FORT WORTH, TX (October r, 2022) – Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a federal judge has expanded the preliminary injunction in VanDerStok v. Garland, its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule. In addition to the injunction issued in September, the expanded injunction adds protection for the individual plaintiffs and plaintiff Tactical Machining’s customers. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Having carefully considered the arguments, the evidence, and the law, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs… and Tactical Machining, LLC have demonstrated that each is subject to a substantial threat of irreparable harm,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “Individual Plaintiffs and Tactical Machining are therefore entitled to expanded preliminary injunctive relief. Enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule against these Plaintiffs should alleviate their demonstrable injuries without burdening Defendants unnecessarily.”

“We’re pleased to report another important victory in this case,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Not only has the Court found that the ATF’s attempt to redefine ‘firearm’ and ‘frame or receiver’ is likely unlawful, but the Court has found that our clients deserve protection from its implementation. As a result, both Tactical Machining and its customers are now protected from enforcement of the rule’s redefinition of ‘firearm.’”

In a prior order, the Court ordered “that Defendants compile and produce the complete Administrative Record no later than October 24, 2022.” FPC expects that the case will proceed to the merits and dispositive motions this fall. Read more

BUFFALO, NY – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens,’ like and including Plaintiffs, are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets,’” argues the motion. “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security extends to more than just ‘those . . . who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,’ but also emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home.’”

“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s motion for preliminary injunction is the opportunity for the Court to remind New York lawmakers that those windows are nailed shut by the Constitution.” Read more

Philadelphia, PA – Yesterday, lame-duck Mayor Jim Kenney signed an executive order prohibiting individuals from lawful carry at all City of Philadelphia recreational facilities. The mayor’s actions are in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting these types of local gun restrictions. Within hours of Mayor Kenney’s signing ceremony, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of this illegal gun regulation.

“Mayor Kenney knows this executive order is pointless: law abiding gun owners aren’t the people committing the violent crime and murder in Philadelphia,” said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for GOA. “Instead, Mayor Kenney is trying to deflect attention from his failing policies and failing City by enacting more ‘feel good’ regulations that scapegoat guns for the crisis of crime in Philadelphia. Rather than take responsibility for city policies that created two years of record homicides, Kenney is attempting to capitalize on the tragic deaths of Philadelphia residents to disarm more people and create more victim-only, ‘gun-free’ zones. All this executive order does is put a bullseye on the back of every person at Philadelphia recreational facilities, because they know that Mayor Kenney won’t let you defend yourself there.”

“The lack of respect for taxpayer money is appalling,” said Andrew Austin, attorney for GOA and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Pennsylvania law is clear here: Philly is not allowed to make gun regulations. Every appellate court in Pennsylvania has made this clear multiple times. Yet, they continue to waste taxpayer money by attempting to enact these illegal laws.”

Gun Owners of America will be seeking to enjoin enforcement of Mayor Kenney’s Executive Order in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In addition, GOA has previously filed several other lawsuits in Philadelphia in the last two years in pursuit of Second Amendment rights, and will continue to fight as long as necessary to ensure every citizen has the ability to defend themselves, particularly in lawless cities such as Mayor Kenney’s Philadelphia. Read more

SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 that are designed to suppress and chill legitimate challenges to firearms regulations and were enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law. The complaint in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“On July 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1327, which includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies solely to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations,” details the complaint. “In simple terms, Section 1021.11 enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Firearms plaintiffs, moreover, cannot be ‘prevailing parties’ under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to fees.”

“Section 1021.11 is not even rationally related to any legitimate government interest and therefore would fail even rational basis review,” the complaint goes on to argue. “As noted above, SB 1327 was apparently adopted in retaliation for Texas’s SB 8 in connection with abortion statutes. Retaliation is not a rational justification for the classifications in this case and, indeed, is an utterly impermissible justification.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in California, asking for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the state’s new law which includes a one-way fee shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies only to litigation challenging state gun laws.

Joining SAF are plaintiffs James Miller; Ryan Peterson; John Phillips; Gunfighter Tactical, LLC; PWGG, L.P.; San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee; California Gun Rights Foundation; and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; John W. Dillon; Dillon Law Group, P.C.; and George M. Lee. Defendants are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, Director of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The complaint asserts the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also says the new California law enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Therefore, firearms plaintiffs cannot be “prevailing parties” under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to recover fees and costs.

As noted in the lawsuit, SAF has been forced by the law “to refrain from challenging California gun-control laws that it believes are unconstitutional, including by forcing Plaintiff SAF to remove itself from litigation that had already commenced.”

“In its effort to silence any opposition to unconstitutional gun control laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the California Legislature adopted this new statute which details when and under what circumstances attorney’s fees may be awarded in cases challenging those gun laws.

“Essentially,” he continued, “this new law is designed to suppress any defense of the Second Amendment in court by imposing standards that violate the First Amendment. The law upends Congress’s regulation of fee awards by, among other things, purporting to change who may be considered a ‘prevailing’ party entitled to fees. Simply put, the new law is unconstitutional, and it should not be allowed to stand.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay at the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento.

WILMINGTON, DE (September 23, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order enjoining Delaware’s bans on self-manufacturing and possession of home-built firearms in its Rigby v. Jennings lawsuit. The opinion and order can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“These statutes burden constitutionally protected conduct because possession of firearms and firearm frames and receivers is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ and Defendant has not shown that these firearms and components are not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” wrote Judge Noreika in her opinion. “Further, Defendant has offered no evidence that these statutes are consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

The Court went on to hold that “the right to keep and bear arms implies a corresponding right to manufacture arms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless if no individual or entity could manufacture a firearm. Thus, if possessing untraceable firearms is protected by the Second Amendment, then so too is manufacturing them.”

The Court’s Order states in pertinent part that: “Defendant [Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings], her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her, and all persons who have notice of the injunction are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing 11 Del. C. § 1459A(b); 11 Del. C. § 1463(a); 11 Del. C. § 1463(c)(1) and from enforcing 11 Del. C. 1463(b) to the extent that the Court has found it likely unconstitutional (i.e. the statute’s provisions that bar the manufacturing and assembly of untraceable firearms, but not the prohibitions against distributing untraceable firearms).” The Order issued today further denied the State’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

“The self-manufacture of arms is deeply rooted in American history,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “It has been a celebrated tradition since the earliest colonial days, it helped save America’s war for Independence, it was essential to western expansion, and it has led to many of the most innovative technological breakthroughs in our nation’s history. We are pleased that the court recognized this essential element of the right to keep and bear arms and will continue to fiercely advocate for its protection.” Read more

SAN DIEGO, CA (September 20, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announces the filing of a supplemental brief in its Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period. The brief, which was requested by Judge William Hayes of the Southern District of California after the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“No longer able to claim that this Court must ‘accord substantial deference’ to the legislature as it ‘experiment[s] with’ the fundamental rights of law-abiding people, Defendants must finally face the music and carry the burden they’ve had all along: to prove this regulation ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’ using historically relevant evidence,” argues the brief. “They cannot do so, for the same essential reasons that New York could not justify its ‘special need’ condition for public carry licenses at issue in Bruen.”

“Today’s Brief reiterates what we’ve been arguing from the start of this case, even before the Bruen decision came down,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And now California can’t hide the dearth of historical analogies for this sort of regulation on the acquisition of protected arms behind arguments of watered down interest balancing.” Read more