In the case of Nguyen v. Bonta, plaintiffs have been granted summary judgment in a federal challenge of California’s One-Gun-A-Month (OGM) purchase law. This is a major win for gun rights in California. Under current California law, even after passing multiple background checks, a California citizen may only purchase one firearm every 30 days. This violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, argued plaintiffs lead by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes agreed, granting plaintiffs summary judgement, which is essentially a case victory based on legal principles. However, Judge Hayes, stayed his decision for 30 days to allow defendants to appeal. The case will probably be appealed by California to the liberal-leaning 9th Circuit.
In his 24-page decision, Federal District Court Judge Hayes wrote, “Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”
“The state of California tried to justify the OGM law in part on the grounds that it is a lawful regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “However, there is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners”, said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”
SAF is joined by the North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. The case was filed in December 2020 and is known as Nguyen v. Bonta.
Share the post "Big Gun Rights Victory in California One-Gun-A-Month Challenge"
Image from Fox News. Click HERE for full story with video.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and four other officials on the grounds that the governor’s “emergency order’ prohibiting open and concealed carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Joining SAF are the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Zachary Fort, who resides in Bernalillo County. They are represented by Jordon George of Aragon Moss George Jenkins, LLP who has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The lawsuit and motion were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Along with Gov. Lujan Grisham, defendants include: Patrick Allen, Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Health; Jason Bowie, Cabinet Secretary for New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and W. Troy Weisler, chief of the New Mexico State Police. They are sued individually AND in their official capacities.
“Despite her claims to the contrary,” said SAF founder and Exec. V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb, “Gov. Grisham does not have the authority to ‘suspend’ the Second Amendment for an alleged public health emergency or any other reason. Neither do any of the other defendants, nor can they legally enforce such a suspension.”
“Evidently”, added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “Gov. Lujan Grisham believes she can disregard the constitution to further her own political views. We’re taking action to stop this unconstitutional exercise of power in its tracks, because it is a flagrant violation of the right of individual citizens to carry firearms in public for personal defense.”
“Our motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will prevent the state from further causing injury to the plaintiffs and other citizens under this unlawful order,” Kraut added.
Share the post "Gun Groups Sue NM Governor over Unconstitutional Firearms Ban"
The Governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee, recently signed radical new legislation, House Bill 1240, that outlaws AR-platform rifles and other semi-auto, mag-fed “modern sporting rifles” (MSRs). This new WA state law, which goes into effect immediately as an “emergency” measure, will be fought in Federal Court. Two lawsuits have been filed, both seeking to strike down HB 1240 as unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Washington, challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted HB 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, import, and distribution of many semi-automatic firearms. The lawsuit, named Hartford v. Ferguson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
In addition, NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) filed a lawsuit, Banta et al v. Ferguson, against Washington’s Attorney General Robert Ferguson and John Batiste, Chief of Washington State Patrol, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from state authorities enforcing HB 1240, which bans modern sporting rifles. The lead plaintiff is Amanda Banta, a 2012 Team USA Olympian and 10-year member of the U.S. Rifle Team and resident of Spokane, Washington.
GunsAmerica Digest reports: “HB 1240 is part of a broader gun reform package signed into law that includes a 10-day waiting period, mandatory firearms training for prospective gun buyers, and a new legal pathway for the Attorney General and family members of shooting victims to sue gun makers who market their products to prohibited persons. These additional provisions take effect this summer. HB 1240 has exemptions for law enforcement and members of the military. Existing owners of black rifles are also grandfathered in — at least for now.”
NSSF challenges Washington’s MSR ban, arguing that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today, more than there are Ford F-150s on America’s roads.
HB 1240 is very harsh. According to GunsAmerica Digest: “HB 1240 only allows 90 days for firearm dealers and manufacturers to sell or transfer their existing stock out of the state. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that violations will be considered a misdemeanor offense, which could result in a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail and a fine of $5,000.”
“NSSF will not stand idly by as politicians cleave away fundamental Constitutional rights from Americans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior V.P. and General Counsel. “The right to keep and bear arms that are commonly owned belongs to law-abiding citizens. Politicians in Washington exceed their authority when they usurp those rights to mollify radical special-interest groups. These politicians violate their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights of the citizens they represent.”
SAF claims the new law — which took effect immediately — infringes on Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights and is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions from the court.
SAF founder and Executive V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb criticized the state for putting politics above constitutional rights: “[Washington] has criminalized a common and important means of self-defense, the modern semiautomatic rifle. The state has put politics ahead of constitutional rights, and is penalizing law-abiding citizens while this legislation does nothing to arrest and prosecute criminals[.]”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called out the authors and supporters of the legislation: “As we note in our complaint, the firearms that Washington bans as ‘assault weapons’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic rifles. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic rifles, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use.”
Share the post "Washington State Bans Modern Sporting Rifles — Lawsuits Filed"
New York state’s cynical response to the landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen case, which affirmed a Constitutional right to carry firearms, was to defy that decision completely. New York’s politicians, lead by authoritarian N.Y. Governor Kathy Hochul, passed legislation (S51001) that put nearly all of the state “off-limits” to persons with carry permits. The goal was to render New York CCW permits essentially useless because CCW use was geographically forbidden throughout the state. Thankfully, Second Amendment advocacy organizations FPC and SAF have now challenged these new restrictions in New York state.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen*, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org. That new legislation, S51001, banned carry nearly everywhere, including public buildings, shopping centers, parking lots, train stations, parks, and countless other locations.
The FPC’s lawyers note: “Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens’ … are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets’.” The FPC’s motion to enjoin enforcement of the new law adds that: “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security “emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home’.”
“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. For more on FPC’s pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org
About the Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutionally protected rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC works through litigation, research, scholarly publications, legislative and regulatory action, and other programs.
* On September 28, 2022, the original first-named plaintiff, John Boron, has been voluntarily dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs Brett Christian, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation will continue in the case as plaintiffs. A motion to change the caption and short title of this action has been filed. If that goes through, the lawsuit may be re-titled “Christian et al v. Bruen”.
Share the post "Second Amendment Groups Challenge New York Carry Bans"
SAF, NRA File Appeal Brief in Federal Challenge of WA Gun Control Measure
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, two Washington state gun retailers and three private citizens have filed an appeal brief with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their challenge of gun control Initiative 1639 (I-1639), a measure adopted two years ago in the Evergreen State. This appeal in the case of Mitchell vs. Atkins seeks to overturn I-1639’s ban on semi-auto rifle ownership for Washington citizens 18-20 years of age.
The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.
The 45-page brief asserts that I-1639: “infringes the rights protected by the Second Amendment and enjoyed by law-abiding adults of all ages. The interstate sales ban violates the Interstate Commerce Clause”. A district court judge in Tacoma dismissed the case in August, and plaintiffs promptly filed notice of appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco.
The initiative prohibits young adults ages 18-20 from purchasing and owning so-called “semiautomatic assault rifles” — defined as literally ANY self-loading rifle, regardless of caliber. Tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles are in use today by law-abiding citizens of all ages for hunting, competition, predator and varmint control, recreational shooting and personal/home protection.
“We’re asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse a ruling by the lower federal district court, and remand this case back for further action”, said SAF founder/Executive V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb. “The constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens should never be subject to a popular vote, and we are hopeful the Appeals court agrees.”
Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Joel B. Ard and Spokane attorney David K. DeWolf. The case is known as Mitchell v. Atkins.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Share the post "SAF and NRA Challenge Washington Semi-Auto Gun Ban"
Despite the edicts of Democratic Party Governors shutting down gunshops and shooting ranges, the Second Amendment is still part of the U.S. Constitution. A successful lawsuit in Massachusetts demonstrated that. Hopefully the Governors of other states where gunshops were closed by executive order will take notice. In California, Marijuana dispensaries were declared “essential businesses” but not gun stores.
Injunction Granted against Massachusetts Governor’s Closure of Gun Stores
In response to the Coronavirus pandemic, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, by executive order, shut down all the gun stores in his state. Well it turns out Baker’s action violated the U.S. Constitution. A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has granted a preliminary injunction against Gov. Baker’s order shutting down gunshops in the state. The injunction was issued in McCarthy v. Baker*, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, and Commonwealth Second Amendment.
In ruling for the plaintiffs, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock declared: “We don’t surrender our Constitutional rights. These plaintiffs have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication, and it becomes necessary for a court to do that rather than the executive when the executive declines.” He added that the Governor’s lawyers did not show justification for the gun store closures: “I don’t have anything like a substantial fit between the goals of the emergency declared by the Commonwealth and the burdening of the Constitutional rights.”
Speaking from the bench during a virtual hearing, Judge Woodlock said, “There’s no justification here” for mandating the closure of gun shops. He specified that gun shops will be free to open at noon, Saturday, May 9. In allowing gun stores to open, the Judge did impose certain restrictions — gunshops should operate from 9 am to 9 pm, by appointment only, with maximum four appointments per hour. Social distancing must also be observed both inside and outside gun stores.
Plaintiffs argued that Gov. Baker’s emergency order eliminated “all lawful channels of access to constitutionally-protected arms and ammunition by mandating the closure of all businesses that sell firearms and ammunition to the consumer public. These actions amount to a ban on obtaining modern arms for personal defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb praised Judge Woodlock’s decision: “Constitutional rights are never put on hold because of an emergency, including the outbreak of a virus. Too many elected officials think otherwise, and we’re having to deal with them one lawsuit a time….”
Gottlieb explained: “When Governor Baker lumped gun shops in with thousands of other businesses deemed ‘non-essential’, he obviously didn’t consider the exercise of a fundamental right to be essential. We can think of nothing that is more essential than exercising a right protected by the Constitution, especially during a declared state of emergency.”
A Federal judge on Thursday ordered that gun shops across Massachusetts can reopen this weekend, ruling that Governor Charlie Baker’s decision to shutter them along with thousands of other “nonessential” businesses infringed on people’s Second Amendment rights.
The decision from US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock marked a rare rebuke of Baker and the broad emergency powers he’s wielded to fight the COVID-19 pandemic[.] — Boston Globe, 5/7/20
*In two lawsuits joined into the single case, Massachusetts citizens, gun shops and advocacy groups asked the court to force the state to let the shops resume sales. The cases are McCarthy et al. v. Baker et al., case number 1:20-cv-10701, and Cedrone LLC et al. v. Baker et al., case number 1:20-cv-40041, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Share the post "Gun Stores Can Open in Massachusetts Rules U.S. District Judge"
Story based on 3/28/20 report by Ammoland.com.
The Department of Homeland Security has declared firearms manufacturers and retailers “essential businesses”. This is very important because many states, including California and New York, have issued Executive Orders which have shuttered gun stores and halted the operations of FFLs. The DHS statement should, hopefully, lead to changes in state and regional emergency orders requiring gun shops to close.
Legal Actions to Counter Closures of Retail Gun Stores and FFLs
On Friday, 3/28/20, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined forces with the NRA, California Gun Rights Foundation and several others in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva. They are also alleged to be using the COVID-19 pandemic to close down gun stores.
Comment: In California, all the gun shops have closed, yet Marijuana Dispensaries and Vape Shops remain open as “essential businesses”. That shows you Gov. Newsom’s priorities — recreational drugs are good, while guns are bad. The California Governor is exploiting this crisis to harm the gun industry and put gunshop owners out of business. And in Washington state, Gov. Jay Inslee’s emergency order listed employees at marijuana shops, breweries and winemaking facilities as part of the essential workforce, but omitted firearm and ammunition retailers and distributors.
The same day (3/28/20) in North Carolina, SAF and FPC filed a federal lawsuit against Wake County Sheriff Gerald M. Baker for refusing to accept new applications for pistol purchase permits or concealed handgun permits until April 30, 2020, using the COVID-19 outbreak as justification.
Previously, the SAF filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s order shutting down firearms dealers. In Kashinsky v. Murphy, the SAF is joined by the New Jersey Second Amendment Society in alleging violation of “civil rights under color of law” by shutting down firearms dealerships, preventing citizens and businesses from exercising their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
This story is based on an article created by Dave Workman for Ammoland.com, which states: “Readers, please share this article with your state, local and federal representatives, police departments and sheriffs as well local firearms retailers to make them aware of the new guidance so we can get our local business back to work and fellow Americans the products they need to remain safe.“
Share the post "DHS States Gun-Makers and Retailers Are “Essential Businesses”"
Here are some gun-industry news highlights for the week. With the Coronovirus pandemic dominating the news, there have been some important developments. First, we are seeing a huge spike in ammo sales, along with significant growth in gun purchases. Second, groups are fighting State Executive Orders mandating closures of gun stores. Third, a number of gun accessory companies are gearing up to provide health-related products such as N95 masks and disinfectants.
Ammunition Sales Spike with Widespread Concerns Over Coronavirus Pandemic
The National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers (NASGW) SCOPE data platform reported a 168% spike in ammunition shipments for the week ending March 14. For all of 2020 so far, ammo shipments are up 21%.
Ammo Sales up 168% Nationwide
During the week ending March 14, distributors shipped close to $10,000,000 worth of ammunition, representing a 168% bump above the 3-year average for the same week. In some states, SCOPE DLX shows up to a 600% growth in ammunition shipments. Overall, ammunition shipments are up 21% year-to-date (YTD).
Gun Sales Rising Significantly
Concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic continue to drive firearms sales as well. According to Chris Means, NASGW Director and President of Tactical Gear Distributors, ammunition was the first category to spike but firearms have been following, with high demand for carry guns are ARs. Firearms shipments were up 13.74% compared to the 3-year average for March 8-14.
About the Data Tracker: NASGW SCOPE is an analytics platform for shooting sports manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. SCOPE DLX collects weekly shipment data from 20 leading distributors that represent demand from FFLs across the United States.
AR15s Are in High Demand Again — Sales are Rising
Gun Industry News — Coping with a Crisis
Legal Challenge to New Jersey Closure of Firearms Dealers
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s order shutting down firearms dealers in the Garden State. In Kashinsky v. Murphy, the SAF is joined by the New Jersey Second Amendment Society in alleging violation of “civil rights under color of law” by shutting down firearms dealerships, preventing citizens and businesses from exercising their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Federal Judge Judge Shipp has set Friday, April 3 as the deadline for the state’s opposition brief to the SAF’s suit. This important Second Amendment case could have ramifications across the nation.
New York Shutters Kimber Manufacturing Plant in Yonkers NY
In related news, the Kimber Plant in New York state has been closed in response to executive orders. Due to the New York state decision to shutter non-essential businesses as part of the COVID-19 response plan, Kimber Mfg. Inc. has stopped production at its New York facilities. Production continues at Kimber’s new, state-of-the-art Troy, Alabama manufacturing facility.
NOTE: In many other states, firearms and ammunition production facilities, along with retail gunstores, ARE recognized as “essential businesses” and therefore allowed to stay open. For a state-by-state run-down, read the NSSF Covid-19 Information and Resources for FFLs.
Radians Donates 14,000 N95 Masks to TN Hospitals
Radians, manufacturer of quality safety eyewear and hearing protection for shooters and hunters, donated over 14,000 N95 masks to medical facilities in Memphis, TN. Wisely, in 2018 Radians added the N95 respirator to its line of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Radians CEO, Mike Tutor, said the N95 mask donation “represents Radians’ corporate responsibility to help during challenging times. With a worldwide shortage of respirator masks, we knew this donation would quickly assist first responders and health care workers [during] the COVID-19 crisis. The respirators will also be of service at COVID-19 test sites.”
Otis Technology Joins the Fight Against COVID-19
Otis Technology has partnered with Saint Lawrence Spirits to make, bottle and distribute hand sanitizer to first responders in desperate need during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Otis Technology began using its facilities — normally used to manufacture firearms maintenance products — to immediately begin manufacturing personal protective equipment.
Share the post "Ammo Sales Spike… and Gun News in Pandemic Times"
Bad news for Washington State gun owners. The draconian gun-control initiative, I-1639, passed in this week’s election, with roughly 60% voter approval. Big changes are in store for the Evergreen State, starting January 1, 2019. According to Guns America, “I-1639 bans the sale of semiautomatic rifles to adults under the age of 21, creates a registry of gun owners, establishes a 10-day waiting period for certain purchases, holds gun owners liable for failing to secure firearms, and allows the state to charge a $25 fee on the sale of [broadly defined] ‘assault rifles'”.
The age restriction on gun purchases goes into effect January 1, 2019. The other provisions commence six months later, on July 1, 2019. Outdoor stores and gun-shops are getting ready for the new law, expecting confusion and some panic buying. “Now we’ve got a law that’s going to cause problems for us and it’s going to cause problems for consumers and the impact on crime is going to be zero. So there’s going to be a rush for people buying guns and beat the law to the punch but I think ultimately though it will have a negative effect for a while on gun sales” said Wade Gaughran of Wade’s Eastside Guns in King County, during an interview with KOMONews.
NRA and Second Amendment Foundation Will Challenge I-1639 in Court
Despite the election result, there is some hope. Gun rights groups plan to challenge I-1639 in court: “The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) will be jointly filing a court challenge to I-1639 and the chilling effect that it has on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb.
I-1639, over 30 pages in length, is far-reaching. This measure basically defines virtually ALL self-loading long guns as “assault rifles”. This would even include popular .22 LR rimfire rifles such as the Ruger 10/22, Marlin 60, and Remington 597. In addition, I-1639 imposes draconian gun storage requirements, imposes new taxes on gun ownership, creates a state-controlled gun registry, and mandates annual “verification” of gun owners. LEARN MORE HERE.
Alan Gottlieb explains that many negative aspects of I-1639 were not understood by voters. This initiative threatens privacy rights, and interferes with citizens’ ability to defend their homes. “Not only does the initiative discriminate against gun owners, it classifies common recreational firearms as ‘semiautomatic assault rifles’ and requires gun buyers to surrender their medical privacy in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected right.” I-1639 was pushed by the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, an extreme anti-gun advocacy group funded by billionaire dollars.
I-1639 was in fact so badly-drafted and extreme that even law enforcement organizations opposed this far-reaching anti-gun measure. In the weeks leading up to the election, the Washington State Sheriffs Association (WSSA), Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs (WACOPS), and Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) all opposed I-1639.
Share the post "Radical Anti-Gun Measure, I-1639, Wins in Washington State"
Last week, the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle and Mayor Jenny Durkan over adoption of a so-called “safe storage” requirement, alleging that it violates Washington State’s 35-year-old preemption statute, and is therefore unenforceable. Also named as defendants are the Seattle Police Department and Chief Carmen Best.
State law prohibits cities, towns and counties or other municipalities from adopting gun regulations that exceed state authority. The state legislature has sole authority to adopt gun laws including, but not limited to, registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms.
“The City of Seattle has been trying to erode state preemption almost from the moment [the preemption law] was passed back in 1985,” recalled SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the city tried to ban guns from city parks facilities under former mayors Greg Nickels and Mike McGinn, SAF and NRA joined forces with other organizations to stop it, under the state preemption statute. We should not have to repeatedly remind Seattle that [it is] still part of Washington State and must obey the law.”
More Liberal Nonsense From Seattle’s Politicians
“Seattle seems to think it should be treated differently than any other local government when it comes to firearm regulation,” Gottlieb observed. “State preemption was adopted more than three decades ago to assure uniformity of gun laws from Ilwaco to the Idaho border. Seattle simply can’t break the law to adopt an ordinance as a political statement.”
“We’re delighted to once again be working with the NRA to protect Washington state law and the rights of gun owners who live in the state’s largest city,” Gottlieb concluded. Joining SAF and NRA in the lawsuit are two Seattle residents, Omar Abdul Alim and Michael Thyng, both firearm owners.
Support the SAF: You can help protect the Second Amendment by supporting the Second Amendment Foundation with an $15 Annual Membership or other monetary donation.
Share the post "Second Amendment Foundation and NRA Sue City of Seattle"
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Xavier Becerra, seeking an injunction against the agency for failing and refusing to establish a properly functioning Internet-based firearms registration system.
Joining SAF in this legal action are the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and three private citizens. The lawsuit was filed in Shasta County Superior Court.
“We’re suing because California DOJ’s Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS) broke down during the deadline week for people to register their firearms in accordance with new state laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For a whole week the system was largely inaccessible. People who wanted to comply with the law simply couldn’t and now they face becoming criminals because they couldn’t do what the law requires.”
The lawsuit notes that during the week of June 25-30, which was the statutory registration deadline, the CFARS system was inaccessible and inoperable on a variety of web browsers across the state. Many users who were able to initially log in and begin the process could not finish because the system crashed, obliterating all of their work. The CFARS system was substantially underfunded and understaffed from its inception, Gottlieb noted.
“It’s like a bad version of ‘Catch-22’,” Gottlieb observed. “The government required registration by the deadline, but the online registration failed and people couldn’t register. They’re required to obey the law, but the system broke down, making it impossible to obey the law. Now these people face the possibility of being prosecuted. We simply cannot abide that kind of incompetence.”
“Attorney General Xavier Becerra seems to care about everything but the constitution, the rule of law, and law-abiding California gun owners,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “If Becerra spent as much time doing his job as he does talking about his pet crusades against the federal government, hundreds of thousands of Californians would not be in legal jeopardy right now.”
“Predictably the state of California wants to take guns away from the law abiding. In this instance they couldn’t even build a working system to respect gun owners’ rights,” explained CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. SAF and its partners want the court to prevent DOJ from enforcing the law to allow individual plaintiffs and other citizens in the same situation to register their legally-possessed firearms through a “reliable and functional registration system.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Share the post "Second Amendment Foundation Sues California State DOJ"
Federal Courthouse in Washington, DC. Photo by AgnosticPreachersKid under CC 3.0 license.
Story based on report by Second Amendment Foundation.
This week, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) won a precedent-setting victory against “good reason” requirements for concealed carry in our Nation’s capital when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of such a requirement in the District. This order was issued in the consolidated cases of Wrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia.
According to the ABA Journal: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the restriction violates the Second Amendment because it amounts to a total ban on the right to carry a gun for most residents.” The 2-1 decision, written by Judge Thomas Beall Griffith, stated:
“At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions… The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under (the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller ruling).” Griffith added, in no uncertain terms: “The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach.”
“Today’s ruling contains some powerful language that affirms what we have argued for many years, that requiring a so-called ‘good cause’ to exercise a constitutionally-protect right does not pass the legal smell test,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re particularly pleased that the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”
The court went on to state in its 31-page majority opinion that the District of Columbia’s “good cause” requirement was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents. Therefore, the net effect of the requirement amounted to nothing more than a complete prohibition in direct contradiction to the 2008 Heller decision that struck down the District of Columbia’s 30-year handgun ban.
After the decision was handed down, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb released a statement saying, “To read the majority opinion and not come away convinced that such ‘good reason’ or ‘good cause’ requirements are just clever ways to prevent honest citizens from exercising their rights is not possible. To say we are delighted with the ruling would be an understatement. We are simply more encouraged to keep fighting and winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” The Second Amendment Foundation invites donations to support future legal efforts to protect Second Amendment rights.
Share the post "Firearms Carry Right Recognized in District of Columbia Case"
Ammunition Sales Spike with Widespread Concerns Over Coronavirus Pandemic
“Today’s ruling contains some powerful language that affirms what we have argued for many years, that requiring a so-called ‘good cause’ to exercise a constitutionally-protect right does not pass the legal smell test,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re particularly pleased that the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”
