DUBLIN, GA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed an appeal in Baughcum v. Jackson, its lawsuit challenging Georgia’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults. The notice of appeal, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

On October 6th, Judge Dudley Bowen Jr. of the Southern District of Georgia dismissed the lawsuit, saying that “Plaintiffs have not presented a case or controversy between themselves and the Probate Judge Defendants within the meaning of Article III. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over their claims.”

“For reasons unclear to anyone, Judge Bowen expected our plaintiffs to apply for a carry permit that they were ineligible for based on the plain – and unconstitutional – reading of the statute,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “But the law does not require individuals to undertake futile acts to establish their Article III standing. Instead of facing this unconstitutional ban on the fundamental rights of young adults head on, the district court punted, plain and simple. Now the Eleventh Circuit will get its chance to properly apply the Bruen standard and knock down this law.” Read more

Federal Lifetime Gun Ban Unconstitutional for Non-Violent Felons Like Appellant, FPC Argues in 10th Circuit Brief

DENVER, CO – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of an important brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Vincent v. Garland, a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on gun ownership as applied to a non-violent felony conviction. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Melynda Vincent is forever prohibited from owning a firearm because she was convicted of bank fraud after writing a false check for $498.12 over 14 years ago. Vincent has since obtained a B.S. in Behavioral Health from Utah Valley University, a master’s degree in social work from the University of Utah, a second master’s degree in public administration from the University of Utah, and she has founded a thriving nonprofit dedicated to counseling and therapy. Despite all that, and the fact that she was never ordered to serve a day in jail those many years ago, the government has forever restricted her right to self-defense. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners today filed a federal lawsuit asking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Glendale, Calif., its police chief and city clerk. The case is known as CRPA v. Glendale.

Joining SAF are the Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Joshua Robert Dale and Konstadinos T. Moros of Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho. In addition to the City of Glendale, defendants are Police Chief Carl Povilaitis and City Clerk Suzie Abajian, in their official capacities. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

“The City of Glendale’s municipal code generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on any city property, with no exception for citizens with concealed carry permits,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ban applies not just to city property, but also publicly-controlled property or public-affiliated private property, with the only exceptions being streets, roads and sidewalks. Such restrictions relegate the right to keep and bear arms to the status of a strictly-regulated government privilege.

“Our lawsuit is blunt,” he continued. “The Glendale ordinance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection extends outside the home. As we note in our complaint, the burden is on the city to prove that all areas falling within the definition of ‘city property’ are so-called ‘sensitive places,’ and they cannot do it.” Read more

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Palmer v. Sisolak, its lawsuit challenging Nevada’s confiscatory ban on all unserialized, self-manufactured firearms as well as all “unfinished frames or receivers.” The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“In spite of the plain text of the Second Amendment, the State of Nevada, through Assembly Bill No. 286… banned the possession and self-manufacture of common, lawfully possessed firearms and firearms parts,” argues the brief. “However, Nevada unquestionably cannot meet its burden under Bruen to show that the Ban is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Indeed, citizens of the United States and their predecessor colonies have been free to manufacture, possess, and sell self-made firearms since well before the Founding such that no relatively similar analogue exists.”

“Inherent to the textual right to ‘keep and bear’ is the ability to acquire, and acquiring firearms by way of private manufacture has been part of the American tradition from the very beginning of our nation’s history,”said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “This opening brief invites the Ninth Circuit to apply the correct ‘Text as informed by history and tradition’ test, and rectify the missteps of the District Court below.” Read more

SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II), its 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 motion 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 only to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations,” explains the motion. “In simple terms, Section 1021.11 enables government defendants to recover their attorney’s fees and costs 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.”

“The constitutional violations have caused concrete harm to Plaintiffs here,” the motion goes on to argue. “Section 1021.11 has not only imposed a substantial potential cost on Plaintiffs for litigating Miller I, but it has caused several Plaintiffs to dismiss or refrain from bringing additional lawsuits challenging other California firearms regulations that they believe are unconstitutional.” Read more

Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured a temporary restraining order in federal court against the poorly named New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” This follows GOA and GOF re-filing their lawsuit against New York just two weeks ago.

Provisions of this law that are blocked under this TRO include:

• Requiring businesses to openly state they ALLOW concealed carry
• Disclosing one’s social media accounts for review
• Prohibitions on carrying in most so-called “sensitive places,” including doctor’s offices, Times Square, restaurants and places of entertainment, and on public transportation
• In-person interviews with law enforcement

The TRO will take effect next week, unless a federal circuit court overturns this ruling before then.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“Anti-gunners like Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams lied and misrepresented the Second Amendment to the courts, putting New Yorkers at a great disadvantage in the midst of rising crime. We are grateful to Judge Suddaby for his quick action to restore the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Once the TRO goes into effect, GOA encourages New Yorkers to exercise their rights and to defend themselves and the ones they love.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA—Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and their partners in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on personally-built firearms are now defending their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the state.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA in their original legal action, known as Renna v. Bonta, are the North County Shooting Center, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition, and several private citizens Danielle Jaymes, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Robert Macomber, Clint Freeman, John Matthew Klier, Justin Smith, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince, Darin Prince, Ryan Peterson, Leonard Ruebe, PWGG, L.P., and Lana Rae Renna, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael P. Sousa of San Diego.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

“California only wants to argue about the plain text and not the history of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “On that level, we will win as well, because you cannot keep and bear arms if you can’t make, buy and/or sell arms. It is really that simple.”

According to the new motion, the state has attempted to develop a litigation strategy that purportedly shifts the burden onto the plaintiffs, while the state essentially does nothing absent an order from this Court directing them to undertake the historical analysis required under Bruen. Read more

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