The ultimate goal of anti-gunners is to confiscate guns, which would require a comprehensive database of firearm owners.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed public comments against the proposed rule from the Biden ATF which could require anyone who sells a single gun to register as a dealer and conduct background checks. The Tennessee Firearms Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League joined in the brief.

As argued by GOA in the full comment, this rule is nothing more than an attempt to “subvert, circumvent, and effectively repeal” a major provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which bars federal agencies from maintaining records or a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: The ultimate goal of anti-gunners is to confiscate guns, which would require a comprehensive database of firearm owners. Under this rule, the private sale of firearms would now almost always require a background check, and because of GOA research, we know that the records of those sales will eventually end up in the hands of the ATF and be added to their illegal gun registry. This cannot stand.” Read more

Now on A1F.com: Too often, the U.S. government skews statistics on gun use to push false narratives. Manipulating such statistics doesn’t create a fair debate; it is a political stunt that threatens to take away our freedom.

Find this and other stories related to your right to keep and bear arms at A1F.com. Read more

Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined Gun Owners of California (GOC) and several other plaintiffs in filing a second lawsuit challenging California’s concealed carry statutes.

The state’s latest revisions to their unconstitutional concealed carry policies were passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy). Among other provisions, SB 2 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;
• Allow local authorities to require a psychiatric evaluation;
• And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

In September, GOA and GOF filed their first suit against the law, which specifically challenged the draconian “sensitive location” prohibitions. Today’s lawsuit challenges the psychiatric evaluation, excessive fees, and extensive wait times currently imposed by several local police departments on Californians trying to secure a permit. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is “facially unconstitutional,” and granted a summary judgment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

In a 40-page decision, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia wrote, “(B)ecause Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’ the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.” Read more

This proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional…

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, flatly rejects the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act, which would ban the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and most other semi-automatic rifles. This proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that entire classes of firearms cannot be banned from legal sale and possession by law-abiding citizens. The bill was introduced thursday by U.S. Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

“The legislation introduced by Senators King and Heinrich is openly defiant of the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. There is no path forward for legislation of this nature that would deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to lawfully possess the firearm of their choosing and the full spectrum of their Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to a travesty for which the American public is still demanding answers as to why the Lewiston murderer, who clearly showed signs of mental instability and professed to violent threats, was allowed by state and federal agencies to continue to possess firearms. Depriving law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights for the criminal acts of a depraved individual doesn’t make our communities safer.”

The legislation introduced by Sens. King and Heinrich would ban the sale of commonly owned gas-operated, semiautomatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines. The bill would also place a federal limit on magazine capacity, a measure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found had no appreciable effect on crime reduction during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

The murderer in Lewiston, Maine, was identified by military authorities while training in New York as having shown signs of violent criminal intent and was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility by authorities for two weeks before being released. Federal law should have prohibited the possession of firearms but there was clearly a failure to properly report and act on this information. The murderer reportedly made threats of violent attacks against a National Guard facility in Maine. New York State Police were notified and reacted to the verbal threats made by the murderer, as well as Maine State Police. While the investigation is ongoing, it appears that neither the military nor either state law enforcement agency reported these instances to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

NSSF championed the FIX NICS Act, which compelled federal agencies and incentivized state authorities to submit all disqualifying records to FBI NICS. The law was named after NSSF’s FixNICS® initiative to change the law in 16 states and in Congress to get all disqualifying records submitted to FBI NICS to ensure firearms remain out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted to possess them. The FIX NICS Act was signed into law by President Donald Trump after the U.S. Air Force failed to submit disqualifying records of the murderer in Sutherland Springs, Texas, who should have been disqualified from purchasing firearms before his crimes. The failure of the U.S. Air Force to follow the law and submit several instances of disqualification resulted in the background check system being incomplete.

There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation since 1990, which are used daily for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting and recreational target shooting.

For more information, visit nssf.org.

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in one of three federal court actions challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and their magazines in Illinois have filed a petition for rehearing before an en banc panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The consolidated cases are known as Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Raoul. SAF is a plaintiff in the Harrel case, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store and a private citizen, Dane Harrel, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Mark L. Shaw, Jennifer Craigmile Neubauer and Michael A. Danfore of Waukegan, Ill., and C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir of Long Beach, Calif, along with David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom of Washington, D.C.

“In our petition,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we note how the three-judge appellate panel essentially thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. Without explanation, the 2-1 appeals panel majority arbitrarily found that modern semiautomatic rifles are apparently not protected by the Second Amendment even though they clearly are protected, primarily because they are in common use and are not considered ‘dangerous or unusual’ arms. The three-judge panel opinion cannot be allowed to stand.” Read more

Now on A1F.com: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case the state of New York didn’t want the Court to accept, as state officials don’t want to be held accountable for using their regulatory authority in a blatant attack on the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Find this and other articles related to your right to keep and bear arms at A1F.com.

Contact: Brook Chiasson

bchiasson@nrahq.org

(703) 267-1327