Category: Gun Control

FPC Sues California to Protect Gun Owners’ Privacy

SAN DIEGO, CA — The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit today challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The complaint in Doe Brandeis v. Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with case information and documents, can be found at FPCLaw.org.

“Disclosure of Plaintiffs’ personal identifying information constitutes a severe privacy intrusion that is not adequately tailored to or justified by the state’s purported research interest,” the complaint states. “By forcing citizens to sacrifice one constitutional right (privacy) in order to exercise another (the right to keep and bear arms), AB 173 is unconstitutional.” Additionally, the complaint says that “the Legislature exceeded its power by eviscerating Proposition 63’s voter-mandated privacy restrictions and amending the statute to make personal information in the Ammunition Purchase Records File available to researchers on the same terms as [Automated Firearms System] data.” Read more

Gun Control

FPC Argues Federal Law Banning Non-Violent Criminals from Firearms is Unconstitutiona

Under the history and tradition of the Second Amendment, non-violent felons should not lose their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

PHILADELPHIA— The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of Bryan Range v. Att’y General of the U.S., a case challenging the government’s lifetime ban on firearms possession as applied to a person who was convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor. FPC’s brief, joined by FPC Action Foundation (formerly named Firearms Policy Foundation), can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 1995, Bryan Range was convicted in a Pennsylvania state court for making a false statement to obtain food stamps assistance, a class one misdemeanor. And under that conviction for a non-violent crime, he not only served no time in jail, but he made restitution for the crime. Range has been a peaceable citizen since, has been gainfully employed, and a family man, but because of the conviction twenty-six years ago, he is unconstitutionally banned forever from possessing and protecting himself and his family with firearms, a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment.

“There is no tradition in American history of banning peaceable citizens from owning firearms,” FPC’s brief argues. “The historical justification Heller relied on to declare felon bans ‘presumptively lawful’ must have been the tradition of disarming dangerous persons.” The brief notes that in English tradition, “dangerous persons” were most often “disaffected persons disloyal to the current government, who might want to overthrow it—or political opponents defined as such.” American history, from the early colonial days through the mid-twentieth century, followed the same tradition. Peaceable persons like Mr. Range, by contrast, were never prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

“Lying on a government form to acquire more food stamps for your family is not the type of crime that justifies the permanent elimination of the human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” explained FPC attorney Matthew Larosiere, who co-authored the brief. “The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege reserved to America’s ruling class, and the government cannot support its ban as applied to Mr. Range under a proper constitutional analysis.” Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

SAF, CCRKBA Join in Call For SCOTUS Review of Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their challenge to Maryland’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Field Traders, LLC, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Micah Schaefer, David Snope and Dominic Banchi, for whom the case is named. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at the DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C. in Southport, N.C., and Adam Kraut, FPC in Sacramento, Calif. The brief may be read here.

As detailed in the 39-page brief, various circuits have upheld such bans by using what amounts to “a grab-bag of ad-hoc constitutional tests, varying from circuit to circuit,” with Maryland’s ban representing “perhaps the most extreme test contrived thus far.”

The brief goes on to explain, “Maryland’s ban…singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms. That makes Maryland’s law particularly irrational, since most of the features it bans actually serve to make the firearms on which they are included safer.” A few lines later, the brief observes, “In truth, the odd assortment of firearms Maryland calls ‘assault weapons’ are mechanically identical to any other semiautomatic firearm—arms that, as no one disputes, are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment.” Read more

Gun Control

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Maryland “Assault Weapons” Ban

The petition for certiorari spotlights continued disregard by lower courts for Second Amendment protections recognized by nation’s highest court

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking the United States Supreme Court to strike down Maryland’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” in a petition filed today. FPC’s petition seeks to have the Court overrule a misguided Fourth Circuit decision that held common semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 rifle were “like M-16s” and unprotected by the Second Amendment. The petition for certiorari in Bianchi v. Frosh can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The firearms banned by Maryland are clearly protected under any honest reading of the Second Amendment and the Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s senior director of legal operations. “For over a decade, lower courts have ignored the text of the Constitution, binding Supreme Court precedent, and the relevant history and tradition to improperly uphold bans on constitutionally protected common arms. However, this case presents the Court with an ideal vehicle to both address the scope of protected arms and constitutionally infirm analysis applied by these recalcitrant lower courts. Just as Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez held in our Miller v. Bonta case, the Supreme Court should grant this petition for certiorari and make clear that these common arms are protected and cannot be banned by any government.” Read more

Gun Control

Firearms Industry Launches Battle to Have New York Statute Declared Unconstitutional

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) and a group of fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed a lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court today challenging as unconstitutional a New York law designed to blame the industry for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased.

Specifically, New York’s “public nuisance” law would subject members of the firearm industry to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state.

Today’s lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress. This law interferes with the sovereignty of other states to make policy choices about how firearms should be sold in their state, subject only to the Second Amendment and federal law. Read more

Gun Control

FPC Responds to Ninth Circuit Decision Upholding California’s Magazine Ban

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta, which held that California’s law banning so-called “large capacity magazines” (those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition) is permissible under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause:

Today’s misguided decision makes it crystal clear that the Ninth Circuit will not respect the Constitution until the Supreme Court requires it to. Rather than following the binding Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago opinions, the Court of Appeals again used legal gamesmanship to avoid the constitutionally required result just as it has for over a decade. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

Avoiding Your Own #newmexicomoment

This feature first appeared in The Shooting Wire…

What (sadly passes) as “news media” has presented a regular load of non-news about the heartbreaking accidental killing of Director of Photography Halyna Hutchins and critical wounding of Director Joel Souza on the set of a movie being … shot … on October 21, 2021.

A lot of the “news” coverage – which leaves out incidentals like “when-where-why-how” – centers around “who is at fault?”

We won’t dally around with that here. There’s enough heat shedding absolutely no light and we won’t add to it. As to culpability, that’s for the triers of fact, not us. There are ongoing investigations. The people and state of New Mexico have gone to a lot of time, effort and expense to enact and enable laws (civil and criminal), recruit, hire, train and deploy peace officers and county prosecutor/district attorney offices as well as an Attorney General – not to mention the potential civil litigants and their attorneys – to attempt to unravel this mess. As to the potential for the insurer of the production to investigate, quite separately, the possibility of not paying claims on the basis of any alleged failures to follow “best practices,” I’ll let those better educated consider that.

An image from a TV screen, from an old Perry Mason TV show … mind the muzzle, Mr. Berger! Below, “the Rules” as formulated by the API/Gunsite founder, Jeff Cooper.

The issue for enthusiasts – both consumers of the outdoors and shooting industries and members of those industries – is how to keep from having a #newmexicomoment of our own.

First, we don’t rely on the word or belief of others as to the condition of any firearms within our reach and grasp. We look to Jeff Cooper who came down from the mountain with the tablet upon which the first four of our Rules were imprinted.

Rule One – All guns are always loaded.

This isn’t a matter for debate or discussion. It’s not “treat guns as if” because that allows some possibility, however remote, that “Murphy” didn’t show up to mess up the works. We don’t allow for the possibility. If the chamber is flagged, the gun is field stripped into components, if it’s tagged, taped and locked open – we still follow the rest of the Rules that follow.

Because all the Rules follow from Rule One. “Which commandment, out of all of them, do we have to follow?” – Rule One.

Because all guns are always loaded, we practice muzzle discipline, Rule Two – Never let the muzzle cover anything you don’t want to destroy.

Don’t guess the gun’s condition — observing Rule Two, check the damn thing. Note the hand is behind the muzzle. Below, ensuring the gun is empty is best done twice: once by looking and again by feeling for a cartridge.

It’s not “don’t point the gun” – that’s an active and intentional act; too often, it becomes an act of carelessness, lack of discipline, allowing the muzzle to cover something we really don’t want to shoot. That’s why “holstered handguns are safe.” If it’s not in your hand, you’re not unintentionally, thoughtlessly covering something precious and important to you. So, the handgun should be (1) in the holster, (2) at a ready position with the muzzle covering the safest available direction and practicing trigger finger discipline, or (3) aimed in at an appropriate target, with an appropriate backstop, whilst in the process of shooting. Otherwise, it should be in a locked container, which we’ll get to in a moment.

As to that pesky trigger finger, the human hand is designed in such a way that when any fingers close, they all tend to close. For us, that’s a problem. When handling firearms of any type without any intention to morally, ethically and legally shoot it, the trigger finger should be “at register.” Register is the furthest point on the gun away from the trigger/trigger guard that doesn’t compromise the control of a firing grip.

Rule Three, “Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target,” was a relative late-comer to the “tablet.” When discussing the Rule (which is a mnemonic, short-hand as a reminder – not the whole Rule), I make it a point to note that we’re not touching the trigger until the muzzle is covering something we can shoot (or must shoot) and we have formed the intention to shoot; no ‘gunpoint’ allowed. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

Boston Settles Gun Permit Lawsuit, City Pays SAF $10K

BELLEVUE, WA – The City of Boston has settled a federal lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and other plaintiffs over delays in accepting and processing licenses to carry a firearm, and has agreed to pay $10,000 to cover attorneys’ fees and costs.

SAF was joined by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., and several individuals. The lawsuit was known as Alves v. McNamara. Plaintiffs are represented by New York attorney David Jensen.

“The city had already been very slow processing applications for carry licenses, and when the COVIC-19 pandemic hit, things completely ground to a halt,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb recalled. “With things returning to normal, the city has agreed that all individuals who were on the list of applicants as of July 26 will be contacted so they may submit permit applications. The city also agreed to resume its pre-pandemic practice of accepting applications by Oct. 31, which has happened, and they are paying our legal expenses.

“This is one of the many COVID-related lawsuits to protect gun rights that we won,” he added, “and we had also warned several other jurisdictions around the country of probable legal action for similar shutdowns because of the pandemic.” Read more

Gun Control, Self Defense

CCRKBA: VA Gun Owners Made Difference in State Races

BELLEVUE, WA – Virginia’s embattled gun owners were the margin of difference when it counted to take back the governor’s office, the Assembly and other key races, essentially setting the stage for “a return of common sense to the Commonwealth,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Old Dominion gun owners were not about to allow anti-gun Democrats enjoy another two years of power after what happened in January 2020,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb observed. “They knew what Terry McAuliffe’s return to Richmond would mean for their Second Amendment rights. His party’s politics of attacking gun owners, and their outrageous record of eroding gun rights brought gun owners to the polls to say enough is enough.”

“What is most gratifying,” he continued, “was to see savvy gun rights voters ignore the despicable last-minute ad buy by desperate Democrats to suppress the gun vote by painting Republican Glenn Youngkin as an anti-gunner, when it is their own candidate who has a deplorable record on gun rights.” Read more

Gun Control

Alec Baldwin Should Have Known Better

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Alec Baldwin, who discharged a prop firearm on a film set Thursday, killing a cinematographer, has a history of speaking out against the National Rifle Association and other gun rights activists.

Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on the set of the western film “Rust” in New Mexico, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, and injuring director Joel Souza, 48,.

Too bad Mr. Baldwin never understood some of the most important “gun control” measures NRA teaches to American citizens. After reading the nonsense about a “misfire”, which was being reported, I already know that some glaring and deadly mistakes were made by Baldwin and supporting crew.

Safe gun handling rule taught by the NRA: Never point a gun at anything or anyone you don’t want to shoot. Mr. Baldwin violated this rule of firearms safety and has nobody to blame but himself. And, the firearm did not fire by itself; he pulled the trigger! There was no misfire!

It’s imperative that anyone presenting a firearm to another person be personally responsible to demonstrate that a firearm is safe to handle before handing it over to another person. Obviously, this was not done.

Furthermore, if Mr. Baldwin was aware of gun-safety protocol, he would never have accepted the firearm from anyone without having that person show him it was safe.

So sad that he has been blinded by his own perception of the importance of the NRA’s role in gun safety and training.

Firearms, Gun Control
1 … 44 45 46 47 48 … 141