CCRKBA Files Amicus Brief in Junior Sports Magazine Case

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an amicus brief in support of Junior Sports Magazines, Inc., in a First Amendment challenge of a California law that prohibits “advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

The brief was filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. CCRKBA is joined by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Second Amendment Law Center.

Junior Sports Magazines is joined in its federal lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Inc., Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., the CRPA Foundation, and Gun Owners of California, Inc., and Raymond Brown, a private citizen. SAF is the sister organization of CCRKBA, and California Rifle & Pistol is a CCRKBA affiliate.

“The issue here is simple,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Junior Sports Magazines publishes a magazine titled ‘Junior Shooters,’ and because that magazine accepts advertising from firearms and ammunition manufacturers and firearms retailers, and publishes stories related to recreational and competition shooting, it is prohibited by law in California.

“The plaintiffs in this case,” he explained, “are challenging the constitutionality of California Business and Professions Code section 22949.80, which makes it unlawful for any ‘firearm industry member’ to ‘advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.’ It’s an outrageous restriction on free speech and freedom of the press.” Read more

SAF Challenges Semi-Auto Ban in New York State

federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in New York, challenging that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs are represented by SAF and FPC attorneys.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of New York residents J. Mark Lane of Larchmont and James Sears of Irving. They are represented by attorneys Cody Wisniewski, Adam Kraut, who is also SAF executive director, and Nicolas J. Rotsko.

Named as defendants are New York State Attorney General Letitia James, State Police Supt. Steven A. Nigrelli and Westchester County District Attorney Miriam E. Rocah, in their official capacities.

“The issue in this lawsuit is very plain,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Both Sears and Lane are law-abiding New York residents who wish to own modern semiautomatic sport-utility rifles such as the AR-15, for lawful purposes including target shooting and home defense. Such rifles are in common use across the country, yet in the Empire State, citizens face the threat of arrest, confiscation, prosecution, fined and imprisonment for lawfully using such rifles.” Read more

NSSF Denounces U.S. Senate Confirmation of Operation Choke Point Architect to FDIC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, condemned the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Martin J. Gruenberg as Chair and Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Gruenberg led the FDIC from 2011-2018, during which the Obama administration conducted the illegal Operation Choke Point scheme to deny banking services to firearm businesses. NSSF opposed his confirmation in the strongest terms as he has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law and unparalleled disdain for the Constitutionally-protected firearm and ammunition industry.

“The Senate’s confirmation of Martin Gruenberg is a flagrant disregard for his role in illegally using the levers of government to force discriminatory banking policies on the firearm and ammunition industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “His culpability in shepherding this illegal operation was not only previously investigated by Congress but was also highlighted by Senate Banking Committee Republicans. Mr. Gruenberg’s leading role in creating, administering and punishing the firearm industry through illegal means simply because he, President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder found this industry politically-disfavored clearly disqualified him from being reconfirmed to a position of public trust.”

Under the Obama administration, an initiative called “Operation Choke Point” was launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop financial institutions from offering services to some regulated industries in an attempt to choke off banking services. This operation, which represented an abuse of the agencies’ statutory authority, was first aimed at non-depository lenders (so-called payday lenders) but expanded to ammunition and firearms sales, tobacco sales and pharmaceutical sales, among other industries.

The goal of the operation was to coerce banks, third-party payment processors and other financial institutions into closing or denying business accounts of clients that the FDIC has classified as “high risk” or as a “reputational risk” for the financial institution. According to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, the FDIC, “equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.” Read more

Texas Withdraws Appeal in Lawsuit That Struck Down Ban on Handgun Carry by Young Adults

NEW ORLEANS, LA (December 20, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Texas has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to withdraw the state’s appeal of the district court order that struck down its ban on handgun carry by young adults. The motion in FPC’s Andrews v. McCraw, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“We applaud Texas for doing the right thing and accepting the district court’s ruling against its law prohibiting 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying firearms in public,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Not only do young adults have the same constitutionally protected right to bear arms as all other adults, they are also among the reasons we have a Second Amendment, Constitution, and Country in the first place.”

In August, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days to allow Texas time to appeal. Once the court disposes of the state’s motion to withdraw its appeal, the trial court’s injunction will take effect.

The plaintiffs in this case were represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, who are representing FPC and individual gun owners in multiple other legal cases, as well as Texas counsel R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

In addition to Andrews, FPC is litigating to restore the right of young people to keep and bear arms in cases including Lara v. Evanchick (vs. Pennsylvania, in the 3rd Circuit), Reese v. ATF (vs. the federal government, in the 5th Circuit), Beeler v. Long (vs. Tennessee, in the 6th Circuit), Meyer v. Raoul (vs. Illinois, in the 7th Circuit), Worth v. Harrington (vs. Minnesota, in the 8th Circuit), Jones v. Bonta (vs. California, in the 9th Circuit), and Baughcum v. Jackson (vs. Georgia, in the 11th Circuit). Read more

NSSF Rejects City of Buffalo’s Frivolous Lawsuit Against Firearm Industry Members

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, rejects the false premise of the lawsuit brought by the City of Buffalo against several firearm manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The accusations are without any legal merit and are an obvious attempt by city officials to deflect attention and shift responsibility for their failure to enforce the law against criminals by casting blame on a Constitutionally-protected and most highly-regulated industry in the nation today.

“The junk lawsuit by the City of Buffalo attempts to deflect attention for illegal activities by criminals by laying blame at the feet of the firearm industry, which is following the law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This is no different from the frivolous and unsuccessful lawsuits filed against firearm manufacturers in the late 1990s and early 2000s by crime-ridden big-city mayors across the country. Those lawsuits failed because they were legally and factually baseless. But they did, however, result in Congress passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 by a broad bipartisan margin.”

The recently passed New York public nuisance law, upon which Buffalo’s lawsuit is based, is a transparent and unconstitutional attempt to defy the will of Congress. A lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the New York public nuisance law is now before a federal appellate court in Manhattan. Read more

Federal Judge Declares California Fee-Shifting Unconstitutional

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge has declared California’s controversial “fee-shifting” tenet of the state’s new gun control law to be unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing this provision, known as Section 1021.11.

It’s a victory for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in their lawsuit challenging the statute. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this is a major setback for the gun control extremism that has been running rampant in California. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

“Christmas came early for Golden State gun owners and rights groups everywhere who find it necessary to challenge the state’s restrictive firearms regulations,” Gottlieb said. “Section 1021.11 would have penalized gun rights groups, and their attorneys, for having the courage to take the state to court.”

SAF was joined by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, P.C., George M. Lee, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, John Phillips, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson and James Miller, for whom the case is named. Representing SAF and its partners are attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook at the Benbrook Law Group, PC and David H. Thompson at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez observed, “This Court concludes that the purpose and effect of § 1021.11 is to trench on a citizen’s right of access to the courts and to discourage the peaceful vindication of an enumerated constitutional right. Because the state fee-shifting statute undermines a citizen’s constitutional rights, it is this Court’s role to declare its invalidity and enjoin its threat.” Read more

California Appeals Court Denies Stay of Injunction in Gun Privacy Case

BELLEVUE, WA — A California appeals court panel has unanimously denied a request from state Attorney General Rob Bonta for an immediate stay of an injunction in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge of the state law allowing the state Department of Justice to share personal information about firearms owners with private researchers.

Bonta claimed the law, AB 173, “does not create a serious invasion of privacy.” The trial court disagreed, granting a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, thus placing a hold on enforcement of the information sharing law. The case is known as Barba, et.al. v. Bonta.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and a private citizen, Ashleymarie Barba. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento.

“We’re delighted the appeals court panel unanimously rejected Bonta’s effort to set aside the preliminary injunction because the privacy of California gun owners is important, even if he thinks otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Bonta is determined to supply gun owner information to biased researchers who, we believe, will use it to promote additional restrictions on their Second Amendment-protected rights.”

Gottlieb dismissed arguments by Bonta that the researchers take steps to protect identifying information about gun owners.

“That’s not the point,” Gottlieb said. “The point of our challenge is that this information is being shared at all, especially with non-government entities. This isn’t just about Second Amendment rights. California’s law clearly threatens the privacy rights of gun owners.” Read more

SAF Attorneys Fight Stay Request in Challenge of NY Carry Restrictions

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a response to a motion by the State of New York, asking for a stay in SAF’s challenge of New York’s revised concealed carry law which essentially prohibits carry on or in private property.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit on behalf of New York resident Brett Christian is the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for Western District of New York.

U.S. District John L. Sinatra granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “private property exclusion” tenet of the law, calling it “unconstitutional.”

“We see absolutely no reason why Judge Sinatra’s ruling should be stayed,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Given the substantial likelihood we are going to prevail, the state’s request is unwarranted. The state is simply trying to delay the inevitable.”

In their response to New York’s plea, SAF attorneys note, “In addition to many location-specific restrictions, New York established a novel and unprecedented presumption that bans the possession of firearms by ordinary, law-abiding New Yorkers—such as Appellee Brett Christian—on all private property in all parts of the State unless and until the owner or lessee of the property puts up ‘clear and conspicuous signage’ allowing firearms ‘or has otherwise given express consent.’ This is a state-imposed default ban on exercising Second Amendment rights ‘outside the home.’” Read more

CCRKBA Condemns ATF Plan to Destroy Fast and Furious Guns

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today condemned a reported plan by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to destroy firearms associated with Operation Fast & Furious, the deadly Obama-Biden administration’s “gun walking’ scheme that turned into a national scandal.

Published reports say the ATF “is set to destroy” Fast & Furious guns, but Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) blasts the idea, asserting “Although the ATF apparently intends to forget its dangerous misconduct in Operation Fast and Furious, the scandal is still a matter of public concern. Given the potential for ongoing criminal and possible civil actions, it is not in the interest of justice for the ATF to destroy potential evidence associated with Operation Fast and Furious.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb concurs with Jordan’s assessment, and took it another step.

“Operation Fast & Furious was only one of several scandals that erupted during the Obama-Biden administration,” Gottlieb observed, “but it’s the one that cost the life of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and untold numbers of lives in Mexico, along with crimes committed in the United States. It’s hardly surprising the ATF wants to erase the public memory of this debacle, especially now that Joe Biden is in the White House.” Read more

FPC Responds to Stay of Oregon “Permit to Purchase,” Allowing Mag Ban

PORTLAND, OR – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Karin Immergut adopted FPC’s position regarding the implementation challenges of Oregon Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” law and the state’s associated admission that the system would not be ready in time – and stayed its enforcement for 30 days. However, the Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The order in Fitz v. Rosenblum, along with filings in Azzopardi v. Rosenblum, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are entitled to a prompt hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue based on a more complete evidentiary record addressing whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments,” wrote Judge Immergut in her order. “The parties are ordered to confer and propose a briefing schedule to this Court by December 7, 2022.”

“FPC is cautiously optimistic that the most immediately glaring problem with Oregon Measure 114 – namely that requiring a ‘permit-to-purchase’ to acquire firearms, when no such permit application process even exists – has been acknowledged by the Court,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Nevertheless, in denying our request for a TRO regarding Measure 114’s magazine capacity restriction, the Court’s analysis leaves a lot to be desired.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

1 26 27 28 29 30 141