The Second Amendment Foundation is celebrating a victory in California as a U.S. District Court judge has declared the state’s decades-old ban on so-called “assault weapons” to be unconstitutional.

Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez’ ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but for the moment, SAF and its partners in the lawsuit known as Miller v. Bonta are celebrating a victory. SAF is joined in the case by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and four private citizens, including James Miller, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein, LLP and John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, APC.

In his 79-page decision, Judge Benitez writes, “Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.”

“We’ve known all along the state ban could not hold up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and we were encouraged by last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, which rejected the notion of ‘interest balancing’ when it comes to Second Amendment challenges. Judge Benitez came down on the side of the Constitution and history.”

“Judge Benitez has once again affirmed what we have argued since the beginning of this case,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated. “California’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is, and always has been, unconstitutional. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive as to how these challenges are to be examined, the State of California did everything conceivable in an attempt to interject interest-balancing into the analysis. The Court, as required, ignored these attempts and correctly concluded that based on the text of the Second Amendment, as informed by this nation’s history and tradition, such arms are constitutionally protected. We are pleased with the Court’s decision and are proud to have vindicated the rights of millions of Californians.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed its opposition to a motion by California Attorney General Rob Bonta for summary judgment in a December 2020 case challenging the state’s one-handgun-per-month limit. The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a limited partnership, and six private citizens. Defendants are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, director of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms in their official capacities. The original lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, and so was SAF’s new opposition document. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C.

As noted in the response, SAF and its partners tell the court, “After almost three years of litigation, three rounds of dispositive briefing, and being on the cusp of yet another expansion of the 30-day commercial firearm purchase ban at issue here (the “OGM law”), a proper resolution is not just long overdue but of pressing need. The right outcome was clear way back before Bruen, when this case was first filed…the OGM law must be stricken as unconstitutional.” Read more

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Prof. William English, Ph.D., have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a Texas case challenging a federal law which denies Second Amendment rights to all people who may be subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

English is a political economist and assistant professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University. He has held teaching and research positions at Brown University and Harvard University before joining the faculty of Georgetown. In 2021, English conducted the largest-ever nationally representative survey of firearms owners, which estimated how frequently firearms are used for self-defense. The National Firearms Survey was the subject of an amicus brief submitted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

CCRKBA is not a party to the case, known as United States v. Rahimi. The amicus brief was submitted by attorneys Craig L. Uhrich and Serge Krimnus at Bochner PLLC in New York.

As noted in the brief, Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (“DVROs”), such as the one at issue in this case, are a relatively recent addition to the American legal landscape. The standards for obtaining DVROs vary by jurisdiction, and multiple studies have shown that such orders are widely abused, often in an effort by a party to obtain a tactical advantage during divorce and child custody cases. Though DVROs are often part of the legal process in such cases, the empirical evidence that restrictions on firearms ownership accompanying such orders are effective at preventing domestic violence is weak. The federal statute is known as § 922(g)(8). Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a complicated case known as United States v. Rahimi challenging a civil restraining order disarmament provision. The brief relies on last year’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to argue that the total disarmament is not analogous to the Founding era regulations, calling into question the constitutionality of such provisions.

SAF’s interest in this case is based on the fact that many firearms owners in this country suddenly find themselves subject to civil restraining orders, which deny them their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a manner that does not comport with the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.

“As our brief explains,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “laws mandating total disarmament, in the relevant historical period, were related to disarming loyalists to preserve the integrity of our newly-formed government. The current federal law governing how gun owners’ rights are treated in relation to civil restraining orders lacks any well-established historical analogue.” Read more

A U.S. District Court judge in Maryland has granted in part a motion for a preliminary injunction in two cases—including one involving the Second Amendment Foundation—challenging Maryland’s “sensitive places” law, which is supposed to take effect Sunday.

The case, known as Novotny v. Moore, was filed earlier this year against the law, which places broad restrictions on where a legally-licensed private citizen may carry a firearm for personal protection. The decision by Judge George L. Russell, III consolidates the Novotny case with another action known as Kipke v. Moore. Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging newly-signed California Senate Bill 2—a gun control measure designed to make it impossible to legally carry firearms in most places—have filed a brief supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.

SAF is joined in the case by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, the Liberal Gun Club and nine individuals. The case is known as May v. Bonta. The “Memorandum of Points and Authorities” was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Michel & Associates, and Don Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer.

In their brief, the plaintiffs argue, “California is defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings and order that the Second Amendment includes a right to carry arms in public for self-defense. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised the U.S. Congress for the swift and overwhelmingly decisive vote to rebuke President Joe Biden’s unprecedented move to defund scholastic hunter education and archery programs available for youths. The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 5110, the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act, in a 424-1 vote and the U.S. Senate hot-lined the legislation, passing it by unanimous consent. The legislation, introduced by U.S. Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) is now headed to President Biden’s desk for consideration.

The White House has not signaled whether the president will sign or veto the legislation. However, Congress approved the bill in a rare and overwhelming veto-proof majority. Should the president veto the legislation, Congress could override the president’s veto and enact the law.

“This is a tremendous victory for true and proven firearm safety, as well as a reminder of how Congress can unite to protect the American public from special-interest driven agendas,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This should have never been an issue. Congress never wrote into the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that hunter education and archery programs were ineligible for funding. That was a unilateral decision to appease gun control and anti-hunting special interests. It was an unforced error that the Biden administration refused to acknowledge. Congress, as the representatives of the people, has spoken and spoken loudly and clearly.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law yesterday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:

• Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
• Require 16 hours of training;
• And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law. Read more