FPC Letters to San Francisco Police and Sherif

San Francisco, CA – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF) sent letters today to San Francisco Police Chief William “Bill” Scott and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto telling them to “take immediate action to conform [their] policies and practices to comply with constitutional requirements.” The letters can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“At bottom, if you are accepting and processing license applications, you must treat such matters with the timeliness and care required of any constitutionally enshrined fundamental right,” reads the letters. “Requiring appointments, imposing delays, and otherwise denying non-prohibited individuals access to their fundamental right to bear arms is unconstitutional.” Read more

FPC Statement to Concealed Carry Issuing Authorities

Sacramento, CA – Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to reports of multiple carry permit issuing authorities across the country refusing to comply with the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry firearms in public:

Quoting the plurality opinion from McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court held in Bruen that “[t]he constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

To those authorities that process or issue permits to carry concealed weapons that are abrogating the People’s right to carry: Obstructing the People’s fundamental right to an effective self-defense is not an option.

It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the recent United States Supreme Court opinion. It doesn’t matter if there are a lot of applicants. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feel like spending time processing them. You are required to objectively process a carry permit application submitted to you without burdensome fees, delays, flaming hoops, and other games. The deluge of applications you’re now experiencing could have been avoided if you simply respected the People’s right to bear arms from the start and not treated it as a second-class right. Read more

FPC Statement on Steven Dettelbach’s Confirmation to Head ATF

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to the United States Senate’s confirmation of Steven Dettelbach as permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):

The Senate failed the People today. The purpose of agency directors is to serve ministerial duties, not to subvert law and cheerlead the abrogation of our rights. By confirming an anti-rights zealot to helm one of the nation’s most infamous agencies, the Senate has all but promised that the ATF will continue, or even worsen, its violations of the trust of the People.

Steven Dettelbach–who aggressively promoted “universal background checks” and “assault weapon” bans–will serve as the first permanent ATF director since Byron Todd Jones, who stepped down in 2015. ATF has a storied history of civil rights violations, arming cartels, and not to mention the commission of atrocities such as those at Waco, Texas. It cannot be understated how concerning it is that an anti-rights zealot will now be taking the helm of that agency.

With several members of the Senate absent due to varying health issues, Republicans had the power to avert Dettelbach’s confirmation. For reasons beyond our comprehension, two GOP Senators seemed to salivate at the opportunity to advance a hand-picked anti-rights activist, thus allowing him to narrowly gain confirmation in a 48-46 vote. By confirming Dettelbach, the Senate has once again failed the People in spectacular fashion.

The Senate Republicans who made Dettelbach’s confirmation possible are:

Sen. Susan Collins (ME) and Sen. Rob Portman (OH)

FPC remains vigilant against the weaponization of federal law enforcement against peaceable people. As this new chapter of the ATF begins under Dettelbach’s leadership, FPC will use all tools available to meet any infringement of individual rights with the appropriate corresponding response. Read more

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging New York “Assault Weapons’ Ban as Unconstitutional

CENTRAL ISLIP, NY – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The complaint in Vanchoff v. James, along with other case information, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Enough is enough,” said FPC policy counsel Matthew Larosiere “the people of New York have suffered this abuse for far too long. The arms targeted by New York’s ban are ordinary arms, kept by ordinary people for ordinary–but extremely important–purposes, including the fundamental right to an effective self-defense. There is no justification for threatening peaceable people with long stints in a government cage for merely possessing a firearm, regardless of what that particular firearm looks like. With this suit, we hope to end this injustice that has for too long imperiled New Yorkers.”

“There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semi-automatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle,” the brief explains. “While some exterior physical attributes may differ—wood vs. metal stocks and furniture, the number and/or location of grips, having a bare muzzle vs. having muzzle devices, different barrel lengths, etc.—they are, in all relevant respects, the same.” Read more

FPC Files Supplemental Brief in Lawsuit Challenging Texas Young Adult Handgun Carry Ban

DALLAS, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a supplemental brief in Andrews v. McCraw, its Texas lawsuit seeking to restore the right to carry arms in public for adults under 21 years of age. The brief, which was requested by the Court after the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Where previously Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Plaintiffs’ facial challenge, that precedent has been abrogated and this Court is free to consider this case as a matter of first impression under the new analysis,” argues the brief. “The new standard announced by the Supreme Court is exactly the text, history, and tradition-based standard that Plaintiffs have been arguing in favor of all along, and, as Plaintiffs have explained (and will demonstrate again here), under that standard the Carry Ban must be declared unconstitutional as inconsistent with the Amendment’s text and our nation’s history of firearms regulation”

“Last month’s decision in Bruen has only strengthened our case against Texas’ unconstitutional carry restrictions,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere. “We look forward to restoring the rights of young adults to bear arms in the Lone Star State and nationwide.” Read more

SAF, Partners Sue California

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and several partners have filed a federal lawsuit for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in a case challenging the constitutionality of a California law prohibiting gun shops, sporting goods stores, and any “firearm industry member” from advertising, marketing or arranging for placement “any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

It is a First Amendment case known as Junior Sports Magazine, Inc., et al, v. Bonta. Joining SAF in the motion are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., the CRPA Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Turner’s Outdoors, Inc., California Youth Shooting Sports Foundation, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., and two private citizens.

The statute in question—identified as AB 2571 throughout the complaint and signed into law June 30—clearly focuses on any “firearm industry member” in its prohibition, which violates not only the First Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, plaintiffs contend.

“The First Amendment protects commercial speech that promotes legal products and services,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You simply cannot single out people engaged in a legal business enterprise and forbid them from advertising or promoting their products just because you don’t like them. That’s what this case is all about.” Read more

Frivolous Lawsuits and Politicians

From Jim Shepherd…

In politics, “doing something” – even if it has less chance of succeeding than a dodo does of supersonic flight – counts.

There needs to be a sign posted along every highway just before it crosses into New York State that reads; “Caution Virtue Signaling and Needless Harassment Ahead.” That’s because NY State and its Aspiring Governor, er, Attorney General Letitia James is -once again- plowing ahead with ill-conceived litigation. This time against “National Gun Distributors” for ostensibly “fueling gun violence crisis and endangering New Yorkers.”

Apparently AG James doesn’t have enough on her plate, so she’s had her office of litigators fabricate another flimsy case against “ten gun distributors” in a “comprehensive lawsuit that alleges (my italics -you’re innocent until proven guilty, but that is frequently overlooked by many media outlets) violation of “local, state and federal laws.”

The reason for the suit- not a difficult guess- “ghost gun parts” – you know, those parts that are totally legal for individuals to own and assemble as long as they’re not resold or given to anyone else (I’ve run wild with the italicized words, but at least I’m not using sixty-seven exclamation points like some 9-year old’s letter from camp!!!!!!).

The lawsuit alleges the parts were sold to felons “and others” without a background check. The last time I glanced at federal laws, there was no requirement for a background check for parts that don’t qualify as completed firearm element requiring serialization.

AG James asserts Brownells, Blackhawk Manufacturing, Salvo Technologies, G.S. Performance, Indie Guns, Primary Arms, Arm or Ally, Rainier Arms, KM Tactical, and Rock Slide USA “flooded New York’s streets with illegal ghost guns and harmed New Yorkers.”

Looks like AG James has assembled a list of suspects according to two criteria: deep pockets (Brownells, Blackhawk) and small enough to put out of business by defending themselves against this suit.

A weary old policeman once told me that when you have a long list of suspects you are only seeking “one rat.” Brownells and Blackhawk can certainly afford to mount a “spirited defense.” They’re not likely to “roll” in order to limit their liability. Can’t definitively say that about the others.

Consequently, I would suspect the NY AG’s office isn’t seeking a “landmark legal decision” – although they’d take it. What they’re looking to get is a pound (or six) of flesh from companies that prefer settlement over potential litigation. New York’s not exactly known for giving gun companies the benefit of a doubt when awarding damages.

With the jaundiced eye of a longtime political observer, it’s tough not to believe that a political win, in a state with an unelected governor and a decidedly political bent to every other decision made in Albany, would be just as good as a guilty verdict.

In politics, “doing something” even if it has less chance of succeeding than a dodo does of supersonic flight, counts. It gives political cover -or allows bureaucrats to incrementally shape the law to what you actually wanted but couldn’t get passed legislatively.

That, in a nutshell, is why much of the legislation passed could be described as being “a mile wide, but only a quarter-inch deep.”

My political suspicions heightened when I learned that New York Mayor Eric Adams had filed a simultaneous federal lawsuit against five of the gun distributors: Arm or Ally, 80P Builder, Rockslide USA, Rainier Arms and Indie Arms for the City of New York.

“We’re not going to let gun companies turn New York City into a city of mail-order murder,” Adams declared, “Whether they’re hidden in the trunks of cars or packed in a plain brown box, ghost guns are illegal in our city, and we will take every lawful action possible to stop gun dealers from profiting at the expense of the safety of our city.”

According to the New York State lawsuit, “ghost gun parts” only require a “few small changes with a “common drill press” to “transform an unfinished receiver into an operational one.”

If you’ve ever tried to duplicate those “small changes” – even if you happen to own a “common drill press”- you know that’s as laughable as a do-it-yourself TV show telling you it’s possible to refurbish a Steinway piano with a nail file and a two spray cans of gloss black paint.

McGuyver might have done it on TV, but he got multiple takes. And special effects.

The state suit cites an incident where a “ghost gun” was actually used in a crime.

That incident, apparently, proves some sort of implication that the “literally thousands of purchases” documented in the New York investigation equates to “literally thousands” of guns just waiting to pounce. The inference is also strong these “ghosts” don’t even require operators.

Having lived in New York City, there are undoubtedly several thousand criminals inside the boroughs, waiting to pounce. But I seriously doubt they’re armed with ghost guns they’ve assembled themselves.

In fairness, there’s no argument that out of “thousands of transactions” someone used those assembled parts and pieces either irresponsibly or illegally. Or both.

That however, isn’t a damming indictment of the firearms industry. It’s confirmation of a statistical probability.

Attorney General James uses the advertising of 80 Percent Arms as further proof of wholesale industry guilt.

Their advertising, she says, touts “No RED TAPE including: NO Registering an 80% Lower, NO Transfer fees like a typical firearm, NO FFL required, Ships right to your door.”

All true. Unfortunately (for her case) all totally legal in all but the most anti-gun areas of the United States.

Using it to infer bad intentions is a solid political strategy. But proving to a jury that advertising messages were an indication of bad intent should present a slightly higher bar to clear.

She’s also using big numbers to frighten the uninformed when citing a chilling 1,357 percent increase in “ghost guns” being recovered by New York police. Using the actual “numbers” rather than percentages, it isn’t nearly so horrifying: 44 of the so-called “ghosts” were recovered. In 2018 the number increased to 641.

As the old adage says: there are three types of lies: lies, damnable lies, and statistics.

So what is AG James seeking in her suit?

A ban on each of the listed businesses from selling, shipping, distributing or otherwise supplying unfinished frames or receivers or receivers lacking serial numbers (aren’t finished but unserialized frames illegal to sell by federal statute?) to New Yorkers, “restitution and damages”, “public corrective statements from the businesses regarding their false and misleading statements, and obtain disgorgement.”

Disgorgement, FYI, is a financial penalty for individuals convicted of having “amassed wealth in a wrongful manner.”

There’s one more thing: to require each business to contribute to an abatement fund to “eliminate the public nuisance for which they are responsible. The abatement fund would be used to combat New York’s gun violence crisis.”

This is another instance of New York’s declaration of open hostilities with any person or business in the gun industry. It’s no coincidence these suits dropped after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s concealed carry permitting process.

This is looking like another battles being waged by politicians and bureaucrats on an increasingly frequent basis on their citizens.

 

SAF Files Notice of Supplemental Authority in Gun Rights Case

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in a case challenging the ban on handgun purchases by young adults, ages 18-20, based on language in the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

The notice states, “As Plaintiffs have argued, text, history and tradition all point uniformly in this case toward 18-to-20-year-olds having equal rights to other adults with respect to firearms, including the right to purchase them, and the Government has not pointed to any sufficiently rooted analogous historical restrictions that would take this case outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

“The high court ruling in Bruen clearly opens lots of doors in our pursuit of gun rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and this case is one of them.”

The case is known as Reese, et.al. v. BATFE.

As explained in the Notice, “The standard Bruen establishes for Second Amendment challenges is precisely the standard for which Plaintiffs argued in their briefing on their motion for summary judgment: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Read more

NSSF Hires Clement & Murphy

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is announcing it has retained Paul Clement and Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy, PLLC, to represent NSSF in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its lawsuit, NSSF et al v. James. The lawsuit challenges New York State’s unlawful public nuisance statute, which is designed to impose New York-style gun control on the lawful sale of firearms and ammunition products by permitting lawsuits against members of the industry for the criminal misuse of firearms that find their way into New York even when the sale occurred wholly outside the State of New York and in compliance with all applicable federal and the state laws where it took place.

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy recently formed their own law firm after their prior firm, Kirkland & Ellis, abruptly announced it would, “no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment.” That announcement came just days after Clement and Murphy won the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in which the court held the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm in public for self-protection.

Rather than abandon their clients in the midst of ongoing representations, Clement and Murphy continue to stand by their principles and defend their clients’ fundamental Constitutional rights. They wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “The American legal profession’s willingness to take on and stand by controversial clients has made our system of justice the envy of the world. The profession shouldn’t back down from its willingness to tackle the most divisive issues. We certainly won’t.” Read more

FPC Files Motion to Lift Stay in California “Assault Weapon” Ban Lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion to lift the stay that was imposed last year in Miller v. Bonta, its lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that resulted in the district court striking down the ban under the Second Amendment. The motion, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The people of California have endured for long enough,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere. “Suffering first and worst all too often, Californians are long overdue to have their rights vindicated. We are eager to see this stay lifted and one more nugget of freedom restored in the Golden State.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen eliminates any plausible argument for a stay in this case,” reads the motion. “Whereas Appellants here relied on this and other courts’ familiar two-step interest-balancing approach to claim a likelihood of success on the merits, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected that framework as ‘having one step too many.’”

Read more

1 37 38 39 40 41 141