Category: Gun Control

SAF, CCRKBA Ask SCOTUS to Review Maryland Semi-Auto Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have once again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in their continuing challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF and CCRKBA are joined in this petition by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders, LLC, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is titled. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh. The Supreme Court in late June 2022 granted certiorari in the case, and vacated the earlier ruling by a lower federal court and then remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit for further action based on guidelines established in the 2022 Bruen ruling.

Since being remanded, the case was fully briefed and argued before a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit. Inexplicably, over a year after argument was held and with no panel opinion issued, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte elected to hear the case en banc, further delaying the exercise of a fundamental right and seemingly to prevent publication of an opinion that favors the plaintiffs. Seeking certiorari before judgment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of imperative public importance.

“It is clear to us this case must be decided by the Supreme Court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The type of modern semiautomatic rifle banned in Maryland is in common use across the country, and is the most popular rifle in America. Yet, the Fourth Circuit and other courts of appeals have strained credulity to uphold such bans in the wake of the high court’s ruling in Bruen. This issue must be resolved.” Read more

Gun Control

CCRKBA Submits Amicus Brief in Cal. Gun Show Ban Case

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the federal lawsuit filed against California’s effort to ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds, and more broadly, state-owned property.

CCRKBA is joined by the Independence Institute. They are represented by attorneys David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Joseph G.S. Greenlee at Greenlee Law in McCall, Idaho. The case is known as B&L Productions v. Gavin Newsom. A lower court granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, and CCRKBA and the Independence Institute are asking that the Ninth Circuit affirm the lower court ruling. Read more

Gun Control

GOA, GOF File Lawsuit on Behalf of Newsmax’s Carl Higbie and Other Plaintiff’s Seeking NY Concealed Carry Permits

Washington, D.C. — Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, challenging the state’s blanket ban on out-of-state residents being able to obtain a concealed carry permit or to have New York honor out-of-state permits.

GOA and GOF are representing several individual plaintiffs who reside in neighboring states and hold their own state’s license to carry concealed weapons. TV Host and Second Amendment Advocate Carl Higbie is one of the individual plaintiffs. Read more

Gun Control

CCRKBA to Maryland: ‘Stop Blaming Gun Owners, Dealers for Crime’

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said Maryland gun owners have every right to oppose new gun control legislation, Senate Bill 488, being pushed as the new solution to violent crime, because all it does is penalize the wrong people.

“The claims by proponents of the Gun Industry Accountability Act, including Gov. Wes Moore, that this legislation will prevent criminals from committing crimes border on the preposterous,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Also, the notion that creating a Center for Firearm Violence Prevention will do anything besides build another bureaucracy is, at best, wishful thinking.” Read more

Gun Control

Judge Grants Prelim Injunction, TRO In SAF Public Housing Gun Ban Case

A federal judge in New York has granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, N.Y. The case is known as Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority.

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby handed down the 29-page decision, which enjoins the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys “from, taking any action to enforce, or otherwise require any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in the ‘Tenant’s Obligations’” in the standard lease agreement pending final resolution of the case.

SAF is joined by three public housing residents, Elmer Irwin, Doug Merrin and Robert Hunter, the latter for whom them case is named.

“This is not the first time SAF has litigated a public housing case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “which have all been about the same thing, a Second Amendment violation. We have won cases in Illinois and Tennessee, and by now, it would seem that public housing authorities should have gotten the message that constitutional rights do not end at the front door. We will continue pursuing such cases as they come to our attention because people do not give up their rights simply because they live in subsidized housing.” Read more

Gun Control

NSSF Filed an Amicus Brief in Support of the Challenge by Michael Cargill in Garland v. Cargill

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the challenge by Michael Cargill in Garland v. Cargill. Cargill challenges that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority when officials there published a Final Rule that criminalized the possession of “bump stocks” by classifying them as “machineguns.”

“No matter what their intent is, ATF does not have the authority to supersede Congress by writing their own criminal law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “Drafting criminal law through the rule-making process has become a dangerous habit of the Executive Branch that threatens the separation of powers and threatens to relegate the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as secondary to the whims of bureaucratic authorities. This dangerous precedent must be challenged or we risk surrendering our rights to the administrative state.” Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

GOA, GOF File Amicus Brief with SCOTUS in Bump Stock Case

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks.

Gun Owners of America has been active in pushing back on the Trump-era Bump Stock Ban, which was an onerous attempt by the ATF to re-classify bump stocks as machineguns under federal law. GOA met with officials in the Trump Administration to oppose the ban, has lobbied Capitol Hill to prevent codifying the ban, and even filed a separate lawsuit challenging the ATF’s policy reversal, which was previously denied by the Supreme Court in 2022. Read more

Gun Control

SAF Sues U.S. AG, Heads of ATF, FBI Over Medical Marijuana 2A Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and a District Attorney in Pennsylvania have filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland, the heads of the FBI and ATF, and the U.S. Government, challenging the federal prohibition on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In addition to Garland, the lawsuit names FBI Director Christopher Wray and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach as defendants. SAF is joined by Warren County, Pa. District Attorney Robert Greene, who has served in that office since 2013 and currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card under Pennsylvania law. They are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut, who serves as SAF executive director, and Joshua Prince of Bechtelsville, Pa.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3), which prohibit firearms purchases and possession by persons who use marijuana or other controlled substances.

“Medicinal marijuana has been adopted by 38 states despite federal inaction on the issue,” said Kraut, who is also a practicing attorney in Pennsylvania. “With the increasing acceptance of medical cannabis, millions of Americans are forced to choose between the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or treating their symptoms with a substance that disenfranchises them from their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Such a choice is incompatible with the constitution and finds no basis in this country’s history and tradition. We look forward to vindicating the rights of medical marijuana users.”

“The use of medical marijuana should not translate to an automatic surrender of one’s Second Amendment rights,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The current restrictions unquestionably and arbitrarily infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and the restriction lacks any director or analogous historical support, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.”

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012 Read more

Gun Control

Michigan’s AG, Dana Nessel, Steps In It

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, along with 19 Blue-State counterparts, has signed onto a letter directed to the Stefanie Feldman, Director of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, to stop the Lake City ammunition plant from selling to civilians in a desperate attempt to appear to be doing something to prevent violence.

Led by anti-gun AG Letitia James of New York the letter reads as follows:  “We write on behalf of the States of New York, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (the “States”) to express concern about recent reports that billions of rounds of military-grade ammunition manufactured at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant have been sold on the commercial market, leading to their use in many of the most tragic mass shootings in recent history.  We ask your Office to conduct an investigation into the contracting processes that led to this situation, and to take action to ensure that military-grade and military-subsidized ammunition stays out of civilian hands.”

“Ammunition from Lake City is manufactured for military use and does not belong in our communities,” the letter reads. “Federal courts have repeatedly noted the military nature of 5.56-millimeter rounds, which are used in military issued rifles, such as the M-16. Military-style weapons – and the ammunition specifically manufactured for them – should be limited to military use. Even if military-grade ammunition were appropriate for the civilian market, its sale to private parties should not be subsidized by taxpayer dollars.”

The Lake City plant is government-owned but run by Winchester and is only able to sell ammo commercially when it produces an excess beyond what the government requires.  Additionally, the same ammo is produced by other manufacturers and readily available to consumers.

On face value the matters presented in the letter appear to be quite ominous, but a deeper look into the issue’s unintended consequences is necessary before jumping into the battle.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation explains what would happen if the liberal AGs got their way:  “This policy to deny the sale of excess ammunition not only would freeze over 30 percent of the 5.56 mm/.223 caliber ammunition used by law-abiding gun owners, it risks the ammunition industry’s ability to surge production capacity for national defense, if the costs to maintain the present workforce isn’t recouped through sales to the civilian market.”

There is no evidentiary claim that the ammunition that Lake City makes available to the public is inherently more lethal or liable to be misused than any other brand of ammunition of the same caliber.  The term “military grade” ammunition, referenced in the letter is meant to infer that the ammo has some qualities that differ from any other ammo available.  It does not!

Meanwhile, in an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Attorney General Dana Nessel has expressed her dissatisfaction with her six-figure salary, which coincidentally comes 100 percent from Michigan’s taxpayer dollars.

She should concern herself with something other than window dressing and this obvious back-door attempt at more gun control legislation that does nothing to deter the demented desire of a single person.

Ammunition, Gun Control

Amending the Constitution of the United States Was Not Meant to be Easy

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Why is that the vocal gun grabbers always attempt to demonize the Second Amendment of our Constitution but always fail to change it or even repeal it?  Certainly, our liberal President Biden has attempted to undermine it with executive orders, which fail to become the law of the land for one reason:  They’re not legal and he has no authority to do so.  In fact, if the legal procedures are followed by means of the Constitution enumerated below, the President has no say in the matter.

So, when confronted with any Second Amendment bellyacher, ask him or her why they don’t a support or pursue the legal process that agrees with their ideals.  Remember that it can, and has, been done in our country’s history.

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution has been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Ammunition, Firearms, Gun Control, Self Defense
1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 144