NSSF, along with other plaintiffs, is challenging Washington’s MSR ban, demonstrating that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today, more than there are Ford F-150s on America’s roads.

“NSSF will not stand idly by as politicians cleave away fundamental Constitutional rights from Americans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The right to keep and bear arms that are commonly owned belongs to law-abiding citizens. Politicians in Washington exceed their authority when they usurp those rights to mollify radical special-interest groups. These politicians violate their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights of the citizens they represent.” Read more

“We’re talking about rights in both cases,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “For Jay Inslee or any other Democrat to contend ‘this is different’ suggests they’re either dishonest or delusional, and perhaps a little bit of both.”

House Bill 1143 explicitly states on Page 2 that the purchaser of a firearm provides proof of completion of a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that complies with the requirements set down in the second section of the bill. The legislation is part of the radical Democrat push to make Washington gun laws prohibitively restrictive when the Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution explicitly states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.” Read more

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case is known as Hartford v. Ferguson. Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Sporting Systems, a Hazel Dell retailer, and three private citizens, Brett Bass, Douglas Mitchell and Lawrence Hartford, for whom the case is named. They are represented by Seattle attorney Joel Ard.

Named as defendants are Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste, Kitsap County Sheriff John Gese and County Prosecutor Chad M. Enright; Kittitas County Sheriff Clayton Myers and County Prosecutor Greg Zempel; Clark County Sheriff John Horch and County Prosecutor Tony Golik, and Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortnoy and County Prosecutor Jason Cummings, all in their official capacities.

“The State has enacted a flat prohibition on the manufacture, sale, import and distribution of many types of firearms, inaccurately labeled as ‘assault weapons,’ which are owned by millions of ordinary citizens across the country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In the process, the state has criminalized a common and important means of self-defense, the modern semiautomatic rifle. The state has put politics ahead of constitutional rights, and is penalizing law-abiding citizens while this legislation does nothing to arrest and prosecute criminals who misuse firearms in defiance of all existing gun control laws. It is absurd.”

He noted that SAF already has two legal actions in progress, challenging Washington gun laws. One lawsuit concerns the magazine ban and the other challenges the ban on sales of semiautomatic rifles to young adults.

“The hysteria manufactured by the authors and supporters of this legislation is rivaled only by the false characterization of the banned firearms as ‘weapons of war,’” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, added. “As we note in our complaint, the firearms that Washington bans as ‘assault weapons’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic rifles. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic rifles, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. But even if they are considered as a separate group of ‘assault weapons,’ they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual. Read more

Joining SAF in this case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. They are Cutberto Viramontes, Rubi Joyal and Christopher Khaya. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Viramontes v. Cook County. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in August 2021.

“Cook County has made only one argument in its motion that seems to misread the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling from June of last year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The county is claiming that ‘arms’ applies only to firearms that ‘facilitate armed self-defense,’ and makes the arbitrary claim that the banned firearms are excluded from this definition because ‘there is nothing defensive whatsoever’ about them.

“Every firearm can be used for self-defense,” he added, “and either the county knows that already, or they are woefully ignorant about firearms in general, and especially the ones affected by the ban.” Read more

“Everytown, Brady and the Giffords group all claim to support background checks and training,” noted SAF’s Alan M. Gottlieb. “Yet they want to keep young adults, who have training and can pass background checks, from having guns. This is hypocritical dishonesty.

“Their alleged concerns are unfounded, and they know it,” he continued. “Two years ago in Kansas, lawmakers overrode Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of HB 2058, which creates a special concealed carry permit for young adults, with training and background check requirements. So far, there have been no issues.

“In Montana,” he added, “the age of majority has been 18 since a state constitutional change in 1978. There have been no issues in Big Sky Country as a result, either.

“What these experiences prove is that the gun prohibition lobby has a head-in-the-sand approach,” he observed. “They want the rest of us to bury our heads to recent history. In Minnesota, a handgun permit doubles as a permit to acquire a handgun. This permit also allows an individual to carry a rifle or shotgun in public under various circumstances.” Read more

SAF is joined in the case by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three young adults, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson and Kristin Worth, the latter for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

In her decision, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez wrote, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen…compels the conclusion that Minnesota’s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Read more