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

FORT WORTH, TX – Last night, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw appealed FPC’s victory in our Andrews v. McCraw lawsuit, which correctly held that Texas’ ban on handgun carry by young adults is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Case documents are available at FPCLegal.org.

“Texas Public Safety Director McCraw is welcome to appeal to a higher power, as is his right,” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “But we fully expect that he will be equally disappointed when the Fifth Circuit properly applies the Bruen standard, just as the District Court has done, and strikes down Texas’ ban.” Read more

ROCKFORD, IL – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced the filing of a new FPC-supported federal lawsuit challenging Illinois’ ban on the carrying of firearms on public transportation and in public transportation facilities. The complaint in Schoenthal v. Raoul can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The unifying feature of the historically accepted sensitive places where individuals were deprived of the right to bear arms was security,” argues the complaint. “In compensation for an individual’s lessened right to protect himself, the government provided security measures to ensure the physical protection of anyone in a legislative assembly or courthouse. In a modern context, this would mean measures such as requiring individuals to pass though magnetometers when entering the location in question. The Public Transportation Carry Ban is not accompanied by security measures of this type.”

“The underlying question here is clear: Do individuals have the right to defend themselves from unjust violence while on a bus?” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the answer is self-evident: Anywhere individuals may be met with confrontation and unjust violence, they have the right to effectively defend themselves. The very concept of banning self-defense in those areas where people congregate is absurd on its face.” Read more