Category: Gun Control

CCRKBA: “Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrel Wrong About State Preemption”

BELLEVUE, WA – Anti-gun Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell wasted no time in attempting to create a myth early in his tenure when he told reporters Washington is “one of the few states” with a firearms preemption law, and he needs to come clean immediately, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

At his presser, Harrell—a longtime opponent of state preemption, which guarantees uniformity of firearms law from border to border—declared, “You will hear this year me lead efforts on trying to get relief from the exemption RCW 9.41.290. You’ll hear me talking about that. I don’t know how many lives have to be lost before we realize we’re one of the few states that has that kind of restriction allowing the state to govern the laws we need for our city of Seattle.”

“Bruce Harrell needs to reload his brain before shooting his mouth off,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Forty-two states have preemption laws, and that is hardly ‘a few’ states, as Harrell would have the public believe. Washington was among the first to adopt this law in 1983, and its statute has been used as a model by other states when they adopted similar statutes because they all saw the common sense of gun law uniformity. Read more

Gun Control

CCRKBA Rips Biden’s “Continued Lies” About Gun Rights

BELLEVUE, WA – Joe Biden went off-script again during his remarks to the media in New York City when he repeated two blatant falsehoods, one about the Second Amendment and the other about a federal law that prevents junk lawsuits against gunmakers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“When it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment, Joe Biden is a recidivist congenital liar,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The guy just can’t resist perpetuating a lie that’s already gotten him into trouble with the Washington Post Fact Checker, earning an embarrassing ‘Four Pinocchios,’ but he continues to misrepresent history and the right to keep and bear arms.”

In New York, Biden told reporters, “There’s no amendment that’s absolute. When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody can own a gun — any kind of gun — and any kind of weapon.”

“The Second Amendment did not place limits on the kinds of arms people could own, nor did it say anything about who could own guns,” Gottlieb said. “Biden is making that up out of thin air.”

Biden also restated his hope to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a federal law that prevents junk lawsuits against the firearms industry. Gun makers can still be sued for such things as negligence, and Biden knows it. Read more

Gun Control

FPC Statement on President Biden’s Latest Attack on Gun Rights

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released the following statement in response to President Biden’s latest attack on Second Amendment rights:

President Biden and his administration have cemented themselves as authoritarians on the wrong side of history, tradition, and the Constitution. His proposals announced today are another volley of shots aimed at undermining the fundamental right to keep and bear arms and putting more people in cages for exercising their rights. While Bloomberg-funded extremists spin their ban policies as mere “regulations,” Joe Biden clarified today what we all knew to be true: He does indeed want to take your guns.

Biden’s use of incendiary terms like “ghost guns” has one purpose: cause undue fear and obfuscate the truth, a cheap tactic to force his policy preferences on the People. And we see through it. Firearms Policy Coalition is committed to exposing anti-gun propoganda for what it is, and we will continue to open the eyes of our nation’s courts to the disingenuous strategies employed by unscrupulous lawmakers with regard to gun control the Second Amendment. Read more

Gun Control

SAF Sues California to Protect Gun Owner Privacy

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging the constitutionality of a recently-enacted section of the state Penal Code requiring the state Department of Justice to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.

Joining SAF in this action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and Doe Brandeis, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento. The lawsuit is known as Brandeis v. Bonta.

The lawsuit contends disclosure of personal information about California gun owners under provisions of Assembly Bill 173, passed by the Assembly last year, violates their privacy rights, which are specifically protected by the state constitution. This information sharing also violates provisions of Proposition 63, the ammunition background check measure passed by voters back in 2016, which specified that personal information was to remain confidential, and shared “only for law enforcement purposes.” Read more

Gun Control

FPC Sues California to Protect Gun Owners’ Privacy

SAN DIEGO, CA — The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit today challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The complaint in Doe Brandeis v. Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with case information and documents, can be found at FPCLaw.org.

“Disclosure of Plaintiffs’ personal identifying information constitutes a severe privacy intrusion that is not adequately tailored to or justified by the state’s purported research interest,” the complaint states. “By forcing citizens to sacrifice one constitutional right (privacy) in order to exercise another (the right to keep and bear arms), AB 173 is unconstitutional.” Additionally, the complaint says that “the Legislature exceeded its power by eviscerating Proposition 63’s voter-mandated privacy restrictions and amending the statute to make personal information in the Ammunition Purchase Records File available to researchers on the same terms as [Automated Firearms System] data.” Read more

Gun Control

FPC Argues Federal Law Banning Non-Violent Criminals from Firearms is Unconstitutiona

Under the history and tradition of the Second Amendment, non-violent felons should not lose their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

PHILADELPHIA— The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of Bryan Range v. Att’y General of the U.S., a case challenging the government’s lifetime ban on firearms possession as applied to a person who was convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor. FPC’s brief, joined by FPC Action Foundation (formerly named Firearms Policy Foundation), can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 1995, Bryan Range was convicted in a Pennsylvania state court for making a false statement to obtain food stamps assistance, a class one misdemeanor. And under that conviction for a non-violent crime, he not only served no time in jail, but he made restitution for the crime. Range has been a peaceable citizen since, has been gainfully employed, and a family man, but because of the conviction twenty-six years ago, he is unconstitutionally banned forever from possessing and protecting himself and his family with firearms, a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment.

“There is no tradition in American history of banning peaceable citizens from owning firearms,” FPC’s brief argues. “The historical justification Heller relied on to declare felon bans ‘presumptively lawful’ must have been the tradition of disarming dangerous persons.” The brief notes that in English tradition, “dangerous persons” were most often “disaffected persons disloyal to the current government, who might want to overthrow it—or political opponents defined as such.” American history, from the early colonial days through the mid-twentieth century, followed the same tradition. Peaceable persons like Mr. Range, by contrast, were never prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

“Lying on a government form to acquire more food stamps for your family is not the type of crime that justifies the permanent elimination of the human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” explained FPC attorney Matthew Larosiere, who co-authored the brief. “The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege reserved to America’s ruling class, and the government cannot support its ban as applied to Mr. Range under a proper constitutional analysis.” Read more

Firearms, Gun Control

SAF, CCRKBA Join in Call For SCOTUS Review of Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their challenge to Maryland’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Field Traders, LLC, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Micah Schaefer, David Snope and Dominic Banchi, for whom the case is named. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at the DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C. in Southport, N.C., and Adam Kraut, FPC in Sacramento, Calif. The brief may be read here.

As detailed in the 39-page brief, various circuits have upheld such bans by using what amounts to “a grab-bag of ad-hoc constitutional tests, varying from circuit to circuit,” with Maryland’s ban representing “perhaps the most extreme test contrived thus far.”

The brief goes on to explain, “Maryland’s ban…singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms. That makes Maryland’s law particularly irrational, since most of the features it bans actually serve to make the firearms on which they are included safer.” A few lines later, the brief observes, “In truth, the odd assortment of firearms Maryland calls ‘assault weapons’ are mechanically identical to any other semiautomatic firearm—arms that, as no one disputes, are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment.” Read more

Gun Control

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Maryland “Assault Weapons” Ban

The petition for certiorari spotlights continued disregard by lower courts for Second Amendment protections recognized by nation’s highest court

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking the United States Supreme Court to strike down Maryland’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” in a petition filed today. FPC’s petition seeks to have the Court overrule a misguided Fourth Circuit decision that held common semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 rifle were “like M-16s” and unprotected by the Second Amendment. The petition for certiorari in Bianchi v. Frosh can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The firearms banned by Maryland are clearly protected under any honest reading of the Second Amendment and the Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s senior director of legal operations. “For over a decade, lower courts have ignored the text of the Constitution, binding Supreme Court precedent, and the relevant history and tradition to improperly uphold bans on constitutionally protected common arms. However, this case presents the Court with an ideal vehicle to both address the scope of protected arms and constitutionally infirm analysis applied by these recalcitrant lower courts. Just as Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez held in our Miller v. Bonta case, the Supreme Court should grant this petition for certiorari and make clear that these common arms are protected and cannot be banned by any government.” Read more

Gun Control

Firearms Industry Launches Battle to Have New York Statute Declared Unconstitutional

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) and a group of fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed a lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court today challenging as unconstitutional a New York law designed to blame the industry for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased.

Specifically, New York’s “public nuisance” law would subject members of the firearm industry to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state.

Today’s lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress. This law interferes with the sovereignty of other states to make policy choices about how firearms should be sold in their state, subject only to the Second Amendment and federal law. Read more

Gun Control

FPC Responds to Ninth Circuit Decision Upholding California’s Magazine Ban

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta, which held that California’s law banning so-called “large capacity magazines” (those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition) is permissible under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause:

Today’s misguided decision makes it crystal clear that the Ninth Circuit will not respect the Constitution until the Supreme Court requires it to. Rather than following the binding Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago opinions, the Court of Appeals again used legal gamesmanship to avoid the constitutionally required result just as it has for over a decade. Read more

Firearms, Gun Control
1 … 70 71 72 73 74 … 167