By Jim Shepherd

Another big day in Washington.

The House is holding hearings to lay the groundwork what are essentially“work-arounds” for anti-gun legislators. They’re looking for ways to punish gun owners, manufacturers, dealers and distributors since the Supreme Court seems insistent on upholding the position that enumerated rights – especially the right to “keep and bear arms” mean exactly what they say.

The House Judiciary Committee is “marking up” H.R. 1801, their latest Assault Weapons Ban. H.R. 2814 the “Equal Access to Victims of Gun Violence Act” is also up as well.

H.R.1801 is exactly what it sounds like: another proposed ban on those evil, black rifles that apparently possess the souls of a minuscule percentage of their users, forcing them on murderous rampages. Unlike the “Clinton ban” this version has no expiration date.

H.R. 2814, however is not exactly what’s implied. It’s not a crusade to protect innocent victims, it’s an attempt to repeal The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA prevents the manufacturers of firearms from being sued for the actions of others (you could use the word criminals) employing their products for nefarious purposes.

Recently, we told you that the CEOs of three gun companies, Smith & Wesson, Daniel Defense, and Ruger had been “invited” by House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Mahoney to testify before the panel – today.

They won’t be there. No, it’s not an act of defiance, it’s scheduling issues. But they won’t be there to either be lectured or grilled by the committee, so scratch one anti-gun photo op.

If you doubt this description of the less-than-cordial greeting she had planned, Rep. Mahoney’s “invitation” told the invitees: “the sale and marketing of assault weapons and the broad civil immunity that has been unfairly granted to manufacturers” would be part of the discussion.

She also wrote that the CEO’s products (these particular CEOs) “have been used for decades to carry out homicides and even mass murders.”

That would certainly have me rearranging my schedule to try and be there for Rep. Mahoney if I were Messrs. Daniel, Killoy or Mark Smith of Daniel Defense, Ruger and Smith & Wesson, respectively. Read more

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, defended the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine. The letter was in response to several complaints by special-interest gun control groups falsely accusing NSSF members of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act. These attacks are nothing short of well-financed, special-interest gun control groups attempting to limit the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers to advertise lawful products.

Letters have been sent the FTC by gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety, The Brady Campaign, Giffords Law Center and similar special-interest groups.

“These gun control groups are not content in attacking and denying one Constitutional right. They are now bent on attacking another,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “These groups are attempting to abuse the levers of government to deny the right to advertise a lawful product even as they use those same complaints as fundraising tools. This is a disgusting attempt to twist the role of a federal agency as a neutral arbiter to one that uses the weight of federal authority to deny not one, but two Constitutionally-protected rights.

“The NSSF is compelled by our duty to our members and our respect for the Constitution to stand against, and call out, such egregious manipulation of federal regulations by these groups,” Keane added. “Their disdain for the Second Amendment does not give them the right to infringe on the First Amendment rights of our members and others with whom they disagree.” Read more

Philadelphia, PA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an en banc petition in Williams v. Garland, which challenges the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights due to a single misdemeanor conviction for a crime that did not involve violence, physical harm, or a firearm. The filing can be found at FPCLegal.org.

Following a 2005 trial, Edward Williams was convicted of driving under the influence, in violation of Pennsylvania law. Because he had a previous DUI non-conviction in 2001, that was later expunged, the 2005 conviction qualified as a first-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. However, he was never imprisoned, and was instead placed under house arrest for 90 days, ordered to pay costs, a fine of $1,500, and to complete any recommended drug and alcohol treatment under the mandatory minimum sentence.

In May, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the Government, saying that the case “must meet the same fate” as a previous one due to circuit precedent. Because the decision came before the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, today’s petition argues that “[r]ehearing en banc is appropriate because the panel opinion contradicts Bruen, which mandates a historical test based on dangerousness and thus forbids the disarmament of peaceable persons like Williams.”

Read more

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

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

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

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