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

“Collectively, New York’s ‘sensitive location’ and ‘restricted location’ designations, and Defendants’ enforcement of them, are a de facto ban on the fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public virtually everywhere,” argues the complaint. “Indeed, asked by reporters where New York carry license-holders would be able to legally exercise their rights after enactment of S51001, New York Governor Kathy Hochul could only affirm that New Yorkers have their Second Amendment rights to peaceably carry for self-defense on ‘[p]robably some streets.’”

“New York’s so-called ‘Bruen response bill’ is a hastily assembled wish list of gun control enacted by a legislature whose world view had just been rocked by the Supreme Court,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “When single-party majorities enact poorly drafted, ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation, FPC Law will step up and challenge them in the courts, as we have today in the Western District of New York.” Read more

From Jim Shepherd

On Friday, another shot was fired – quietly- at the gun industry. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), voted to create a “special code” for gun stores to use when processing credit and debit card transactions. Proponents of the move are quick to point out that other business categories already have these categories.

That may be true, but this isn’t being done as a simple business move. It’s a calculated move to circumvent regulations preventing federal tracking of gun sales.

As described by Priscilla Sims Brown, the president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank (the bank that requested the ISO category) in her statement of support, the new category will allow Amalgamated to “fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales.”

She also said “we all have to do our part to prevent gun violence.”

A couple of important points spring to mind: 1) where are the definitions of “suspicious activities” on a credit card, and 2) if she has a “duty to report” those suspicious activities, to whom would that report be given? Read more

Today, an Op Ed from Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Dave Workman, Communications Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs including gun rights organizations are challenging changes in state law created by passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. Plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm, if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance, or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment, by legislating against those who would challenge their laws. What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country in which our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

— Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is the communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

SACRAMENTO, CA – Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to the failure of California measures SB 918 (Portantino), which would have made it nearly impossible for most people to lawfully exercise their fundamental rights, and AB 1227 (Levine), which would have instituted punitive taxes on those same fundamental rights.

Despite a full court press by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senator Anthony Portantino to turn the tide, their efforts to defy the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen by expanding the definition of “sensitive location” to the point of comical absurdity has failed.

In addition, Assemblymember Marc Levine’s elitist attempt to create barriers to access the fundamental right to acquire firearms and ammunition with dramatic tax increases on these rights has also failed.

SB 918 and AB 1227 were examples of the contemptuous undermining of the natural rights of the People. This cavalier attitude, particularly following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, is naked conceit. These measures and those like them seek to increase state violence and put peaceable people in government cages for exercising their rights. Read more

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in their Linton v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s laws and policies that deny Second Amendment rights to peaceable people whose rights should have been fully restored after their non-violent felony convictions in other states were vacated and nullified. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Plaintiffs Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones were convicted of non-violent felonies in other states decades ago, and have since had those convictions set aside or vacated. Furthermore, the courts in the states in which they were convicted—Washington, Arizona, and Texas—restored their rights to purchase and possess firearms. Nevertheless, California still forbids them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“The historical inquiry is: Can the State show that there is a relevant historical tradition, dating to the founding era, which allows for lifetime disarmament of individuals convicted of non-violent felonies?” asks the motion. “An examination of the scholarship and legal analysis of this period leads to the conclusion that as a matter of our Nation’s history, prohibited persons could have their rights restored once they were no longer considered dangerous.” Read more

FORT WORTH, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski. “The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The New York City Police Department has issued an emergency rule deleting the “proper cause” and “letter of necessity” requirements from their application process to obtain a concealed carry license thanks to a legal action filed by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc, several private citizens, whose license applications have now been processed. They were represented by attorney David Jensen, PLLC of New York.

“Even with the Supreme Court ruling striking down the ‘proper cause’ requirement, we wanted to make sure the New York licensing process swiftly complied with the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re delighted NYPD quickly complied, and we’ll chalk up one more victory in our effort to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

According to a memorandum detailing the emergency rule, New York City “must immediately implement an operative concealed carry licensing scheme to address an imminent threat to safety ad property. This emergency rule ensures that pending and recently denied or ‘downgraded’ applications are evaluated consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.” Read more