SCI Denounces Canadian Bill Banning Hunting FIrearms

Safari Club International condemns the Canadian government’s latest sneak attack on hunters, which if implemented as intended would qualify as the most extensive firearm ban in the country’s history.

Liberal MP Paul Chiang introduced two shady amendments (with designations G4 and G46) to the Liberal Party’s gun control legislation, Bill C-21. Although the bill was initially targeted at handgun control, both amendments would restrict thousands of long guns commonly used in hunting and sport shooting. Passage of the first amendment (G46) will add a 478-page list of specifically banned firearm models to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s already extreme list of 1,500 firearms immediately banned in 2020. These include thousands of additional models of hunting rifles and shotguns. MP Chiang’s second amendment (G4) expands the definition of prohibited firearms to include those “designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed.”

Bill C-21 was initially sold by Liberals as a way to target weapons most commonly used in crimes involving a firearm, so these amendments have no practical goal except to target law abiding hunters. Members of Canada’s Conservative Party have said as much and have already clarified their opposition in the media, highlighting how these amendments are not a solution to improving public safety and would have harsh impacts. Conservative MP Raquel Dancho said the Liberal government is “going after Grandpa Joe’s hunting rifle instead of gangsters in Toronto.” Read more

FPC: Federal Judge Blocks New York’s Default Private Property Handgun Carry Ban

BUFFALO, NY – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a preliminary injunction against New York’s law banning guns on all private property without express consent. The order in Christian v. Nigrelli can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“These are places that people, exercising their rights, frequent every day when they move around outside their homes,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “The exclusion here makes all of these places presumptively off limits, backed up by the threat of prison. The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land. The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized on private property.”

In addition, Judge Sinatra added that “[n]othing in this decision purports to impact the traditional property right to exclude others, so long as the property owner (not the State) is the one actually exercising that right.”

“We are thrilled that the court has once again reminded New York lawmakers that they are not immune from the demands of the constitution,” said Bill Sack, FPC’s Director of Legal Operations. “The fight continues to rein in a New York political machine sent recklessly flailing in the aftermath of the Bruen decision.” Read more

FPC Files for Injunction Against Delaware “Assault Weapons’ Ban

WILMINGTON, DE – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Gray v. Jennings, its lawsuit challenging Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semiautomatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle,” argues the motion. “While some exterior physical attributes may differ—wood vs. metal stocks and furniture, the number and/or location of grips, having a bare muzzle vs. having muzzle devices, different barrel lengths, etc. – they are, in all relevant respects, the same. Indeed, they are all common firearms that insert cartridges into a firing chamber, burn powder to expel projectiles through barrels, and are functionally semiautomatic in nature. They are all common firearms that have the same cyclical rate of fire: one round fired per pull of the trigger until ammunition is exhausted or the firearm or feeding device malfunctions. They are all common under the same jurisdictional analysis. Further, they are all subject to the same constitutionally relevant history under which Delaware’s Ban is clearly and categorically unconstitutional.”

“There is simply no historical tradition of banning wide categories of arms based on arbitrary features that ignorant contemporary lawmakers find frightening,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The unavoidable fact is that the arms now banned by this Delaware statute are bearable arms in common use all over the country. They are protected by the Second Amendment, even with a terrifying pistol grip or adjustable stock.”

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

FPC Files Opening Brief in Suit Challenging Ga. Ban on Handgun Carry by Young Adults

ATLANTA, GA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Baughcum v. Jackson, which challenges Georgia’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Georgia has singled out 18-to-20-year-olds for differential treatment from other adults, seemingly out of a concern that they are too young to be trusted with the right to carry a firearm,” argues the brief. “Yet the Founders knew all about 18-to-20-year-olds; they required them to possess firearms in good working order and to know how to use them so that they could be ready to serve as members of the militia if the need arose. They never enacted a single ‘distinctly similar’ ban on carriage by them.”

“Despite the Supreme Court’s insistence that the right to bear arms outside the home is fundamental, Georgia continues to insist that fundamental rights don’t apply to all legal adults,” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “This case, and others like it in FPC’s national litigation strategy, are about undoing the immoral and unlawful double standards states like Georgia have undertaken. Individuals with all of the responsibilities of adulthood are also afforded all of the fundamental rights. There is no titration of rights based on arbitrary ages made up by state lawmakers.” Read more

SAF Files Brief Supporting Motion for Injunction Against Delaware HB 450

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Delaware and enforcement of House Bill 450, which radically expands the state’s laws and bans so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., DJJAMS LLC, and two private citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray, for whom the lawsuit is named. The lawsuit names Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings as the defendant. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gilbert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Read more

SAF Files Memorandum in Motion for Injunction in CA Gun Show Ban Case

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging California’s new statute banning gun shows.

Joining SAF in this action are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., B&L Productions, Inc., d/b/a Crossroads of the West and four private citizens, Gerald Clark, Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell and Jan Steven Merson. They are represented by attorneys Anna M. Barvir, Michel & Associates, P.C., and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Donald Kilmer. The case is known as B & L Productions, Inc. et al v. Gavin Newsom et al.

The original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A hearing is scheduled Jan. 6, 2023.

The 33-page memorandum asserts that the purpose of the new legislation was banning gun shows statewide. The memorandum states, “There is no evidence that California’s gun shows—already more heavily regulated than other avenues for firearm sales—pose some unique threat to public safety. And California has identified no other compelling interest that might justify its ban. Instead, the legislative history reveals the legislators’ bare desire to make a ‘value statement’ about guns and gun shows and to get California out of the business of profiting from such events. In short, California’s animus for Plaintiffs, their commerce in lawful products, and the cultural aspects of these events is the not-so-hidden motivation behind the State’s action.” Read more

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NY Private Property Case

A federal judge in western New York has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “private property exclusion” tenet of the state’s new gun control law, calling it unconstitutional.

The case, known as Christian et. al. v. Nigrelli, et. al., was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of Brett Christian, a private citizen. U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo handed down the 27-page ruling.

Noting that the private property exclusion “makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent,” Judge Sinatra noted, “Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations…New York fails that test.”

Judge Sinatra added, “Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the ruling, which was issued late Tuesday afternoon.

“New York’s efforts to dance around the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision have become a painful exercise in legal acrobatics, which it seems obvious the courts can see through,” Gottlieb observed. “This case illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which lawmakers in Albany have tried to go in their efforts to get around the letter and spirit of the high court ruling.” Read more

DRGO Study Shows no Link Between Legal Gun Sales and Violent Crime

BELLEVUE, WA – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO)—a project of the Second Amendment Foundation—has released a new study showing there is “no association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.”

The study, by DRGO member Mark Hamill, MD, FACS, FCCM, is titled Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides” and is published in the Journal of Surgical Research. Dr. Hamill worked with a team of nine other doctors to reach their conclusions.

“This confirms what those of us already know who follow all the research by medical, criminology and economic experts,” said DRGO Executive Director Dr. Robert Young. “Lawful gun possession is in no way related to homicide or other crime rates, and the constant drumbeat of anti-gun researchers and activists is a house built on sand.”

“DRGO is an important project of the Second Amendment Foundation,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because anti-gun billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg are funding research that tries to portray guns and gun ownership as a disease.”

The new report is based on a detailed, objective 50-state analysis of data from the National Instant Background Check System, the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reporting program, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System covering the years 1999-2015.

Dr. Hamill is an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Nebraska, a longtime gun owner and a law enforcement officer in his previous career. His experience, expertise and thoroughness makes his team’s findings unimpeachable. In 2019, he published earlier research, “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime” in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. In this, he and his co-authors do the same careful work analyzing 30 years of data state-by-state. Read more

NSSF Challenges Delaware, N.J. ‘Public Nuisance Laws’ Allowing Frivolous Claims Against Firearms Manufacturers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed suits against the attorneys general of Delaware and New Jersey, challenging recently-enacted “public nuisance” laws in both states that are “specifically designed to evade the judgment of Congress – and the Constitution.”

Both Delaware and New Jersey enacted public nuisance laws allowing the state and private parties to sue firearm manufacturers for the harm caused by the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms. In 2005, Congress barred these sorts of baseless lawsuits when it passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Delaware and New Jersey’s laws are preempted by the PLCAA under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Public nuisance lawsuits brought by municipalities against members of the firearm industry arose in the late 1990s and early 2000s to “regulate through litigation.” None of those dozens of lawsuits, including those by Wilmington, Del., and Newark, Camden County and the City of Camden, N.J., were successful. These municipal lawsuits intended to bankrupt the industry members or, through the massive cost of litigation, force them to accept settlement agreements that contained gun control provisions rejected by Congress and not supported by the American public. Delaware and New Jersey’s new laws are a blatant and unconstitutional attempt to return to an era of “regulation through litigation.” Read more

SAF Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Delaware Gun Ban

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place · Bellevue, WA 98005

(425) 454-7012 · FAX (425) 451-3959 · www.saf.org

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Delaware’s recently-adopted ban on so-called “assault weapons” on the grounds the legislation—known as House Bill 450—violates the Second Amendment.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, a Nevada-based group, DJJAMS, LLC, a firearms retailer in Delaware’s New Castle County, and two private citizens, Gabriel Gray and William Taylor. Named as a defendant is Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gellert Scali Busnenkell & Brown LLC in Wilmington. The case is known as Gray, et.al. v. Jennings.

“One week after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Bruen decision in June,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “Delaware Gov. John Carney signed House Bill 450, which we believe is clearly unconstitutional. Yet this new statute categorically bans the protected conduct of possessing, self-manufacturing, transporting, importing, selling, transferring, purchasing, receiving and lawfully using constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation.”

The new statute lists dozens of firearms described generically as “assault long guns” and 19 handguns described as “assault pistols,” plus so-called “copycat” firearms. Violators can be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to eight years in prison.

“By adopting this statute after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, Delaware is clearly ignoring the court, and the Second Amendment,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case cuts right to the heart of our mission, which is to defend the rights of gun owners by challenging egregious gun control laws in court. This law is extremism on steroids, and cannot be allowed to stand.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 700,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

1 28 29 30 31 32 141