SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II), its lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 that are designed to suppress and chill legitimate challenges to firearms regulations and were enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“On July 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1327, which includes a one-way fee- shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies only to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations,” explains the motion. “In simple terms, Section 1021.11 enables government defendants to recover their attorney’s fees and costs if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case.”

“The constitutional violations have caused concrete harm to Plaintiffs here,” the motion goes on to argue. “Section 1021.11 has not only imposed a substantial potential cost on Plaintiffs for litigating Miller I, but it has caused several Plaintiffs to dismiss or refrain from bringing additional lawsuits challenging other California firearms regulations that they believe are unconstitutional.” Read more

Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured a temporary restraining order in federal court against the poorly named New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” This follows GOA and GOF re-filing their lawsuit against New York just two weeks ago.

Provisions of this law that are blocked under this TRO include:

• Requiring businesses to openly state they ALLOW concealed carry
• Disclosing one’s social media accounts for review
• Prohibitions on carrying in most so-called “sensitive places,” including doctor’s offices, Times Square, restaurants and places of entertainment, and on public transportation
• In-person interviews with law enforcement

The TRO will take effect next week, unless a federal circuit court overturns this ruling before then.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“Anti-gunners like Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams lied and misrepresented the Second Amendment to the courts, putting New Yorkers at a great disadvantage in the midst of rising crime. We are grateful to Judge Suddaby for his quick action to restore the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Once the TRO goes into effect, GOA encourages New Yorkers to exercise their rights and to defend themselves and the ones they love.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA—Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and their partners in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on personally-built firearms are now defending their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the state.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA in their original legal action, known as Renna v. Bonta, are the North County Shooting Center, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition, and several private citizens Danielle Jaymes, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Robert Macomber, Clint Freeman, John Matthew Klier, Justin Smith, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince, Darin Prince, Ryan Peterson, Leonard Ruebe, PWGG, L.P., and Lana Rae Renna, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael P. Sousa of San Diego.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

“California only wants to argue about the plain text and not the history of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “On that level, we will win as well, because you cannot keep and bear arms if you can’t make, buy and/or sell arms. It is really that simple.”

According to the new motion, the state has attempted to develop a litigation strategy that purportedly shifts the burden onto the plaintiffs, while the state essentially does nothing absent an order from this Court directing them to undertake the historical analysis required under Bruen. Read more

FORT WORTH, TX (October r, 2022) – Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a federal judge has expanded the preliminary injunction in VanDerStok v. Garland, its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule. In addition to the injunction issued in September, the expanded injunction adds protection for the individual plaintiffs and plaintiff Tactical Machining’s customers. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Having carefully considered the arguments, the evidence, and the law, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs… and Tactical Machining, LLC have demonstrated that each is subject to a substantial threat of irreparable harm,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “Individual Plaintiffs and Tactical Machining are therefore entitled to expanded preliminary injunctive relief. Enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule against these Plaintiffs should alleviate their demonstrable injuries without burdening Defendants unnecessarily.”

“We’re pleased to report another important victory in this case,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Not only has the Court found that the ATF’s attempt to redefine ‘firearm’ and ‘frame or receiver’ is likely unlawful, but the Court has found that our clients deserve protection from its implementation. As a result, both Tactical Machining and its customers are now protected from enforcement of the rule’s redefinition of ‘firearm.’”

In a prior order, the Court ordered “that Defendants compile and produce the complete Administrative Record no later than October 24, 2022.” FPC expects that the case will proceed to the merits and dispositive motions this fall. Read more

BUFFALO, NY – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens,’ like and including Plaintiffs, are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets,’” argues the motion. “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security extends to more than just ‘those . . . who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,’ but also emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home.’”

“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s motion for preliminary injunction is the opportunity for the Court to remind New York lawmakers that those windows are nailed shut by the Constitution.” Read more

Philadelphia, PA – Yesterday, lame-duck Mayor Jim Kenney signed an executive order prohibiting individuals from lawful carry at all City of Philadelphia recreational facilities. The mayor’s actions are in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting these types of local gun restrictions. Within hours of Mayor Kenney’s signing ceremony, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of this illegal gun regulation.

“Mayor Kenney knows this executive order is pointless: law abiding gun owners aren’t the people committing the violent crime and murder in Philadelphia,” said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for GOA. “Instead, Mayor Kenney is trying to deflect attention from his failing policies and failing City by enacting more ‘feel good’ regulations that scapegoat guns for the crisis of crime in Philadelphia. Rather than take responsibility for city policies that created two years of record homicides, Kenney is attempting to capitalize on the tragic deaths of Philadelphia residents to disarm more people and create more victim-only, ‘gun-free’ zones. All this executive order does is put a bullseye on the back of every person at Philadelphia recreational facilities, because they know that Mayor Kenney won’t let you defend yourself there.”

“The lack of respect for taxpayer money is appalling,” said Andrew Austin, attorney for GOA and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Pennsylvania law is clear here: Philly is not allowed to make gun regulations. Every appellate court in Pennsylvania has made this clear multiple times. Yet, they continue to waste taxpayer money by attempting to enact these illegal laws.”

Gun Owners of America will be seeking to enjoin enforcement of Mayor Kenney’s Executive Order in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In addition, GOA has previously filed several other lawsuits in Philadelphia in the last two years in pursuit of Second Amendment rights, and will continue to fight as long as necessary to ensure every citizen has the ability to defend themselves, particularly in lawless cities such as Mayor Kenney’s Philadelphia. Read more

SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 that are designed to suppress and chill legitimate challenges to firearms regulations and were enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law. The complaint in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“On July 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1327, which includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies solely to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations,” details the complaint. “In simple terms, Section 1021.11 enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Firearms plaintiffs, moreover, cannot be ‘prevailing parties’ under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to fees.”

“Section 1021.11 is not even rationally related to any legitimate government interest and therefore would fail even rational basis review,” the complaint goes on to argue. “As noted above, SB 1327 was apparently adopted in retaliation for Texas’s SB 8 in connection with abortion statutes. Retaliation is not a rational justification for the classifications in this case and, indeed, is an utterly impermissible justification.” Read more