a motion for a stay of the injunction during the appeal. Statistically, the AG’s motion will be granted, and so by the time you read this, it very well may be that possession of a Billy club will again be punishable as a felony.
Judge Benitez held that the “Billy” club component of California Penal Code section 22210 violates the Second Amendment.
A problem with the law, which gives the Court of Appeals an opportunity to sidestep the Second Amendment question, can be found in the very first paragraph of Judge Benitez’s decision, “The law does not define a “billy.””
Suppose the Court of Appeals does not want to affirm the judgment of the district court based on the Second Amendment but also does not want to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to file a Second Amendment petition for a writ of certiorari. In that case, the Court of Appeals can hold that the term “Billy” is unconstitutionally vague, a Fourteenth Amendment violation, and then not decide the Second Amendment question.
Holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Billy clubs would allow the legislature to define the term and reenact the ban.
But this is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Its judges don’t even pretend to respect the Second Amendment and that includes the small minority of judges many people think are supporters of the Second Amendment. Unless the United States Supreme Court starts to grant Second Amendment cert petitions hand over fist, the Court of Appeals will issue a decision on the Second Amendment question.
Given that the definition of “Billy” is undefined, it is best to limit one’s possession to the most narrow, traditional usage of the term, a wooden “police” billy club.
One could argue that the definition includes modern, metal police batons but Judge Benitez did not enjoin the other prohibited weapons from the statute such as leaded canes. You might argue that metal police batons are not leaded canes but you would be making that argument in criminal court before a hostile California trial court judge, if you can afford it, and your appeal would be decided by hostile California Court of Appeals judges who would be all too eager to hold that a metal baton isn’t a “Billy” it is a “leaded cane.”
Welcome to California.
Take particular note of this from Judge Benitez’s decision:
"The term ("Billy") remains vague today and may encompass a metal baton, a little league bat, a wooden table leg, or a broken golf club shaft, all of which are weapons that could be used for self-defense but are less lethal than a firearm.May encompass is not the same thing as does encompass so leave your baseball bats, table legs, etc., at home unless you want to play an expensive, and costly in more ways than one, game of “Spin the Bottle” with the California criminal justice system.
Here is a link to the district court docket on CourtListener which contains the decision and many other free downloads.
