Tuesday, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a brief countering the federal government’s argument that, if FPC is successful in striking down the law, the court should enter an extremely narrow injunction that would deny millions of peaceable people their right to keep and bear arms.

Although summary judgment briefing had concluded in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF — FPC’s Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the federal ban on purchasing handguns outside a person’s state of residence — the organization sought leave of court to respond to the Trump DOJ strategy to avoid having to follow the Second Amendment and respect constitutional rights. FPC’s brief, however, shows how binding Supreme Court precedent would require relief to apply to all FPC members, not just the named individual and retailer plaintiffs in the case.

“Should Plaintiffs prevail on their motion for summary judgment, they are entitled to injunctive relief for the Individual Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition,” says FPC’s brief. That FPC has the right to sue and seek relief on behalf of its members “is not debatable,” the brief goes on. Indeed, FPC said, “The Supreme Court reaffirmed associational standing two years ago” in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. And while the government complained that compliance with an injunction against enforcement of the ban as to FPC members would be challenging, as FPC’s new brief explained, “the Government could comply with an injunction by, for example, directing FFLs to ask whether prospective non-resident purchasers are FPC members or declining to enforce the restriction across the board.” Read more

Fairfax, VA – Tuesday, the National Rifle Association filed a challenge against Florida’s unconstitutional waiting period law in federal court. Following the filing, John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, released the following statement:

“For nearly 35 years, law-abiding Floridians have had to endure unconstitutional laws that arbitrarily deny them access to legally purchased firearms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “Thanks to the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, illogical, nonsensical, and unconstitutional gun control laws like this are being thrown out in federal courts across the country. We are confident that our challenge today will be successful and serve as another critical step in rehabilitating Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.”

BACKGROUND:

• Florida established a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases in 1990 through a constitutional amendment, which was later expanded to apply to all firearms in 2018 as part of a broader gun control package.
• Waiting period laws have come under intense scrutiny by federal courts. This month, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s 7-Day Waiting Period is unconstitutional in the NRA’s challenge against the law.
• In March, a federal district court ruled that Maine’s waiting period law likely violates the Second Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law. This challenge is currently before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• These rulings are based on the landmark NRA-backed Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun control laws are unconstitutional unless they are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Yukutake v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s restrictive firearm purchase laws.

While the Plaintiffs prevailed before a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, the case is now being reheard en banc. SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center.

“Our brief contends that the Ninth Circuit’s practice of routinely granting en banc rehearing to overturn Second Amendment victories undermines public confidence in the judicial system,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “We also argue that the court should reverse its erroneous interest-balancing standard set in B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom, which improperly revives a test rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen. Hawaii’s laws clearly implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment, and without a historical basis, they cannot stand.” Read more

Federal District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a permanent injunction siding with FPC and blocking enforcement of California laws preventing FPC’s members who reside outside of California from acquiring a carry license (commonly called a “Carry Concealed Weapons” license, or “CCW”). The injunction follows the Court’s July decision that the law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The Court held a hearing to resolve a dispute over the form of the injunction. The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional conditions and qualifications. But the Court agreed with FPC, which asked the Court to enter a straightforward injunction simply blocking enforcement of the ban altogether.

“People do not lose their right to keep and bear arms when they visit California. With this injunction, they can finally protect themselves and their families while in the Golden State,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

The National Rifle Association, Gun Owners’ Action League, Pioneer Valley Arms, three NRA members, and another individual filed a complaint challenging Massachusetts’s ban on “assault-style” firearms. Following the filing, John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, issued the following statement:

“Radical gun grabbers in Massachusetts have run roughshod on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “These extreme and ill-conceived laws have created chaos in the Commonwealth, turning lawful gun owners into felons overnight. Today’s lawsuit filed by the NRA seeks to end arbitrary bans on commonly owned firearms and begin the process of restoring the constitutional rights of Bay Staters.”

BACKGROUND:

• • The case is named Hanlon v. Campbell, and the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Read more

FORT WORTH, Texas – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today warned of a new Trump Administration strategy to block enforcement of constitutional rights.

In its recent brief in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF — FPC’s Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the federal ban on purchasing handguns outside a person’s state of residence — the Department of Justice argued that, if FPC is successful in striking down the law, the court should enter an extremely narrow injunction that would leave the unconstitutional law in place for everyone except two individuals and one Texas firearms retailer, allowing them to continue denying millions of peaceable people their right to keep and bear arms.

“If the Court grants an injunction, that injunction should extend no further than to bar enforcement of any laws the Court deems unconstitutional against the named plaintiffs specifically identified in the complaint,” the Trump Administration argues in its brief. “Because the [FPC] has not identified any of its members other than the named plaintiffs, the government would have no way to know whom an injunction restricting enforcement of the challenged laws covers.” Read more

In response to the major Second Amendment victory in Ortega v. Grisham, the NRA lawsuit against New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period law, John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, released the following statement:

“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.” – John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners secured a major victory Thursday after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate overturning California’s “one-gun-per-month” restriction, setting a historic precedent.

In June, a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of SAF and its partners in Nguyen v. Bonta, SAF’s challenge to California’s one-gun-per-month gun rationing law. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.

“Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a new lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging the commonwealth’s process for non-residents to acquire a license to carry (LTC).

The process of acquiring and maintaining a Massachusetts non-resident permit is wrought with burden, cost and delay. The initial permit application process often takes six months or more and includes repeated mandatory in-person visits to the commonwealth, creating an unconstitutional barrier to an applicant’s right to carry for self-defense. To add insult to constitutional injury, Massachusetts non-resident permits are only good for one year (while in-state permits are good for 6 years), requiring permit holders to file their renewals every year mere months after having received their permit, as the renewal process is plagued by the very same unconstitutional delays and the challenged laws provide no grace period for expired permits that are pending renewal. This new lawsuit requests the courts to step in and hold the commonwealth accountable for their tactics of unconstitutional burden and delay, and for the singling out of non-residents for particularly harsh treatment.

“Thanks to the Massachusetts permitting regime, non-residents who travel to – or even through – the state for business or vacation must follow the extremely long permit process or risk arrest and prosecution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments clearly protect the right of ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens’ to carry handguns for self-defense, and the state is violating the constitutional rights of non-residents with such a burdensome process to receive and renew a license to carry.” Read more