SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of California v. ATF. Initially filed in 2020 by California, Giffords, and two individuals, the case sought to force the ATF to re-define “firearms” under federal law to include numerous non-firearm items. Now, the plaintiffs are trying to ‘amend’ their lawsuit to claim that the ATF’s frame or receiver rule published this year doesn’t go far enough. FPC’s brief, along with its previous motion to intervene, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is, in reality, an entirely new lawsuit based on a new agency action taken subsequent to Plaintiffs’ filing of this lawsuit,” argues the brief. “The basis of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is Defendants’ prior implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which Plaintiffs sought to collaterally attack by challenging a series of classification letters issued to non-firearm producers by the [ATF]. That prior implementation of the GCA is currently defunct, and those classification letters are no longer controlling. Accordingly, Applicants in Intervention request that this Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because it concerns an entirely distinct agency action and the basis for Plaintiffs’ original lawsuit is moot.”

“California and Giffords are attempting to hijack their old lawsuit designed to force the ATF to issue the frame or receiver rule to now say that the rule doesn’t go far enough,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Plaintiffs’ argument that the ATF is required by federal law to regulate even more than it already does is nonsensical, and their attempt to disguise a new lawsuit as an ‘amendment’ to their prior case is legally infirm.” Read more

Olympian Gabby Franco fled Venezuela as that nation began to go after its peoples’ guns. She immigrated to the U.S. find freedom again. But now, here in America, she is hearing some of the same rhetoric she heard in Venezuela before they went for their citizens’ guns. Here is her perspective on our rights and what we must do to keep them.

by Franco reflects

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

BLACK CREEK, GA – Daniel Defense, manufacturer of the world’s finest firearms and accessories, issues statement regarding recent lawsuit.

As loyal customers and friends, you may be aware that this week gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg and Everytown for Gun Safety has brought a frivolous lawsuit against Daniel Defense blaming us—not the shooter—for the Uvalde tragedy. This lawsuit is yet another in a growing line of blatant and legally unfounded attempts to bankrupt the firearms industry. We reject and will vigorously defend against these politically motivated attempts to blame Daniel Defense for the criminal actions of others, as well as to undermine your means of self-defense secured by the Second Amendment.

The erosion of public trust and personal responsibility in our nation has only served to embolden criminals and instigate crime waves across the country. Michael Bloomberg is the same person who wanted to blame obesity on soda cup size; now he wants to shift blame from the shooter to the firearm manufacturing industry. However, the political tide is turning due to surging numbers of first-time gun buyers who appear to recognize that their personal safety is their personal responsibility. At Daniel Defense, it is our honor to provide millions of women, minorities, and other first-time buyers the very best means to ensure their safety in an unsure world.

On behalf of all veterans and members of the military, we find former New York City Mayor Bloomberg and Everytown’s insinuation that the actions of our military can in any way inspire the mass murder of school children to be deeply insulting and baseless. To imply that images portraying the heroic work of our soldiers risking their lives in combat inspires young men back home to shoot children is inexcusable.

From its inception, Daniel Defense has been committed to promoting responsible firearms ownership and has built its reputation on its unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the law-abiding citizens who protect their homes, connect with their children, and put food on the table with our products. Daniel Defense stands with Americans everywhere who will not be bullied into silence or political inaction as the freedoms and protections ensured by the Second Amendment are under attack.

We are proud of our company, our products, and our community. We stand ready to defend ourselves and your freedoms before the public and the court.

Sincerely,

Marty Daniel

CEO, Daniel Defense, LLC

SAN DIEGO, CA (December 5, 2022) – The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Roger Benitez issued an order determining that it can continue with its lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 designed to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. The order in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Defendant Attorney General says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional,” Judge Benitez wrote in his order. “Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains. Therefore, the case is not moot.”

“The American court system and its forum for peacefully resolving disputes is the envy of the world,” he went on to write. “One might question the wisdom of a state law that dissuades gun owners from using the courts to peacefully resolve disagreements over the constitutionality of state laws.” Read more

A federal judge in San Diego has rejected an attempt by the State of California to moot a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit seeking to overturn a Golden State statute designed to penalize any plaintiffs, and their attorneys, in cases challenging California gun control laws. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The eight-page order was signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez.

SAF’s initial lawsuit challenges what it calls a “one-way fee shifting penalty” in California’s new gun control law that was adopted as a response to, and was modeled upon a Texas statute on abortion, which the defendants argued was unconstitutional, according to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. SAF and its partners have asked for a preliminary injunction in their federal challenge of the law. Read more

PORTLAND, OR – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new FPC-supported federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin Oregon Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” provision before it is poised to create a flat ban on firearm acquisition while public officials work to implement it. The complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in Azzopardi v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Oregon has passed a new law that will require, beginning December 8, 2022, all firearms purchasers in the state to present a ‘permit to purchase’ firearms; as envisioned by the law, the process to acquire a permit to purchase can take up to 30 days to complete,” argues the complaint. “But today, less than a week from the day the requirement goes live, no one in Oregon has a permit because there is no infrastructure to support the processing of permit applications—there is not even an application yet; the Oregon State Police has not created it.”

“And so, Oregon is headed quickly to a situation that no one—even the drafters of Measure 114—intended or wanted,” argues the motion for a temporary restraining order. “On December 8, it will become de facto illegal to purchase firearms anywhere in the state of Oregon, effectively extinguishing Second Amendment rights all across the state.”

“Unfortunately, sloppy statute drafting at the expense of peaceable gun owners is all too common,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The drafters of Oregon Measure 114 appear to have spent more time planning their press conferences than the drafting of the ballot measure itself. Today’s suit seeks to once again remind lawmakers that the dictates of the Constitution apply even to them.”

This lawsuit is also backed by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read more

PORTLAND, OR – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a challenge to Oregon’s Measure 114, the gun control ballot initiative that was narrowly approved by voters. NSSF is filing the challenge along with Mazama Sporting Goods, the Oregon State Shooting Association and two individual gun owners.

The measure, called “Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative,” threatens to halt the lawful sale of firearms in Oregon, which would deny the most basic Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right begins with the ability for lawful purchasers to obtain a firearm through the legal sale from a licensed firearm retailer. Oregon’s “permit-to-purchase” scheme is antithetical to the Second Amendment.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer. Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria.” Read more