SAN DIEGO, CA (December 5, 2022) – The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Roger Benitez issued an order determining that it can continue with its lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 designed to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. The order in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Defendant Attorney General says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional,” Judge Benitez wrote in his order. “Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains. Therefore, the case is not moot.”

“The American court system and its forum for peacefully resolving disputes is the envy of the world,” he went on to write. “One might question the wisdom of a state law that dissuades gun owners from using the courts to peacefully resolve disagreements over the constitutionality of state laws.” Read more

A federal judge in San Diego has rejected an attempt by the State of California to moot a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit seeking to overturn a Golden State statute designed to penalize any plaintiffs, and their attorneys, in cases challenging California gun control laws. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The eight-page order was signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez.

SAF’s initial lawsuit challenges what it calls a “one-way fee shifting penalty” in California’s new gun control law that was adopted as a response to, and was modeled upon a Texas statute on abortion, which the defendants argued was unconstitutional, according to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. SAF and its partners have asked for a preliminary injunction in their federal challenge of the law. Read more

PORTLAND, OR – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new FPC-supported federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin Oregon Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” provision before it is poised to create a flat ban on firearm acquisition while public officials work to implement it. The complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in Azzopardi v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Oregon has passed a new law that will require, beginning December 8, 2022, all firearms purchasers in the state to present a ‘permit to purchase’ firearms; as envisioned by the law, the process to acquire a permit to purchase can take up to 30 days to complete,” argues the complaint. “But today, less than a week from the day the requirement goes live, no one in Oregon has a permit because there is no infrastructure to support the processing of permit applications—there is not even an application yet; the Oregon State Police has not created it.”

“And so, Oregon is headed quickly to a situation that no one—even the drafters of Measure 114—intended or wanted,” argues the motion for a temporary restraining order. “On December 8, it will become de facto illegal to purchase firearms anywhere in the state of Oregon, effectively extinguishing Second Amendment rights all across the state.”

“Unfortunately, sloppy statute drafting at the expense of peaceable gun owners is all too common,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The drafters of Oregon Measure 114 appear to have spent more time planning their press conferences than the drafting of the ballot measure itself. Today’s suit seeks to once again remind lawmakers that the dictates of the Constitution apply even to them.”

This lawsuit is also backed by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read more

PORTLAND, OR – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a challenge to Oregon’s Measure 114, the gun control ballot initiative that was narrowly approved by voters. NSSF is filing the challenge along with Mazama Sporting Goods, the Oregon State Shooting Association and two individual gun owners.

The measure, called “Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative,” threatens to halt the lawful sale of firearms in Oregon, which would deny the most basic Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right begins with the ability for lawful purchasers to obtain a firearm through the legal sale from a licensed firearm retailer. Oregon’s “permit-to-purchase” scheme is antithetical to the Second Amendment.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer. Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria.” Read more

BUFFALO, NY – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a preliminary injunction against New York’s law banning guns on all private property without express consent. The order in Christian v. Nigrelli can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“These are places that people, exercising their rights, frequent every day when they move around outside their homes,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “The exclusion here makes all of these places presumptively off limits, backed up by the threat of prison. The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land. The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized on private property.”

In addition, Judge Sinatra added that “[n]othing in this decision purports to impact the traditional property right to exclude others, so long as the property owner (not the State) is the one actually exercising that right.”

“We are thrilled that the court has once again reminded New York lawmakers that they are not immune from the demands of the constitution,” said Bill Sack, FPC’s Director of Legal Operations. “The fight continues to rein in a New York political machine sent recklessly flailing in the aftermath of the Bruen decision.” Read more

WILMINGTON, DE – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Gray v. Jennings, its lawsuit challenging Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semiautomatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle,” argues the motion. “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. Indeed, they are all common firearms that insert cartridges into a firing chamber, burn powder to expel projectiles through barrels, and are functionally semiautomatic in nature. They are all common firearms that have the same cyclical rate of fire: one round fired per pull of the trigger until ammunition is exhausted or the firearm or feeding device malfunctions. They are all common under the same jurisdictional analysis. Further, they are all subject to the same constitutionally relevant history under which Delaware’s Ban is clearly and categorically unconstitutional.”

“There is simply no historical tradition of banning wide categories of arms based on arbitrary features that ignorant contemporary lawmakers find frightening,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The unavoidable fact is that the arms now banned by this Delaware statute are bearable arms in common use all over the country. They are protected by the Second Amendment, even with a terrifying pistol grip or adjustable stock.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read more

ATLANTA, GA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Baughcum v. Jackson, which challenges Georgia’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Georgia has singled out 18-to-20-year-olds for differential treatment from other adults, seemingly out of a concern that they are too young to be trusted with the right to carry a firearm,” argues the brief. “Yet the Founders knew all about 18-to-20-year-olds; they required them to possess firearms in good working order and to know how to use them so that they could be ready to serve as members of the militia if the need arose. They never enacted a single ‘distinctly similar’ ban on carriage by them.”

“Despite the Supreme Court’s insistence that the right to bear arms outside the home is fundamental, Georgia continues to insist that fundamental rights don’t apply to all legal adults,” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “This case, and others like it in FPC’s national litigation strategy, are about undoing the immoral and unlawful double standards states like Georgia have undertaken. Individuals with all of the responsibilities of adulthood are also afforded all of the fundamental rights. There is no titration of rights based on arbitrary ages made up by state lawmakers.” Read more