Calif. Residents Demand End of Stay-At-Home Orders

Two California citizens have filed a stay-at-home order lawsuit against the Governor of California Gavin Newsom and other government officers for criminalizing the engagement of all “non-essential” activities, including the ability to protest for an indefinite period of time. 

Plaintiffs Ron Givens and Christine Bish say that Governor Newsom’s executive stay-at-home order will not allow them to protest about the defendants’ handling of the coronavirus pandemic in addition to other issues.

Givens says he would like to protest California’s failure to process background checks for those who would like to purchase firearms, which effectively denies citizens their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Do you feel your rights have been violated due to the coronavirus pandemic? Get legal help here.

Bish claims that she would like to protest the extent of the state’s stay-at-home orders as they are overbroad as well as factually and legally unwarranted.

The plaintiffs say that they want to hold their protests on the state capitol grounds in a safe and socially-distant manner which would be staffed by volunteers, but that their rights are being denied by strict stay-at-home orders.

Givens and Bish state that the defendants are depriving them of the ability to hold these protests and are violating their fundamental rights which are protected by the United States and California Constitutions.

They claim that the defendants are barring them to the right of assembly, the right to petition the government, and due process under the law.

The plaintiffs state that Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order does not provide exceptions for demonstrations, protests, or other First Amendment protected activities.

“Meanwhile, the list deems the continuity of services provided by coffee baristas, restaurant workers, and laundromat technicians to be so necessary for society that these activities are permitted to continue under the State Order, despite the existence of the very same risk Defendants rely on to stymie the exercise of fundamental rights,” the California stay-at-home protest lawsuit states.

In addition, the California Highway Patrol, another defendant in this case, has denied applications made by the plaintiffs to use the California State Capitol grounds for demonstrations, rallies, and protests, the plaintiffs claim.

Givens maintains that he would like to hold a protest on state grounds to publicly denounce the delaying of background checks for gun purchasers by the California Department of Justice under the facade of a public health emergency.

Givens says he is an employee of The Sacramento Gun Club and that, during the coronavirus pandemic, many gun owners have purchased firearms from his business.

He states that many of the firearm purchases were motivated by the heightened need for safety during the pandemic.

The plaintiff claims that he has not contracted the coronavirus and he presently does not have any symptoms associated with COVID-19.

However, the plaintiff states that the California Department of Justice has failed to conduct background checks within 10 days and that they are blaming the delay on the COVID-19 outbreak.

Givens says that he would like to protest this injustice and argues that all protesters will abide by the Centers for Disease Control guidelines related to social distancing and wearing of face masks.

“By banning protests generally, and denying Givens’ permit specifically, Defendants have deprived Givens of the opportunity for airing his grievances against the government, including the State’s failure to conduct timely background checks for those wishing to purchase a gun and restrictions on speech activities,” the stay-at-home lawsuit proclaims.

According to an article in the Sacramento Bee, Newsom has stated that any decisions on whether gun stores should remain open during the coronavirus pandemic are a matter of local sheriff officials.

Bish claims that she is seeking election to the United States House of Representatives. She says that she applied with the California Highway Patrol to hold a rally in front of the state capitol to encourage the state to lift its coronavirus-related restrictions as well as to raise awareness about civil rights issues in relation to the stay-at-home orders.

Bish alleges that she was denied the ability to hold the rally due the state and county order and the inability to ensure proper social distancing which would keep demonstrators safe.

“By denying Plaintiffs the ability to conduct political demonstrations and rallies while maintaining space in a manner that complies with the CDC guidelines for social distancing, Defendants are in violation of the Freedom of Assembly Clause,” the stay-at-home lawsuit notes.

An article in the Los Angeles Times notes that Governor Newsom’s administration has previously announced that there are six key goals that need to be met before the stay-at-home restrictions are changed.

These goals include the ability to closely monitor cases, the ability make sure that social distancing measures are taken, and the ability to prevent infection of high risk individuals.

The plaintiffs are represented by D. Gill Sperlein of the Law Office of D. Gill Sperlein and Harmeet K. Dhillon, Mark P. Meuser, and Gregory R. Michael of the Dhillon Law Group, Inc.

The California Protest Lawsuit is Ron Givens, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00852, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Join a Free Coronavirus Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you believe your rights were violated in a way that is directly related to the coronavirus pandemic, you may qualify to join this coronavirus class action lawsuit investigation. 

Join Here

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Oklahoma Voters Call for Less Restrictions During COVID-19

Georgia Car Dealership Accused of Violating TCPA with Spam Text Messages

Amazon Class Action Says Consumers Don’t Actually Own Purchased Videos

H&M Settles Wage and Hour Class Action for $3.8M