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

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.

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