Category: Gun Control

NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom: Why Mainstream Media Refuses to Learn Anything About Guns

Now on A1F.com: Many in the mainstream media refuse to learn anything about guns or the Second Amendment. Even though this ignorance often makes them play the fool in print and on TV, many in the media still prefer not to learn about this critical civil right. Why? That is the important question this feature answers.

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

For Immediate Release

Contact: Brook Chiasson

bchiasson@nrahq.org

(703) 267-1327

Firearms, Gun Control

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Vanderstok Case

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s enforcement of the final rule regarding partially manufactured firearm parts and kits in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland, which challenged the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

“This is a huge victory,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which was allowed to intervene in the case last summer, along with Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company. “The court’s preliminary determination is pretty straightforward, and it notes that SAF and Defense Distributed are likely to succeed on the merits of their case against the receiver rule.”

The decision was issued by Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. His preliminary injunction applies to Defense Distributed and its clients.

“We are pleased with the Courts ruling, which correctly finds we are likely to succeed on our claims,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Judge O’Connor agrees that ATF’s final rule expanded the agency’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers, which surpasses the authority granted by Congress. Even more compelling is that the judge agrees that ATF’s rule unlawfully treats parts kits as firearms. It is refreshing to see rogue administrative agencies being reined in by the checks and balances of our system of government.” Read more

Gun Control

NRA America’s 1st Freedom Video Why the Gun-Control Crowd Loathes John Lott

Video: NRA America’s 1st Freedom Video Why the Gun-Control Crowd Loathes John Lott

Now on A1F.com: John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, explains why gun-control groups and many in the mainstream media call him a “debunked researcher” and why they’ve spent years doing all they can to disparage, delegitimize and cancel him.

Watch this video interview at A1F.com.

Gun Control

Silencer Shop and ASA-F Fight to Restore Illinois’ Suppressor Rights

Silencer Shop and the American Suppressor Association Foundation (ASA-F) have teamed up to fight back against an unconstitutional ban on suppressors. Illinois has had a long-standing ban on the sale and possession of silencers, limiting law-abiding citizens’ second amendment right to bear arms and to protect the hearing of themselves and others. Illinois is one of only eight states with a silencer ban in place, but that may change soon thanks to the combined effort of Silencer Shop and the ASA-F.

After the groundbreaking New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision in 2022 asserted that the state must demonstrate that the ban is consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” other state gun laws are being examined through the same lens. Our Lawsuit alleges that there is no historical tradition for banning safety equipment and that silencers make firearms safer. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

Plaintiffs File Memo Supporting Summary Judgement Motion in IL Transit Case

Plaintiffs in a case supported financially by the Second Amendment Foundation challenging a concealed carry ban on Illinois Public Transportation have filed a memorandum supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case.

The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Plaintiffs in the case are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel and Douglas Winston. They are all residents of counties in northern Illinois in the greater Chicago area, and all are SAF members. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill. The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul.

Defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities.

According to the memorandum, Illinois bans law-abiding citizens, who are licensed to carry firearms under Illinois law from carrying their firearms for self-defense “on or into . . . [a]ny bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.” They contend the Public Transportation carry ban is unconstitutional. Read more

Gun Control

Defendant in SAF’s N.Y. Case Agrees Court Should Grant Prelim. Injunction

A defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of New York’s gun control law has filed a brief with the federal appeals court supporting the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, a move which SAF’s Alan Gottlieb welcomed as a pleasant surprise. The case is known as Hardaway, Jr. v. Nigrelli.

Gottlieb, who is SAF’s founder and executive vice president, said the brief filed by Niagara County, N.Y. District Attorney Brian D. Seaman reinforces plaintiffs’ assertion that the gun control law, which prohibits concealed carry in broadly-defined “sensitive places” including places of worship, is unconstitutional.

Seaman’s brief states he supports the application for a preliminary injunction “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law,” adding, “Therefore, the Court should affirm the Decision and Order of the district court granting the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ application for a preliminary injunction.” Read more

Gun Control

Response Brief Filed In Miller V. Bonta Calif. ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Case

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the case of Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” have filed a responding brief in the case, countering defense arguments and strategies already rejected by federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Our reply takes the state to task for going directly against the instructions of the federal court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state spent its entire 25-page brief trying to re-litigate the case, essentially arguing for ‘interest balancing’ by the court, which the Supreme Court nixed last year in its landmark Bruen ruling. The only logical conclusion is that the State of California is stalling, trying to delay the inevitable ruling that the ban on semiautomatic rifles is unconstitutional.” Read more

Gun Control

SAF Files Federal Challenge of Arm Brace Rule, Seeks Injunction

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed an amended federal complaint challenging the Biden administration’s new “Arm Brace Rule,” accusing the government of violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Joining SAF in this legal action are Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Beck Redden LLP of Houston, Texas.

Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Director Steve Dettelbach, the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al.

“The Biden administration’s new ‘arm brace rule’ is a marked departure from the ATF’s previous position about whether pistols with arm braces are legally considered pistols,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This dramatic shift in policy leads us to conclude the president, through his agency directors, is moving to change the definition of pistols fitted with these braces to be ‘rifles,’ and thus subject to the National Firearms Act. In so doing, the administration has turned millions of law-abiding pistol owners into criminals who suddenly own guns now defined as ‘short-barreled rifles.’ This is unconscionable.” Read more

Gun Control

Statement of Daniel Defense on its Motion to Dismiss in Torres v. Daniel Defense

BLACK CREEK, GA – On February 14th, Daniel Defense, manufacturer of the world’s finest firearms and accessories, followed through on our promise to vigorously defend our Company and our customers’ Second Amendment rights by filing a motion to dismiss the suit in Torres v. Daniel Defense in the United States District Court in Del Rio, Texas brought by Everytown Law and others.

The suit is simply another attempt by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group to promote their false narrative that someone other than the criminal is responsible for crime, and to continue their campaign to destroy lawful citizen access to firearms by suing manufacturers out of existence. Daniel Defense will strongly defend our customers’ rights to responsibly acquire and use our products. We look forward to continuing to support our loyal customers as we seek the immediate dismissal of all frivolous actions filed against us.

Everytown Law is a part of Everytown for Gun Safety, a national group committed to intensely attacking gun rights in just about every category of lawful use or supply, including eliminating sound legal protections for firearms manufacturers and dealers, and banning AR-15 rifles and common capacity magazines. Unfortunately, organizations like Everytown are committed to significantly eroding Second Amendment freedoms and are directly involved in Torres and similar lawsuits with the objective of nullifying clear federal law protecting the lawful right to manufacture firearms. Read more

Gun Control

SAF Files Amended Complaint Challenging New Jersey Gun Law

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amended complaint in its challenge of New Jersey’s revised gun permit law, adding one plaintiff and expanding its scope on so-called “sensitive places.” The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

SAF and its lawsuit partners are now joined by plaintiff Gil Tal. Other plaintiffs are the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and individual citizens Jeffrey M. Muller, Nicholas Gaudio and Ronald Koons, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, New York. The case was previously known as Koons v. Reynolds. SAF was already granted a temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Camden in that case.

The amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Named as defendants are New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and State Police Supt. Patrick Callahan, in their official capacities.

The specific additional “sensitive places” designations that are challenged in the amended lawsuit include parks, beaches, recreational facilities or playgrounds or areas owned or controlled by a state, county or local government unit, plus youth sports events, an airport or public transportation hub, and various health care facilities. These areas were designated “sensitive” because the New Jersey Legislature was determined to “continue minimizing the carry of handguns as much as possible,” the lawsuit notes. Read more

Gun Control
1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 151