SF sues online gun suppliers, calls sale of ‘repair kits’ illegal

A variety of military-style semiautomatic rifles obtained during a buyback program are displayed at Los Angeles police headquarters. A variety of military-style semiautomatic rifles obtained during a buyback program are displayed at Los Angeles police headquarters. Photo: Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press Photo: Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press Image 1 of / 4 Caption Close SF sues online gun suppliers, calls sale of ‘repair kits’ illegal 1 / 4 Back to Gallery

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued five gun suppliers Thursday, alleging they broke a state law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines by selling them in pieces and falsely marketing them as “repair kits.”

The suit appears to be the opening of what could be a protracted legal fight over California gun-control measures, which are among the most restrictive in the country. The National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are expected to file a lawsuit next week challenging the laws.

Herrera’s lawsuit alleges that the repair kits are a blatant attempt to circumvent the state’s gun control laws — those already in effect and those that will take effect over the next couple of years.

“These kits are not individual magazine parts to replace, say, a worn-out spring or a cracked baseplate in a lawfully possessed magazine,” the lawsuit says. “Purchasers can readily assemble the parts into brand-new, fully functional large-capacity magazines.”

Filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges the companies specifically target their sales to California residents, “directly violating California’s ban on these kits” and “aiding and abetting the illegal purchase, importation and manufacture of these kits by California consumers.”

The defendants are Badger Mountain Supply of Washington state, 7.62 Precision of Alaska, Shooters Plus of Mississippi, LAK Supply of Wyoming and BuyMilsurp.com of Florida.

The companies, which are all privately owned, aren’t among the major gun suppliers in the United States. None of the companies could be reached for comment. Either their phone numbers didn’t work or the voice mail system was full. Emails to the companies went unanswered.

Large-capacity magazines, which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, allow shooters to fire many bullets without having to reload. They have been used in some of the biggest mass shootings in recent history: the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the 2015 Charleston, S.C., church shooting, the 2012 Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and the 2012 Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting.

California law has banned the sale of such magazines since 2000. In 2013, the state Legislature clarified that high-capacity magazines could not be sold in disassembled pieces. Herrera’s suit is based on those laws.

John Coté, spokesman for the city attorney, said the lawsuit was filed in anticipation of a state law that takes effect July 1 and bans people from possessing high-capacity magazines.

Owners of such magazines will be required to turn them in to police or store them out of state under Proposition 63, the November ballot initiative sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that passed with 63 percent of the vote. A prohibition on possession has existed in San Francisco since 2014.

“We’re being proactive,” Coté said. “Studies have shown in the past that when people anticipate new gun laws taking effect, there is an uptick in purchasing. We wanted to get out ahead of people buying these items, which are already illegal to purchase, and limit the supply making its way into our state.”

But Long Beach attorney C.D. Michel, who specializes in firearms laws and has challenged gun restrictions before, including in San Francisco, dismissed the lawsuit as a ploy to “harass businesses that sell accessories to law-abiding gun owners.”

“Most of these parts are interchangeable,” Michel said. “You could have a part for a perfectly innocent purpose that if you use it a different way it could covert a rifle into an assault weapon.”

Herrera “is assuming these guys selling these parts know some people are using them to assemble or reconfigure a magazine so it holds over 10 rounds,” he said. “And there is no way for him to know that — or for them to know that.”

The city attorney’s lawsuit alleges that the defendants made no secret of their efforts to circumvent state law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Badger Mountain Supply advertised that it would send the “rebuild kits” in two separate shipments, and that packaging them this way enabled customers to legally buy them in California. Shooters Plus instructs customers to identify what magazine they want, and then click on a box that shows how to covert it into a rebuild kit. LAK Supply’s website says “All hi cap magazine orders from ban states will automatically be converted” into kits. BuyMilsurp.com sells 30-round magazines advertised as “completely disassembled.”

Herrera asks the court to prohibit the companies from marketing or selling the repair kits or disassembled magazines in California and for the companies to state in any advertising that such kits cannot be legally purchased in California. He also asks the court to fine the companies $2,500 for every sale and advertisement of the repair kits.

Michel said his law firm planned to file lawsuits beginning next week on behalf of the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association seeking to overturn the aggressive gun control measures passed in 2016 by the state Legislature and voters through Prop. 63. First on that list: a Second Amendment constitutional challenge of the ban on possessing high-capacity magazines.

The lawsuit came down to one core issue, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange who has written extensively about gun control.

“Is there a right to be irresponsible or a right to help people break the law? My own view is that at the end of the day, the notion that you have the right to be irresponsible is going to be firmly rejected.”

Emily Green is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: egreen@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @emilytgreen