Category: Gun Control

Court Rules Against New Jersey in 3-D Gun Ban Case

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed today are celebrating a court victory in a long-running battle to allow online publication of information related to the 3D printing of firearms, thanks to a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returns claims against the New Jersey attorney general (NJAG) to its jurisdiction.

A district court order had wrongly severed the case against the NJAG, from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, and transferring it to a federal court in New Jersey. Today’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit directs the district court in Texas to “request retransfer from its counterpart in New Jersey.”

“It’s a huge victory for us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because New Jersey wanted to be severed from our legal action in their effort to prevent publication of the information by Defense Distributed, thus violating the company’s and SAF’s First Amendment rights to promote the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

This effort began when anti-gun-rights attorneys general, led by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, filed suit in the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State Department from authorizing the release of Defense Distributed’s files on the internet under a settlement from a previous SAF and Defense Distributed lawsuit. That effort was an offshoot of attempts by then-New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal and several of his peers to prevent the plaintiffs’ distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

The Profound Effects of Anti-Gun Rhetoric

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Through the tough times of the pandemic, Americans have begun to reacquaint themselves with a sense of self-reliance some may never have known heretofore.  We’ve seen firsthand the empty store shelves and how common necessities have been hoarded without a clue as to their return to the marketplace.  We are learning to grow our own food, catch our own fish, and to hunt for meat.

This wave of self-sufficiency extends to home protection and self-defense, as well.  One only needs to look to the demonization of law enforcement and the resulting chaos inflicted upon law-abiding citizens, as we watched nightly scenes of our cities burning to understand the rationale for alternatives to self-preservation.  Plus, the anti-gun sentiment and the continuous desire to restrict Second Amendment rights by officials, who’ve sworn to protect those rights is more than hypocritical; they’re threats to freedom and Americans have taken notice.

Since year 2008, the firearms industry has been booming and continues to be a bright spot in our otherwise struggling economy, as evidenced by 5.4 million new gun owners in the country this past year!  Again, that’s new gun owners.  Regardless of economic conditions across the country, the industry has grown and created over 375,000 new, well-paying jobs since the middle of the Great Recession in 2008.   These are good jobs paying an average of $56,900 in wages and benefits.

In the United States, the industry and its employees pay over $7.86 billion in taxes including property, income, and sales-based levies.  A report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) also notes the significant impact the firearm and ammunition industry has on wildlife conservation funding in America through its growing Pittman-Robertson excise tax contributions to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund which exceeded $1.1 billion in 2021.  Along with hunting and fishing license sales, it is these funds that support sound wildlife management.

Particular to Michigan’s economic contribution of arms and ammunition for the year 2021 are the following examples.  Direct jobs:  5155; Resulting Wages:  $210,684,600; Direct Output:  $643,807,600.  Although Michigan is not one of the top 10 states in these figures, it rates as the 10th leading state in related growth and economic development and for related jobs it is 9th in the country.

According to the NSSF, not only does the manufacture and sale of firearms and hunting supplies create good jobs in the United States, but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2021 the firearm and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $70.52 billion in total economic activity in the country.

The broader economic impact flows throughout the economy, generating business for firms seemingly unrelated to firearms.  Americans working in industries as varied as banking, retail, accounting, metal working, and even printing, all depend on the firearm and ammunition industry for their livelihood.

Our freedom, self-reliance and enjoyment of the outdoors all benefit from the industry that our misguided leaders love to hate.

Ammunition, Archery, Firearms, Fishing, Gun Control, Hunting, Self Defense, Wildlife

FPC Statement on ATF Letter Classifying “Forced Reset Triggers” as “Machineguns”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition today issued the following statement regarding the ATF’s “Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees” regarding its classification of some “forced-reset triggers” (FRTs) as “firearms” and “machineguns” as defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA):

This latest effort by the ATF to punish and stoke fear among peaceable people who purchase protected-arms components specifically designed to comply with federal law is further proof of the agency’s abusive overreach of statutory and constitutional bounds and a manic desire to expand its dominion. Furthermore, by being purposefully vague in saying it “intends to take appropriate remedial action,” the ATF adds to the unscrupulous nature of this action leaving sellers and owners unsure if they’ll be subject to abuse.

Unless the ATF doesn’t understand the difference between resetting and pulling a trigger, the statement is further evidence of the agency’s underhandedness. After citing the “single function of the trigger” statutory definition of a “machinegun,” the ATF claims “some FRT devices allow a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger.” By virtue of its very namesake, “forced-reset trigger” systems require an additional pull before firing another shot.

The letter ends with a directive to contact a local ATF Field Office if “uncertain whether the device you possess is a machinegun.” Out of an abundance of caution, FPC suggests that individuals, entities, and businesses who are now or have been in possession of “forced-reset triggers” consider the below measures through which you may be able to protect and preserve your rights should ATF contact you, visit you, and/or demand that you surrender any item in your possession. Read more

Gun Control

FPC Brief: Lifetime Handgun Ban for Nonviolent Offenders Unconstitutional

Under the history and tradition of the Second Amendment, nonviolent offenders should not lose their natural right to keep and bear arms.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition today announced the filing of an important brief with the Supreme Court of the United States asking it to grant certiorari in Morin v. Lyver, a case challenging Massachusetts’s lifetime ban on firearm purchases as applied to a person convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor. FPC’s brief is joined by FPC Action Foundation (formerly Firearms Policy Foundation) and can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 2004, Massachusetts resident and License to Carry (LTC) permit holder Alfred Morin, Ph.D, traveled to Washington, D.C. with a handgun. Unaware of District of Columbia laws, he saw a sign prohibiting firearms at the American Museum of Modern History and approached a guard to inquire about checking his gun. Police arrested Dr. Morin and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia sentenced Dr. Morin 60 days imprisonment on each count, as well as three months of supervised probation and 20 hours of community service.

Under Massachusetts law, an individual who has been convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor can obtain a license to possess a handgun at home after five years have passed. However, this same person can never obtain authorization to purchase a handgun— meaning that the only way they can obtain one is through inheritance. Dr. Morin, the petitioner, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which upheld the Massachusetts handgun purchase ban. Read more

Gun Control

Brownells Announces “Mag Dump” to Raise Funds for SAF Lawsuit against WA Mag Ban

GRINNELL, Iowa –– In response to the standard-capacity magazine ban passed in Washington state, Brownells will donate $2.00 to the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) for every aluminum Brownells AR-15 magazine sold. SAF is currently planning to file a lawsuit against the state of Washington on behalf of gun owners in the state.

The Brownells Mag Dump donation event lasts through June 24 and has two main goals.

The first is to help Washington state gun owners procure reliable, proven, standard-capacity magazines for their AR-15 style firearms – before the ban goes into effect – to help guarantee their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms. Read more

Ammunition, Gun Control

CCRKBA: Anti-Gun Support for SCOTUS Nomination Raises Alarms

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court following the retirement of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer later this year raises alarms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Just the endorsements Judge Jackson’s nomination is receiving should be enough to cause concern,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The nomination is being applauded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun prohibition lobbying groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, and by the anti-gun Giffords Law Center and Brady group. There can be no stronger indication of where Judge Jackson stands on the individual right to keep and bear arms and how she might rule on Second Amendment issues.”

Judge Jackson has also been reversed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, for what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as “judicial overreach.”

“The high court doesn’t need another liberal activist justice on the bench,” Gottlieb observed, “especially where Second Amendment issues are concerned. We know it is inappropriate to ask a Supreme Court nominee how he or she would rule on possible upcoming cases, but considering the energetic support Judge Jackson’ nomination is already receiving from the gun ban lobby, such questions aren’t even necessary.

“When the nation’s most extreme gun control lobbying groups throw their weight behind a judicial nominee,” he added, “there should be no misconception about where that nominee is likely to stand on Second Amendment rights, and frankly, it’s disappointing. Read more

Gun Control

CCRKBA: State of the Union Speech Continued War on Gun Owners

BELLEVUE, WA – While Joe Biden began his State of the Union speech properly condemning Russia’s undeclared war on Ukraine, he used his bully pulpit to continue his own lifelong war on gun owners and the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Biden’s remarks about gun control and his already-discredited claim about gun manufacturers being immune from lawsuits simply reinforced his reputation as a career gun prohibitionist who never let facts get in the way of a flippant falsehood,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “His claim that bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and original capacity magazines are ‘proven measures’ to reduce violent crime is demonstrably untrue. Just look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

“And we should note these are the same kinds of guns and magazines Ukrainian citizens are using to defend their freedom from a savage enemy bent on killing innocent civilians including women and children,” he stated. Read more

Gun Control

Sandy Hook Settlement

From Jim Shepherd…
Many of us were stunned when news broke yesterday that Remington Arms had settled the 2015 lawsuit brought against them by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Last July, two of Remington’s four insurance companies offered a $33 million settlement to the families of the 20 students and six staffers killed by Adam Lanza. Two of the companies held out.

That settlement offer was rejected.

This time, however, attorneys for the families say all four insurance companies will participate. They’ll also be paying significantly more; this settlement amount is $73 million dollars.

The suit argued that Remington negligently sold civilians a rifle (a Bushmaster AR-15) “substantially similar” to the M16 service rifle used by many armed forces worldwide.

The suit also argued that the company’s advertising and placement in violent video games essentially “glorified” violence using the rifle. Assertions the families said put Remington in violation of the state’s consumer protection law which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous.”

In rebuttal, Remington argued there was no evidence to establish that marketing had anything to do with the shooting. The company also argued that the legal theories behind the suit were flawed- barred by both Connecticut statutes and the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

The PLCA protects manufacturers, distributors and dealers from potential liability, provided the gun in question was functioning correctly and sold according to all federal, state and local regulations. While the action of the mentally disturbed shooter was heinous, Remington essentially argued there was doubt that the rifle performed exactly as designed.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, disagreed, ruling that the company could be sued under state law over how their AR-rifles were marketed. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

FPC Brief: Removal of Comments on Government Facebook Page Violated 1st Amendment Rights

DENVER – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed amicus brief with the United States Court for the District of Colorado in the case of Delbert Sgaggio v. De Young, et al., a case where the magistrate judge recently concluded that Sgaggio’s criticism of City of Woodland Park, Colorado government employees was “obscene” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The proposed amicus brief, authored by Eugene Volokh and FPC’s Matt Larosiere, can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 2018, Mr. Sgaggio posted comments critical of the Woodland Park Police Department on the police department’s and the City’s respective public Facebook pages. His sharp and stinging criticisms of the City and its employees, in which he referred to local law enforcement as “punk ass pigs,” “bitches” and “dirty ass cops,” were deleted and he was banned from posting on the government’s page. Sgaggio sued, claiming the City violated his rights protected under the First Amendment.

“Once the government lets the public comment on government Facebook pages, it can’t block particular comments based on the viewpoint they express – and that’s exactly what happened to Mr. Sgaggio,” said Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively on the First and Second Amendments. Read more

Gun Control

FPC: PA Appellate Court Rules Philadelphia “Lost or Stolen” Ordinance is Unlawful

In another Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) legal victory, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled on appeal that Philadelphia’s ordinance requiring the reporting of “lost or stolen” firearms violates State law. The opinion in City of Philadelphia v. Armstrong can be found at FPCLaw.org.

Section 6120(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) states that, “No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate 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.”

However, the City of Philadelphia enacted and is enforcing its Code Section 10-838a, which states, “No person who is the owner of a firearm that is lost or stolen shall fail to report the loss or theft to an appropriate local law enforcement official within 24 hours after the loss or theft is discovered.”

In yesterday’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that the City’s ordinance was preempted by State law. The Court’s opinion, authored by Judge Patricia A. McCullough, ruled that Philadelphia “does not make any meaningful argument for a change in the current state of the case law, opting instead to essentially ignore the precedential authority of this Court as if it does not exist…Here, the facts, procedural history, and legal background of this case establish that the City is attempting to enforce a law that it knew, or reasonably should have known, was unenforceable due to our 2008 decision in Clarke, as well as the preceding and succeeding case law from this Court.”

The ruling further notes that “the City’s decision to proceed with prosecution under Section 10-838a, a lost and stolen reporting law, and then incredibly claim that the law is actually a ‘straw purchaser’ law, which, in any event, has also been held to be preempted by this Court…evidences a form of bad faith and harassment on the part of the City.”

“The Commonwealth Court correctly held that the City of Philadelphia’s prosecution of Mr. Armstrong under its Lost and Stolen Ordinance constituted ‘bad faith and harassment,” said Joshua Prince, attorney for Mr. Armstrong. “There could be no dispute that the ordinance was preempted and as a result, directed the trial court to permanently enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcement of its ordinance.”

“The City of Philadelphia has repeatedly passed ordinances regulating firearms which have been struck down by the Courts of Pennsylvania,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s vice president of programs. “In spite of those prior cases, and having had an ordinance like the one at issue found invalid, Philadelphia has elected to waste taxpayer dollars while harassing and bullying Mr. Armstrong, all while likely knowing the cost to defend against such an action would be too much for any single individual. FPC has, and remains, committed to protecting individuals from unlawful statutory schemes.” Read more

Gun Control
1 … 51 52 53 54 55 … 149