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

Now on A1F.com: The Biden administration is telling us they want to disarm law-abiding American citizens, but, as you’ll see in this investigation at A1F.com, they are also doing all they can to avoid any substantive debate about their desired policies. The political implications exposed in this feature should interest every gun owner.

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

“Here, the Court finds sufficient evidence that SB 264 and SB 915 have a viewpoint-discriminatory purpose…”

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in California has granted a preliminary injunction in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge of two California statutes prohibiting gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds and on state-owned property, while denying a requested stay to allow the state time to file an appeal.

“This a huge victory for both the First and Second Amendments,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We believe the court has sent a clear message to the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta that the constitution trumps their personal animus toward gun owners and the Second Amendment.” Read more

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.  It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.  There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern.  They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”…Daniel Webster.

Washington, D.C. — Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a notice of appeal with the 5th Federal Circuit in their lawsuit challenging de facto waiting periods for NICS background checks on gun buyers under the age of 21.

This new policy is a result of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, also known as the Cornyn-Murphy gun control package, which passed last summer. Under the law, unconstitutional waiting periods are being imposed on young adults because a review of juvenile justice records, state mental health records, and those from local law enforcement where the buyer resides is now required. This review is in addition to those records already held by the FBI background check system. Because state and local agencies are not equipped or prepared to provide this new information in a timely manner, young gun buyers are simply forced to wait with no recourse, which is a clear violation of their Second Amendment rights.

Below is a selection from the brief filed by GOA and GOF today: Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Thursday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez which struck down California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” should have a direct impact on a similar ban in Washington, because both states are in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, the Second Amendment Foundation says.

“If a gun ban in California is unconstitutional,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “it is just as unconstitutional in Washington. We are eager to see this case through to what may become a Supreme Court confrontation, because we are confident that we will prevail. People who support gun bans, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, are wrong on this important constitutional issue.”

The case is known as Miller v. Bonta, filed by SAF, 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 ruling, Judge Benitez wrote, “While criminals already have these modern semiautomatics, the State prohibits its citizens from buying and possessing the same guns for self-defense. At the same time these firearms are commonly possessed by law-abiding gun owners elsewhere across the country. Guns for self-defense are needed a lot because crime happens a lot. A recent large-scale survey estimates that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year. Another report, originally commissioned and long cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there are between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses in the United States each year.”

“Judge Benitez’ ruling is a stinging rebuff to the gun prohibition movement,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “His detailed discussion of the history of firearms regulation, along with his dismantling of the state’s arguments and assertions of its experts sends a signal that the days when gun banners could simply attack the Second Amendment without challenge are finished. We will take this challenge to the Supreme Court if necessary, as part of our commitment to restore firearms freedom, one lawsuit a time.” Read more

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