PITTSBURGH, PA – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) today announced an appellate victory in FOAC v. Pittsburgh, Penn., a lawsuit filed in 2019 in response to a gun control scheme enacted by the City and its then-Mayor, Bill Peduto. The opinion, filed earlier today, is available at FPCLaw.org.

In April of 2019, Pittsburgh enacted regulations that, among other things, prohibited the “use” of so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” In response, FPC and FPCAF joined with Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and three individuals to file a legal challenge, represented by attorney Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. In October of 2019, the trial court ruled in favor of the FOAC plaintiffs and declared the challenged laws “void and unenforceable due to field preemption by the Legislature.”

Throughout the litigation, the City unsuccessfully argued that the ordinances comply with Pennsylvania’s preemption law, which prohibit local governments from “in any manner regulat[ing] the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.” But the appellate Commonwealth Court ultimately disagreed.

“Effectively, the [Assault Weapon] and [Large Capacity Magazine] Ordinances single-out these particular, and presumptively lawful, firearms and firearm accessories for differential treatment and outlaw the manner in which they are ‘used,’ including the act of ‘discharge,’” wrote Judge McCullough for the Court. “Further, the Ordinances in effect regulate the ‘ownership’ and/or ‘possession’ of firearms.” Thus, the Court held, “we affirm the order of the trial court and its conclusion that section 6120(a) of the UFA preempts the Ordinances, section 1102.2 of the AW Ordinance, section 1104.3 of the LCM Ordinance, and section 1107.04 of the ER Ordinance.” Read more

SACRAMENTO, CA – No words can adequately express the pain and loss caused by the mass killing of innocent people—including children—at the hands of manifest evil. We grieve for the lives lost and convey our deepest sympathies to those affected by these heinous acts.

Time and time again, we see that evil people intent on causing death, injury, and chaos simply ignore the thousands of federal, state, and local criminal laws that prohibit acts like murder, terrorism, and assault, wreaking havoc until they voluntarily cease, commit suicide, or are stopped by others—usually armed individuals.

Anti-rights politicians, special interest agitators, and the corporate press have—yet again—disgustingly commandeered these tragedies in a rush to enact their agenda of disarmament and authoritarianism. They offer false hope in support of a radical ideology to separate people from their human rights, often at the very moment that the People are most vulnerable and most acutely need to exercise those very rights.

Those who oppose human liberty would have us choose between being disarmed or facing incarceration, locked in a cage for peaceably keeping and bearing arms, as is our right. But fundamental rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority, and thus, we reject this proposition.

The government has no duty to protect you—you are, and always have been, your own first responder. There will always be weapons in the hands of evil. The only question is whether you are armed and ready to defend life and liberty against that evil. The fundamental human right to keep and bear arms does not come from the government or the Constitution. Our rights exist because we are human, and FPC will continue to defend and restore them. Read more

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-4911

BELLEVUE, WA – Alarming new data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows 42,915 people were killed in traffic accidents last year, so the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today suggested a crackdown on automobiles.

“Maybe we should ban cars,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, sarcastically. “After the CDC reported more than 19,000 gun-related homicides in 2020, there was a renewed push to ban certain types of firearms as the solution. No sensible person could honestly believe that placing new restrictions on cars, or guns, would result in a dramatic reduction in tragedy.”

According to the NHTSA, last year’s traffic fatalities were up 10.5 percent over 2020 when 38,824 people were killed and even more over the 2019 count of 36,096. Gottlieb noted far more people died in car crashes than were murdered with firearms in 2020, and it is likely the pattern will continue for 2021. FBI crime data for 2021 will be released in September.

“If you apply the same rationale to cars that gun prohibitionists apply to guns,” Gottlieb suggested, “politicians would be demanding Draconian restrictions on cars and people who drive them. There would be efforts to ban ownership of any vehicle that could cruise along at more than 70 miles-per-hour. We would prohibit young adults from owning cars with automatic transmissions, and there would be efforts to ban big engines with more than six cylinders. Read more

LANSING, MI – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced a new FPC-supported federal lawsuit against the superintendent of Durand (Michigan) Area Schools, the principal of Robert Kerr Elementary School, and a Robert Kerr school staff member for violating a third-grader’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they prevented her from wearing a hat bearing the text “Come and Take It” as well as an image of an AR-15 rifle to the school’s “hat day.” The complaint for C.S. v. McCrumb can be found at FPCLaw.org.

“The Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago that schoolchildren do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said the student’s attorney, John R. Monroe. “That is still the law, and schools that teach our children civics and government should recognize that.”

The student, through her father, seeks a declaration that wearing the hat in question is constitutionally protected speech, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the school officials from restricting her speech and preventing her from wearing the hat, and nominal damages.

“Public schools may not violate the rights of pro-Second Amendment students because they don’t like guns or people who support the fundamental, individual human right to armed self-defense,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We look forward to reminding these anti-rights authoritarian school defendants that the Constitution applies in public schools.”

Defending and restoring the right to speak in favor of other rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, has been a key part of FPC’s legal and research programs throughout the organization’s history. For example, FPC has previously engaged to protect other students’ speech against similarly unconstitutional speech restrictions, such as in the case of Guardanapo v. Washoe County [Nevada] School District. Based on input from attorneys and legal scholars, including UCLA law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, FPC also publishes a helpful guide for parents and students, “K-12 Schools, Free Speech, And The Fundamental, Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms: A Guide to How Students Can Use Their First Amendment Rights to Defend and Promote Second Amendment Rights,” that explains public school students’ free speech rights, provides answers to common and important questions, and even provides sample letters parents can send to schools to protect the rights of their children.

If a student (or parent of a student) believes they were discriminated against or disciplined for peacefully expressing their pro-Second Amendment views or not participating in some anti-rights event or speech, and would like to share your experience with us, or to report a possible civil rights violation, please feel free to email our FPC Legal Action Hotline at hotline@fpchq.org or call our toll-free Legal Action Hotline at (855) 252-4510.

The filing of this important lawsuit is made possible by FPC’s members and donors. Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Read more

PASADENA, CA (May 11, 2022) – A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision today in the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF)-led case of Jones v. Bonta, holding that California’s age-based firearms purchase ban is unconstitutional and that “the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. The decision can be found online at FPCLaw.org.

“Today’s decision confirms that peaceable legal adults cannot be prohibited from acquiring firearms and exercising their rights enshrined in the Second Amendment,” said FPC Vice President of Programs Adam Kraut. “We are pleased to see progress on this important legal front and optimistic that similar results will come from our many other challenges to age-based bans filed in courts across the United States.”

The majority decision in this FPC lawsuit said that “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.” However, it noted, “California has restricted the sale of most firearms to anyone under 21.” Ultimately, however, the Court held that “…the Second Amendment protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them.” Read more

Now on A1F.com: Gun companies and stores are under constant attack from President Joe Biden (D) who is repeatedly and falsely claiming that gun manufactures have been given legal protection that shields them from accountability—even mainstream-news fact checkers have called this lie false. Biden also blames gun manufacturers and dealers for arming criminals—a lot of government data shows this not to be true.

To push back, we need to clearly tell the truth. That’s what this article, now on A1F.com, does.

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

Contact: Brook Chiasson bchiasson@nrahq.org (703) 267-1327

SAN JOSE, CA – Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the City of San Jose’s ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay a fee in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. FPC’s complaint argues that the mandate violates both the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A copy of the complaint in Glass v. City of San Jose can be found at FPCLegal.org.

“The government may not impose a fee on the choice to exercise a constitutional right. But that is exactly what the Ordinance does,” the lawsuit states. “The government also may not restrict firearm ownership in ways that are wholly unknown to the Nation’s history and that fail entirely to advance the government’s asserted goals. Novelty is not a virtue here, and neither are restrictions for restriction’s sake. But the Ordinance is concededly novel, and it will neither improve public safety nor reduce the costs of gun violence. It will only burden those who already follow all firearm laws. Even City officials admit that, ‘[o]f course, criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates.’”

“The fee provision also violates the First Amendment,” the complaint further argues. “The Ordinance directs the City Manager to designate a nonprofit organization that will spend firearm owners’ money on ‘programs and initiatives’ to ‘mitigate’ the supposed ‘risk’ of the ‘possession of firearms…’ The fee provision thus forces firearm owners to associate with an organization of the City’s choosing and subsidize expressive activities of the organization’s choosing, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.” Read more