Category: Gun Control

SAF: Prohibitionists Re-Packaging Gun Control as Public Health Crisis

BELLEVUE, WA – The billionaire-supported gun prohibition movement has re-packaged its gun control agenda as a public health crisis, trying to convince the public that the cure to violent crime is to amputate the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“They couldn’t sell gun control as crime control,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Then they couldn’t sell gun control as gun safety. Now they’re trying to convince the public that gun ownership is a public health issue.

“But this isn’t about public health,” he added. “This is all about politics. They’ve repackaged their agenda, but it’s the same old snake oil in a different bottle, and their strategy is right out of the gun control playbook.” Read more

Gun Control

SAF Calls for End of “Gun-Free” Zones

SAF: ‘GUN-FREE ZONES ARE SHOOTING GALLERIES FOR MANIACS; END THEM’

BELLEVUE, WA – Declaring that so-called “gun-free zones are shooting galleries for maniacs,” the Second Amendment Foundation today is calling for an end to such designations by launching an advertising campaign aimed at print and online publications.

“Without a self-defense option,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we are all at greater risk.”

The campaign has a simple message: “You’re a sitting duck in a gun-free zone.” The ad may be seen here.

Gottlieb referred to a report from the Crime Prevention Research Center that 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 occurred in places where citizens are prohibited from having firearms. He noted that in Europe, “every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone.” Read more

Gun Control

Federal Judge Denies DOJ Motion to Dismiss SAF California Registration Case

A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Xavier Becerra over the state’s failure and refusal to establish a properly functioning internet-based firearms registration system that was mandated by law.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr., a George Bush appointee, denied the motion, noting in his 10-page ruling that, “the Supreme Court specifically recognized that a violation of procedural due process occurs when ‘it is the state system itself that destroys a complainant’s property interest, by operation of law,’ whether the state’s action “is taken through negligence, maliciousness or otherwise.”

“We said at the start of this legal action and we still maintain that the state’s system was like a bad version of ‘Catch-22’,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government required registration by a certain deadline, but the online registration failed and people couldn’t register. It’s simply not acceptable when the government mandates something and then doesn’t provide the tools for the public to comply, making them criminally liable and subject to firearms confiscation.” Read more

Gun Control

NRA’s Number Two Resigns, NRA Shuts Down NRA TV

Chris Cox, the former head of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has resigned his position. Last week, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre placed Cox on leave and accused the man many believed to be his evenutal successor of having aided in a failed “coup” attempt against LaPierre by former NRA President Oliver North. In the announcement of Cox’s departure to NRA employees, LaPierre thanked Cox “for his service to the NRA.”

This latest development follows the announcement by LaPierre that the NRA was shutting down production of its online streaming network, NRATV. There is also a communication between the NRA and its former agency Ackerman McQueen in which the NRA’s Andrew Arulanandam “demands immediate delivery of all materials by Section XLC of the Services Agreement, including all Confidential Information (as defined by the Services Agreement).” The letter also says that “if AMc damages or convert the NRA’s property, or if the NRA perceives an imminent risk of the same, the NRA will pursue legal recourse.” The acrimonious parting of the ways has been accompanied by a myriad of charge, counter-charges and lawsuits between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen. Screen shot of Chris Cox from NRA.org

Firearms, Gun Control

Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against California Gun Show Ban

A federal district court judge in California has issued a preliminary injunction against the Del Mar Fair Board’s attempt to ban gun shows, in a case involving the Second Amendment Foundation, other groups and individuals.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, B&L Productions, Inc., Crossroads of the West, South Bay Rod and Gun Club, Maximum Wholesale/Ammo Brothers and five private citizens. SAF is represented by veteran attorney Donald Kilmer, who has won previous lawsuits challenging gun show restrictions in the Golden State. CRPA is represented by attorney Chuck Michel, another veteran of gun law litigation. The case is supported by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action.

Federal District Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Del Mar Fair Board from enforcing a recently-enacted moratorium on gun shows at the fairgrounds. Plaintiffs in the case consider this a huge victory over a moratorium that took effect back on Jan. 1 and the lawsuit was followed later that month. Read more

Gun Control

Cato Institute, FPC Urge Appeals Court to Strike Down Trump Bump-Stock Ban

WASHINGTON — Yesterday, the Cato Institute and Firearms Policy Coalition announced their filing of an important amicus brief in the appeal of Aposhian v. Barr, a case challenging the federal bump-stock ban, at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief may be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal and https://www.cato.org/blog/again-pointing-out-executive-power-abuses-new-bump-stock-ban.

Cato and FPC argue in the brief that President Trump’s executive order banning bump stocks was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional. As the court filing explains in detail, the Trump Administration disregarded the statutory definition of ‘machinegun’, a term used in both the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), in order to comply with a presidential mandate to re-classify legal “bump-stock-type devices” as illegal automatic weapons. Further, the brief argued the ATF’s reversal on what constitutes an automatic weapon was based on political expediency and not statutory ambiguity.

What’s more, they argued, the bump-stock ban expands the ATF’s authority to bring more firearms into the NFA’s purview, placing an un-knowable number of gun owners in criminal peril.

“In effect, there is now a Damoclean sword over law-abiding Americans,” explained Cato and FPC in the brief. “What was legal yesterday can be illegal tomorrow.” In other words, this case extends far beyond just bump stocks, and has the potential to affect the future legality of just about anything protected by the Second Amendment. Read more

Gun Control

PA Supreme Court Rules “Stop-and-Frisk” for Firearms Unconstitutional

HARRISBURG, PA — The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a “stop-and-frisk” of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.

The coalition’s brief, which was relied on heavily in the majority opinion, argued that the Pennsylvania and federal constitutions prohibit searches and seizures based on a suspicion of criminal activity due to carrying a firearm. According to the brief, “As protected by the Second and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and [] the Pennsylvania Constitution . . . the mere open or conceal carrying of a firearm cannot establish reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, in the absence of additional indicia of unlawful activity.” Read more

Gun Control

Federal Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss SAF/NRA I-639 Court Challenge

BELLEVUE, WA – A U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma has denied a motion by defendants to dismiss a federal lawsuit challenging Washington State’s gun control Initiative 1639, ruling that law-abiding gun owners and firearms retailers do not have to violate the law and risk punishment in order to challenge infringements of the Second Amendment.

SAF and NRA are joined by two gun dealers, one in Spokane and the other in Clark County, plus four young adults who are directly affected by provisions of the initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton handed down the decision.

“The long delay is over,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The important aspects of the motion to dismiss have been denied. Just as important, the judge’s ruling treats the Second Amendment as any other fundamental individual right that is constitutionally protected.”

The federal lawsuit challenges provisions of the controversial, multi-faceted initiative on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale of certain rifles to otherwise qualified adults under age 21. Read more

Gun Control

SAF, CCRKBA, JPFD Join in Amicus Brief Challenging NYC Gun Law

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been joined by four other rights groups in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a challenge to New York City’s restrictive handgun law that prohibits handguns licensed in the city to be taken outside the home.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Independence Institute, Millennial Policy Center and Professors of Second Amendment Law. They are supporting a lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and three private citizens against the New York City law. The case has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court.

In their brief, prepared by attorneys Joseph Greenlee with the Millennial Policy Center and David Kopel from the Independence Institute, the amici organizations contend that strict scrutiny should apply to this case, which amounts to a ban on self-defense for law-abiding citizens. They also contend that the city’s ban on most travel by citizens with their own handguns is a severe burden on the exercise of their rights. Read more

Gun Control

Trio of Gun Groups Calls on SCOTUS to Strike Down NYC Gun Control Rule, Enforce Actual Text of Constitution’s 2A

U.S. Supreme Court Must Strike Down New York City Gun Control Rule and Tell Lower Courts to Enforce the Actual Text of Our Constitution’s Second Amendment, Argue Three Second Amendment Groups

WASHINGTON — Yesterday, counsel for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and The Calguns Foundation (CGF) submitted a brief with the United States Supreme Court calling for the City of New York’s unconstitutional firearm law to be struck down. The court filing, authored by Supreme Court attorney Erik Jaffe of the Washington, D.C. boutique law firm Schaerr-Jaffe LLP, can be found at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal and accessed here.

The brief argues that many “courts have been relentless and creative in their efforts to uphold virtually any restriction on keeping or bearing arms,” and that those courts “lack the clear and firm guidance required for them to follow the law, rather than their predilections,” as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals did in the decision below by excluding much protected conduct from the supposed “core” of the Second Amendment, denying those things meaningful protection. But, the organizations’ brief says, “Rights covered by the text of the Second Amendment – as interpreted and understood according to history, practice, and public meaning when it and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted – are not divided into lesser and greater categories. The Constitution itself has done the categorizing and those rights covered ‘shall not be infringed.’ Period.” Indeed, the court filing argues, “There is no further clause beginning with “except * * *.” No qualification of the prohibition saying some of those rights can be infringed a little, or if the government really feels strongly about it, or has reconsidered the costs and benefits of protecting such rights.” Read more

Gun Control, Self Defense
1 … 63 64 65 66 67 … 144