The NRA has scored a major legal victory, winning a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that New York State officials acted improperly in trying to influence multiple financial entities and insurance companies to halt their relationships with the NRA.

The Shooting Wire reports: “Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association’s free speech rights were violated when the top financial regulator for New York State pushed banks and insurance companies to sever ties with [the NRA]. The opinion wasn’t just unanimous, it was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not one of the ‘usual’ 2A supporters. But her opinion wasn’t about the mission of the NRA, it was about the organization’s ‘plausible allegation’ that the New York regulators violated the First Amendment.”

Justice Sotomayor wrote, “The critical takeaway, is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.” Sotomayer continued: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

The majority opinion did suggest that NY insurance regulatory officials were allowed to pursue violations of New York’s state insurance laws. However, the the First Amendment violation occurred when New York’s Insurance Commissioner acted “to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. Because the complaint plausibly alleges that Vuollo (the commissioner) did just that, the court holds that the NRA stated a First Amendment violation.”

With the oppressive Washington House Bill 1240 (HB 1240) being signed into law on 4/25/23 by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee, a legal action has been filed in Federal District Court (Eastern Washington) by several plaintiffs to combat this overreaching legislation. The case, Banta et al v. Ferguson seeks a temporary and permanent injunction based on the unconstitutionality of HB 1240. There is an additional action filed by the Second Amendment Foundation. That other lawsuit, named Hartford v. Ferguson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Full Lawsuit Complaint .PDF Version HERE »

Banta et al vs. Ferguson
The action contesting HB 1240 was filed in the Eastern District of Washington, U.S. District Court. Plaintiffs include Amanda Banta (2012 Olympian Sport Shooter), Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop, The Range LLC, Aero Precision LLC, and the NSSF. The complaint is filed against defendants Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State, and John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.

“We do not agree with this law and we do not think it is constitutional,” said Scott Dover, CEO of Aero Precision. Dover explained: “HB 1240 bans some of the most common firearms and parts available. It impacts the lawful ownership of products we manufacture and sell to thousands of our customers in the State of Washington. It also restricts the rights of the individuals, Aero Precision employees, who make these parts. We will fight this law in the courts and are confident in the outcome given the clear rulings in multiple Supreme Court cases, including Heller and Bruen.”

Banta et al vs Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State

Description: Aero Precision has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with several other plaintiffs to combat the overreaching semi-auto rifle ban legislation by the state of Washington.

About Aero Precision
Aero Precision is a firearms manufacturer based in Tacoma, Washington. Aero Precision has been in business in Washington since 1994, originally starting in the Aerospace industry. Today, Aero Precision is the largest firearms manufacturer in Washington, employing roughly 650 employees in Washington and over 200 in other states. Aero Precision manufacturers AR Parts and components, bolt-action rifles, suppressors and more.

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.

CLICK HERE to Read FPC/SAF Legal Argument for Injunction »

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”.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers has filed a major lawsuit in Federal Court, NSSF et al vs. Letitia James (N.Y. Atty. General). This action seeks to overturn New York States “public nuisance” law which targets gun makers for the criminal misuse/unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased. The plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction challenging the misguided New York statute as unconstitutional.

The NSSF brought this legal action to “uphold the foundations of tort law, fight government overreach, and protect the firearm businesses that lawfully operate and employ over 340,000 Americans.” Along with the NSSF, the other 14 plaintiffs include: Beretta USA, Central TX Gun Works, Davidson’s, Glock, Hornady Mfg., Lipsey’s, Osage Co. Guns, RSR Group, Shedhorn Sports, SIG Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Sports South, Sprague’s Sports, and Sturm Ruger & Company.

The challenged law, signed by disgraced Democratic Party Governor Andrew Cuomo, allows civil lawsuits by municipalities, such as the city of New York, as well as the State of New York, against the firearm industry for the criminal actions by non-associated third parties. The “public nuisance” statute also permits private lawsuits by persons who have been harmed or threatened by criminals using firearms. Both New York State and the City of New York were part of a wave of similar lawsuits filed over twenty years ago that led to Congress passing the bipartisan PLCAA in 2005.

New York’s “public nuisance” law subjects firearm industry companies to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state. The NSSF lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The NSSF states that “New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress.”

“This [NY public nuisance] law is not about making our communities safer but rather, as former Governor Andrew Cuomo once proclaimed, to impose on the firearm industry a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ [This] lawsuit will end this unconstitutional attack on the businesses, large and small, vital to Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “Opening up members of the firearm industry to a torrent of baseless civil lawsuits is – as it was in the past – an effort to impose radical gun control policies by litigating the forceful bankruptcy of companies.”

Product Manufacturers Are Not Liable for Criminal Misuse of Products
The PLCAA codified a bedrock legal principle. Manufacturers and retailers are not responsible for the subsequent criminal misuse or illegal possession of their lawfully sold, non-defective products by remote third parties – criminals – over whom they have no control. Firearm industry members are not legally responsible for illegal shootings any more than a cookware manufacturer is responsible if a criminal misuses a sharp kitchen knife to stab someone.

Legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Turley have long defended the merits of the PLCAA pointing out that laws like the one recently passed in New York are “unsound attempts” to distort principles of liability. New York’s law allows the very type of novel tort law actions, including those by New York State and City of New York, struck down by courts two decades ago.

The public nuisance law is just the latest threat to the gun industry coming from New York. In recent years, New York state officials have attempted to get banks to stop working with gun makers. And N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James has filed an action to dissolve the NRA.

A major Second Amendment case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). At issue are restrictive New York State gun control laws which make it virtually impossible to carry handguns in some New York cities. This case, officially New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, could be the most important gun rights case in the last decade. With its decision, the Supreme Court could establish once and for all that there is an individual right to self-defense outside of the home.

Dave Workman, posting on Ammoland.com, explains: “The case, which was accepted for review by the high court in the upcoming term that begins in October, challenges New York’s restrictive requirement that anyone applying for a permit to carry a handgun outside the home must provide a ‘proper cause’ for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection. This authority is all-too-often used to deny applicants their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment”. Along with the plaintiff New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. (NYSRPA), the restrictive laws are being challenged by the Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms (CCKRBA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

“A right limited to someone’s home… is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.” — Alan Gottlieb, SAF

In addition to ruling on the restrictive NY laws, this case will give the High Court the opportunity to clarify Second Amendment legal precedents. It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller. In 2010, the Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Case is Very Important for Second Amendment Rights
The NRA-ILA states: “It is hard to overstate how important this case is. The decision will affect the laws in many states that currently restrict carrying a firearm outside of the home. NRA-ILA is working hard to defend your constitutional rights and is prepared to argue this case in order to protect the rights of Americans everywhere.”

This could be the most important Second Amendment decision since D.C. v. Heller. The Supreme Court has not decided a major Second Amendment cast for over a decade. The make-up of the Court has changed, and this could result is a far-reaching decision that would impact multiple states.

Dave Workman explained: “It has been more than ten years since the Supreme Court hear a Second Amendment case. The court has declined to review several good gun rights cases, but that was before the SCOTUS majority shifted, with … three appointments by former President Donald Trump[.] If the court rules against New York, it will open the floodgates for similar challenges of laws in New Jersey, Maryland and … other states where citizens must provide a ‘good cause’ to exercise their constitutional rights.”

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb stated that “so-called ‘proper cause’ requirements are routinely used to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carrying firearms for personal protection outside their homes. Such laws are arbitrary in nature and they place an absurd level of authority in the hands of local officials and their subordinates to deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear NRA-backed case about New York state’s concealed carry laws.

Gottlieb added: “The Second Amendment should no longer be treated like the ugly stepchild of the Bill of Rights. Its language is clear, that the amendment protects not only the right of the individual citizen to keep arms, but to bear them, and that right extends beyond the confines of one’s home. A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”

Two national gun rights organizations — the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms — have filed amicus briefs in support of the NYSRPA’s challenge to New York’s ultra-restrictive carry laws. You can read the text of the briefs below. For easier reading, ZOOM IN via the PLUS SYMBOL below each entry, or click the FULL PAGE icon (ARROW symbol at extreme right).

Amicus Briefs Filed by CCKRBA and SAF (Click + to Zoom)

CCRKBA SCOTUS Amicus Brief by Duncan

SAF SCOTUS Amicus Brief by Duncan

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear an NRA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. This sets the stage for the Supreme Court to establish what most states already hold as true, that there is an individual right to self-defense outside of the home. This important case is officially New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

This case challenges the state of New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.

Speaking about the decision to “grant cert” and hear the case, NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet posted: “The [Supreme Court] rarely takes Second Amendment cases. Now it has decided to hear one of the most critical Second Amendment issues. We’re confident that the Court will tell New York and the other states that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves is fundamental, and doesn’t vanish when we leave our homes.”

According to the NRA-ILA, the number of concealed handgun permits reached 18.66 million in 2019 – a 304% increase since 2007. And many more have been issued in 2020.

In addition to ruling on this statute, this case will give the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify the precedent that it has created surrounding the Second Amendment. It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller. In 2010, the Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Case is Very Important for Second Amendment Rights
The NRA-ILA states: “It is hard to overstate how important this case is. The decision will affect the laws in many states that currently restrict carrying a firearm outside of the home. NRA-ILA is working hard to defend your constitutional rights and is prepared to argue this case in order to protect the rights of Americans everywhere.”

Related CNN Story: Supreme Court Accepts Second Amendment Case.

Visit www.NRAILA.org for future updates on this and all of ILA’s efforts to defend your constitutional rights. Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The election is now just one week away. This is not just about who will become President. With Supreme Court appointments at stake, this election could have significant, long-term consequences for gun owners’ rights under the Second Amendment. We may be at an historic juncture in our nation’s history. If control of the U.S. House and Senate changes, and if anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices are appointed, then things could change in very bad ways for the shooting sports. In the video below, National Shooting Sports Foundation President/CEO Steve Sanetti asks all gun owners to go to the polls armed with the facts. Exercise your right to vote. Remember, every vote counts.

Message from Steve Sanetti:

The lawful commerce in firearms and [your] rights … to enjoy the shooting sports are squarely at issue this year.

And this election is about far more than just the Presidential candidates. Control of both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all the important appointments and executive orders that the next President can make, are all at stake.

And your State and local elections can also affect your ability to enjoy your rights to manufacture, sell, own, and use firearms.

So please — don’t sit this one out. Your vote, and every vote, counts. Learn where all the candidates stand, talk to your family, your friends and your coworkers, and vote! This election is up to you, and America is counting on you!

With the Republican (GOP) Convention recently concluded in Cleveland, readers have asked: “What is the official Republican Party position on the Second Amendment and gun rights?” Here is the section of the Republican Platform concerning gun issues, quoted word for word:

Commentary by Dean Weingarten, Gun Watch
In an historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”. As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision [could be] applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:

“But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court [on 3/21/2016] vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation’s founding.”

Referring to its landmark 2008 D.C. v. Heller ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.

The unsigned opinion is very short[.] Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts.

There is strong language in this opinion. If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”.

The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections. This case will be cited far into the future.

The full, unanimous decision, along with Justice Alito’s lengthy concurrence, is found via this LINK:

14-10078 Caetano v. Massachusetts (PDF)

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

About Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Abramski was indicted and prosecuted for violating Federal laws against “straw purchases”, specifically making a false declaration on BATFE Form 4473, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Abramski challenged the indictment, but the District Court ruled against him and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision. However, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that there was a split of authority among the Circuits as to whether § 922(a)(6) applied in a case like this one, where the ultimate recipient of the firearm was lawfully entitled to buy a gun himself. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with previous decisions by the Fifth Circuit holding that “straw purchaser” laws are NOT violated if both the original purchaser and secondary buyer are legally entitled to own a firearm. See United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997).

The key issue is whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm. The government argues that Abramski broke the law when he checked a box on Form 4473 indicating he was the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm”.

Arguably, Abramski’s purchase and subsequent resale did not violate the intent of the law, since the Glock never ended up in the hands of a criminal (or someone who was otherwise barred from gun ownership). The John Floyd Law Firm explains this argument:

“Attorneys for Abramski sought to have the indictment dismissed on the legal premise that because Abramski and the uncle were both legally entitled to purchase a firearm, Abramski could not be a ‘straw purchaser.’ Attorneys further argued that Abramski’s ‘yes’ answer to question 11(a) on the 4473 that he was actual buyer of the Glock was never intended to be punished under the Gun Control Act of 1968 if the buyer had a legal right to purchase the weapon. The attorneys theorized that the intent of Congress in passing this Act was ‘to make it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them.’

Second Amendment proponents strongly believe there is nothing wrong with a nephew purchasing a weapon he is legally entitled to purchase with the specific intent to sell it to an uncle who is also legally entitled to purchase a weapon. The Fifth Circuit says such a purchase is legal because both parties are legally entitled to purchase and possess a firearm. The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits [and now the Fourth Circuit] say these legal entitlements do not matter.”

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will decide which interpretation of the law is correct.

CLICK LINKS Below to Read Briefs Filed in Abramski v. U.S.