BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay in its case challenging the government’s attempt to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms.”

The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, and last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule which SAF successfully challenged. SAF has intervened in the case.

“With our attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, we’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its attorney, Chad Flores, are preparing a response to an application to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to stay a ruling which vacated the “final rule” defining gun parts kits as firearms in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the ruling, and the government wants a stay pending appeal to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF was allowed to intervene in the case. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay.

“This case ultimately challenges the authority of the ATF to simply change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will vigorously pursue this issue through the courts.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.

According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.

“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”

“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

BELLEVUE, WA – The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has backed down on a proposed ordinance that would make much of the city into a “gun-free zone” after the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association promised legal action.

The proposal was championed by Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who essentially tabled the motion indefinitely, after bemoaning the 2023 Supreme Court Bruen decision, which is giving gun control proponents fits, while jarring the San Francisco Police Department to start issuing carry permits. She referenced, perhaps as a face-saving maneuver, proposed state legislation that may be adopted later this summer by lawmakers in Sacramento, as a reason to stand down on the proposed ordinance.

“This happened after CRPA and SAF sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining why the planned ordinance would be unconstitutional,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, a longtime practicing attorney and gun rights authority in California. “It is truly unfortunate that San Francisco politicians refuse to respect the Second Amendment and can’t accept the new legal reality that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.”

“As soon as we were advised of this proposal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we took action. This is not the first time we’ve had to stop extremist gun control in San Francisco. We successfully sued the city twice over attempted handgun bans, and won both times. We’re prepared to do it again, but our letter to the Board of Supervisors evidently has made that unnecessary.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling out anti-gun Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland for portraying Hunter Biden as a “rich guy exercising his Second Amendment rights” as an explanation for Biden’s purchase of a handgun while allegedly failing to admit his drug use on the federal Form 4473 he filled out.

“I’m not sure whether to shake my head in disgust or just laugh out loud,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Raskin’s flippant dismissal of what would otherwise be a serious criminal act if anybody other than Hunter Biden were involved is either a new low in attempted sarcasm, or an exhibition of monumental stupidity.” Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a legal challenge against Hawaii’s recently-enacted public nuisance law, which – unless it is enjoined – will allow frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms by remote third parties. NSSF alleges the law is designed to evade the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court and laws enacted by Congress.

“Hawaii is attempting to subvert the will of Congress when the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed with a wide bipartisan majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President George W. Bush,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Public nuisance laws like Hawaii’s are nothing short of an attempt to drive ‘legislation through litigation,’ which is exactly why Congress passed PLCAA in the first place. These laws are unconstitutional and an abuse of the legal system to force a political agenda outside the legislative channels.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – A new report released Monday by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) offers ample evidence that two extremist gun control initiatives, along with additional legislation pushed by Democrat lawmakers has failed miserably, and should be repealed, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“WASPC data released Monday showing a 96 percent increase in homicides since 2019 is damning proof that billionaire-backed gun control measures were, as we predicted, false pie-in-the-sky promises,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Passage of Initiative 594 in 2014 and I-1639 in 2018 have accomplished nothing other than to create massive impairments, which we believe are unconstitutional, for law-abiding Washington citizens.

“While the billionaires who bankrolled both initiatives were saying these measures would reduce crime,” he recalled, “we were telling people the truth, and the WASPC report vindicates our arguments. WASPC says last year’s 394 murders is the highest number of homicides recorded by the group since 1980. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in a case which could upend prohibitions on firearms possession by people using intoxicants or controlled substances because such laws violate the right to keep and bear arms.

The case is known as United States v. Daniels. SAF filed the brief in response to the unusual request by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals following oral arguments, which were heard June 5. Because no amicus briefs had been filed, the panel invited briefs from amici curiae “who wish to supply relevant information regarding the history and tradition of restrictions on the use and possession of firearms as pertinent to the issues presented in this case. Of particular interest are historical gun regulations applicable to intoxicated or impaired individuals.” Briefs were due by July 6. Read more