BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case concerning gun owner privacy in California have filed a respondent’s brief in the ongoing case of Barba v. Bonta, challenging the constitutionality of a 2021 law requiring the California Department of Justice (CAL/DOJ) to share extensive personal identifying information of gun owners in the state with a non-government research group.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and Ashleymarie Barba, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay at the Benbrook Law Group in Sacramento. The brief was filed with the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

In California, considerable personal information is required to purchase firearms or ammunition. This information is collected by CAL/DOJ. With passage of Assembly Bill 173 two years ago, CAL/DOJ now shares this information with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis for non-law enforcement purposes. This has never been done before.

“It was an outrage when California lawmakers added this requirement to the state penal code,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “so we immediately sued to protect the privacy of millions of law-abiding gun owners in the state. AB 173 amounted to a radical change to the privacy previously afforded to California gun owners, and this cannot possibly be legal or constitutional. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in their federal challenge of an Illinois ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” have filed a reply brief to the defendants’ effort to defend the ban.

Joining SAF in this case are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition. Marengo Guns, the C4 Gun Store and Dane Harrel, for whom the case Harrel v. Raoul is known. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill. The case is in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The oral argument is scheduled April 12 in East St. Louis.

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, the State of Illinois is trying to defend historical traditions that do not exist. As noted in the reply brief, “No matter how many policy justifications the State may summon, the Second Amendment, by its ‘enshrinement’ in the Constitution ‘necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.’ The only constitutionally acceptable justification for banning certain types of arms is if the State demonstrates that such firearms are both ‘dangerous and unusual.’ The State has failed to do so. Instead, the State searches for other historical traditions, but it cannot identify any tradition of banning the most popular rifles or magazines in contemporary society.” Read more

NSSF Praises Court’s Preliminary Injunction on California’s Unsafe Handgun Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division’s order granting a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs blocking enforcement of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. The case, Boland v. Bonta, was filed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. The court issued the preliminary injunction today.

“This order is a victory for lawful gun ownership in California. For too long, the Second Amendment has been significantly infringed upon by elected officials who have taken every opportunity to put roadblocks in front of law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The order is the first step in what will be a protracted legal battle, but it is a significant win. NSSF has long contended that California’s Unsafe Handgun Act is an unconstitutional infringement denying Californians their ability to legally purchase the handguns that would best suit their needs. The court is correctly applying the holdings of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision that the Second Amendment is the only test when it comes to lawful firearm ownership and the holdings of Heller that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment.”

Boland v. Bonta, brought also by California Rifle & Pistol Association and Chuck Michel of Michel & Associates, challenged the California’s Unsafe Handgun Act that requires all new models of pistols sold in the state to be equipped with a chamber-loaded indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism and be capable of imparting a microstamp from the handgun’s firing pin on the primer of an expended cartridge case. That final requirement is technologically impossible. Read more

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-4911

BELLEVUE, WA – Gun owners in several states where Democrats control the legislative process are facing an onslaught of gun control and prohibition legislation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today condemned what appears to be the party’s war on freedom in state capitols across the country.

“We are witnessing a full frontal assault on Second Amendment rights, not only in Washington, D.C. with Joe Biden leading the charge,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “but in state legislatures in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Washington and elsewhere Democrat majorities have gained control. Equally alarming is the support their extremist gun control agenda is getting from a small but vocal minority of gun prohibitionists who are determined to destroy the Second Amendment. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – President Joe Biden’s new executive order on guns won’t reduce gun-related violent crime, nor will it make our communities safer, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Biden signed the executive order Tuesday in Monterey Park, California. He is bypassing Congress, “with the goal of increasing the number of background checks conducted before firearm sales,” and moving the country closer to so-called “universal background checks” as possible without additional legislation.

“Joe Biden is trying to sell this new gun control scheme the way he’s always done: by promising less violent crime and safer neighborhoods,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “But, this plan isn’t going to accomplish either goal, and he knows it. This sleight-of-hand maneuver simply makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms, while creating the impression gun dealers are crooks and the industry is unregulated.

“This is just another chapter in Joe Biden’s war on gun rights,” he continued. “It is a diversion to the Democrat failure to keep Americans safe from violent criminals who are released without bail and are free to prey on us all.”

Biden will encourage the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to all civilians, including through the use of military imagery.” He will “Provide the public and policymakers with more information regarding federally licensed firearms dealers who are violating the law.” He will also direct the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through Department of Defense acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law.

“So,” Gottlieb observed, “Biden wants the Defense Department to buy more guns, he will blame crime on gun dealers and tell gun makers how to market their products. But he won’t tell the Justice Department to crack down on recidivist criminals, he’s not asking the courts to lock up armed felons and he’s continuing to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed an appellant’s brief with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The case is known as Reese v. ATF.

Joining SAF are the Louisiana Shooting Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk; George J. Armbruster, III at Armbruster & Associates; Joseph Greenlee, FPC Action Foundation; John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, DiGuiseppe Law Firm and Adam Kraut at SAF.

Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its director, Steven Dettelbach and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

At issue is the ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults, because this prohibition is at odds with the Second Amendment, SAF and its partners contend.

“At the time the Second Amendment was adopted,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “there were no restrictions on the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms because of their age. Indeed, people in that age group, because as Americans they were in the civilian militia, were actually required to acquire firearms. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, takes exception with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order to increase gun control measures. In the name of “doing something,” the Biden administration is chilling fundamental Constitutional rights and simply rehashing existing law, many of which were previously supported by the firearm industry.

“The Biden administration should demand that soft-on-crime prosecutors and lawmakers use the laws already in existence to lock up criminals that misuse firearms to prey on innocent Americans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Instead, this administration continues to scapegoat the firearm industry for its unwillingness to address crime. The failure of this administration to seriously address spiraling crime and instead focus its attacks on a Constitutionally-protected industry that works diligently to remain in compliance with laws and regulations and actively cooperates with law enforcement, especially ATF, exposes the lack of urgency Americans demand to curb rampant and out-of-control crime.”

The firearm industry worked with Congress to update the statutory definition of “in the business,” in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was passed last year and signed into law by President Biden. The update defined those Americans “in the business” of selling firearms as those “predominantly earning a profit.”

Further, The White House accused industry members, without evidence, of selling firearms without required FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications. This is disingenuous, at best. The firearm industry was the progenitor of the point-of-sale instant background check to ensure firearms are sold only to those the law has determined can be trusted to possess a firearm. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is encouraged by the announcement from Visa and MasterCard that they will “pause” plans to implement a special Merchant Category Code (MCC) specific to purchases at firearm retailers with their credit cards. That announcement was later echoed by American Express and Discover, which previously announced plans to implement the special codes.

This is a positive development that the major credit card companies have recognized the hazards of implementing this special MCC for purchases at a firearm retailer. However, this is an announcement of a pause, not an abandonment of these special codes.

NSSF is committed to ensuring that these specific MCCs not be used at all as they have the potential for exploitation of customer privacy and denial of services by politically-motivated activists. These codes were the product of Amalgamated Bank and Andrew Ross Sorkin to specifically track the lawful purchases of firearms and ammunition by law-abiding Americans.

In reality, it is just the first step, by the admission of these two parties, to isolating and eventually denying the exercise of a Constitutional right by those who oppose lawful firearm ownership. NSSF will continue to work with state legislators and Congress to put an end to this blatantly discriminatory practice of using private enterprise to construct a back-door firearm registry.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed have filed their final summary judgment brief with the federal court in Texas in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, which challenges the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.

SAF and Defense Distributed have taken a unique approach, alleging the agencies violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by both (1) failing to consider the history that Bruen deems constitutionally mandatory and (2) using balancing analytics that Bruen deems constitutionally improper.

“The ATF is trying to wriggle out of this,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but we’re not going to let them. Clearly the agencies violated the APA, and in the process used means-end scrutiny to make their decision, which the Supreme Court threw out in the 2022 Bruen ruling.” Read more