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

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

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

SAF: Three Gun Rights Court Wins

BELLEVUE, WA – Three victories in three Second Amendment-related cases—two from New York and one from Wisconsin—is good news for gun rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“This should be tantamount to ‘three strikes and you’re out’,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Gun control took three hard punches and should be down for the count.”

He was alluding to the following cases:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against New York City in its attempt to stay a challenge to that city’s handgun law that prevents gun owners from taking their handguns outside of their homes or the city. The Court has already granted review of the case.

• The Wisconsin State Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against Armslist LLC that alleged the popular website was liable for the acquisition of a gun by Radcliffe Haughton in October 2012. Haughton was subject to a restraining order at the time. The state high court ruled 5-1 that Armslist LLC is protected from liability by the federal Communications Decency Act. Haughton used the gun to murder his wife and two of her co-workers.

• The New York State Supreme Court dismissed two SAFE Act charges against a man convicted of selling a firearm to an undercover officer in 2014. The SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) is an extreme gun control act championed by anti-gun-rights Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Read more

SAF: Court Victory Ends Gun Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s (ESLHA) ban on firearms possession by residents of government subsidized public housing and thus granting a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued the town in 2018 over the ban.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an “N. Doe” resident who wished to protect her identity, because she is, according to the lawsuit, “hiding from a violent domestic abuser. SAF was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association. They were represented by Glen Ellyn, Illinois attorney David Sigale.

“We are delighted with the judge’s decision, which we hope sends a message to other municipal governments that they can’t try to sneak around the two United States Supreme Court victories that SAF and its attorneys were involved in to further their efforts to ban legal firearms ownership,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

SAF: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Must Protect Due Process

BELLEVUE, WA – Extreme Risk Protection Orders, generically known as “red flag laws” that allow the seizure of private firearms based on a complaint filed with the authorities must include and guarantee due process, or they shouldn’t be allowed, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Amid rising concerns about due process in the enforcement of such laws, which have already resulted in one fatal shooting in Maryland, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said there is always the potential for abuse without careful scrutiny. He questioned the motives of some politicians who support “red flag” laws without consideration for the rights of affected gun owners.

“More needs to be done to keep politicians with power grab addictions away from people’s guns,” the gun rights advocate observed. “That is the ‘red flag’ kind of law we should all support.” Read more

SAF: Permanent Injunction Issued Against Deerfield Gun Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – An Illinois judge has issued a permanent injunction against the Village of Deerfield, Illinois prohibiting that jurisdiction from banning so-called “assault weapons” and thus granting a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued the town in 2018 over the ban,

SAF was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday, a lawful firearms owner. They were represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale.

“We are delighted with the judge’s decision, which we hope sends a message to other municipal governments that they can’t try to sneak around the state’s preemption statute in an effort to ban legal firearms ownership,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Last year, we were granted a temporary injunction by the circuit court, and this order making it permanent simply solidifies our position.” Read more

Judge: “Edmonds Gun Law ‘Ripe for Determination'”

SNOHOMISH COUNTY JUDGE SAYS LAWSUIT v. EDMONDS GUN LAW ‘RIPE FOR DETERMINATION’

BELLEVUE, WA – A Snohomish County Superior Court judge will allow a lawsuit challenging a so-called “safe storage” ordinance in the City of Edmonds to proceed, ruling that all plaintiffs in the case have standing to challenge the ordinance as a violation of Washington State’s 35-year-old preemption law that placed sole authority for firearms regulation in the hands of the Legislature.

The case is brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and two private citizens, Brett Bass and Swan Seaburg. Judge Anita L. Farris denied a motion by the City to dismiss the case, noting that “the Plaintiff’s claim that the ordinance is preempted by state statute is ripe for determination.”

Edmonds adopted a “safe storage” requirement last year, which violates the preemption statute. SAF and NRA promptly filed suit with the two private citizens.

Judge Farris has done what King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Linde would not do when she dismissed a similar lawsuit against the City of Seattle on technical grounds after the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. SAF and NRA have appealed her ruling. Seattle has adopted a “safe storage” requirement, possibly emboldened to challenge state preemption because it also adopted a controversial “gun violence tax” in 2015 that the State Supreme Court allowed to stand. Read more

USA Shooting Responds to “No More Guns” Article

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado

To say the least, these are challenging times in the shooting sports industry following another unthinkable tragedy, this time in Christchurch, New Zealand. Every one of these high-profile, senseless killings engulfs the world in a renewed and impassioned gun debate. The inevitable result: shaming, blame-shifting and social stigma.

Sportswriter Alan Abrahamson’s latest column in 3 Wire Sports titled “At the Olympics: No More Guns” does all of that for one of the oldest Olympic sports, while adding in a blatant slap in the face. It’s an alarmist’s reaction to a sport millions of people across the globe participate in.

His column calls for the removal of shooting as an Olympic sport. This response is in defense of USA Shooting’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes as well as our hopefuls and those safely participating in this sport on a daily basis. All of them are unwillingly stigmatized because the sports equipment they use is so negatively associated with tragedy. Read more

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Soto v. Bushmaster May Proceed

Despite the strenuous objections of Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson, a narrow majority of Justices have ruled that the Soto v. Bushmaster case can be revived. The reversal of a lower court ruling was based on a section of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Using that argument, Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle shooter Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, could be liable for marketing “what it knew was a weapon designed for military use to civilians like Nancy and Adam Lanza.”The court’s ruling didn’t rule on the merit of the argument, saying only the families of the victims should have the “opportunity to prove that Remington violated the CUTPA.” Using this reasoning, the judges concluded that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act “does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre.

Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.” Attorneys for Remington and Camfour, the firearms distributor that sold Riverview Gun Shop the AR-15 Lanza used, held their position that the PLCCA protects them from just this type of lawsuit. The National Shooting Sports Foundation issued a statement saying the decision “is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception.”

The Second Amendment Foundation was more direct, calling the decision “like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles.”

1 63 64 65 66 67 143