Joining SAF in this case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. They are Cutberto Viramontes, Rubi Joyal and Christopher Khaya. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Viramontes v. Cook County. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in August 2021.

“Cook County has made only one argument in its motion that seems to misread the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling from June of last year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The county is claiming that ‘arms’ applies only to firearms that ‘facilitate armed self-defense,’ and makes the arbitrary claim that the banned firearms are excluded from this definition because ‘there is nothing defensive whatsoever’ about them.

“Every firearm can be used for self-defense,” he added, “and either the county knows that already, or they are woefully ignorant about firearms in general, and especially the ones affected by the ban.” Read more

“Everytown, Brady and the Giffords group all claim to support background checks and training,” noted SAF’s Alan M. Gottlieb. “Yet they want to keep young adults, who have training and can pass background checks, from having guns. This is hypocritical dishonesty.

“Their alleged concerns are unfounded, and they know it,” he continued. “Two years ago in Kansas, lawmakers overrode Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of HB 2058, which creates a special concealed carry permit for young adults, with training and background check requirements. So far, there have been no issues.

“In Montana,” he added, “the age of majority has been 18 since a state constitutional change in 1978. There have been no issues in Big Sky Country as a result, either.

“What these experiences prove is that the gun prohibition lobby has a head-in-the-sand approach,” he observed. “They want the rest of us to bury our heads to recent history. In Minnesota, a handgun permit doubles as a permit to acquire a handgun. This permit also allows an individual to carry a rifle or shotgun in public under various circumstances.” Read more

SAF is joined in the case by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three young adults, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson and Kristin Worth, the latter for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

In her decision, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez wrote, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen…compels the conclusion that Minnesota’s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Read more

However, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California also stayed the ruling pending appeal or further hearing on the matter, whichever occurs first. A telephone conference is scheduled April 14 “at which time the parties shall advise the Court how they wish to proceed.”

SAF is joined in the case by North County Shooting Center, Gunfighter Tactical, the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and several private citizens, including Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C., Michael Sousa of San Diego, Calif., and William Sack of Havertown, Pa.

The case, originally filed in late 2020, challenges the requirements of California’s UHA, which includes a codified “roster” of acceptable handguns. The roster limits handgun sales to those models that satisfy numerous testing and safety feature requirements, such as a “chamber loaded indicator” (CLI) and “magazine disconnect mechanism” (MDM) and microstamping, which plaintiffs say are not required in 47 other states. The requirements have essentially prevented the sale of modern up-to-date handguns, as no new models have been added to the roster’s approved list for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the limited number of handguns now on the list continues to shrink because of the testing and safety feature requirements. Read more

The FIND legislation would have ensured firearm-related businesses have fair access to financial services and corporate entities wouldn’t benefit from taxpayer-funded contracts while using those profits to discriminate against constitutionally-protected firearm businesses. The legislation would have made corporations ineligible for state or municipal contracts if they hold discriminatory policies against firearm businesses. The legislation was strongly supported by NSSF – The Firearm Industry Trade Association.

In essence, the legislation would have enabled Arizona to choose to do business with those companies that do not discriminate based on an industry they may not like or with which they disagree. The legislation was passed by the state Senate 16-13 and by the state’s House of Representatives 31-29.

“Governor Hobbs chose to allow Arizona businesses to be subjected to out-of-state discriminatory policies that put special interests over business success,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This shows state residents that their governor’s loyalties are with Wall Street’s ‘woke’ agenda and not with protecting homegrown businesses or protecting the Second Amendment rights of Arizona’s citizens.”

Gov. Hobbs issued a statement claiming the legislation was “unnecessary” and urged “the legislature to focus on providing real solutions to the real challenges faced by our state.” It is the firearm industry that executes a campaign called Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® that works to ensure firearms remain beyond the reach of those who cannot be trusted to possess them. Read more