WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition today issued the following statement regarding the ATF’s “Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees” regarding its classification of some “forced-reset triggers” (FRTs) as “firearms” and “machineguns” as defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA):

This latest effort by the ATF to punish and stoke fear among peaceable people who purchase protected-arms components specifically designed to comply with federal law is further proof of the agency’s abusive overreach of statutory and constitutional bounds and a manic desire to expand its dominion. Furthermore, by being purposefully vague in saying it “intends to take appropriate remedial action,” the ATF adds to the unscrupulous nature of this action leaving sellers and owners unsure if they’ll be subject to abuse.

Unless the ATF doesn’t understand the difference between resetting and pulling a trigger, the statement is further evidence of the agency’s underhandedness. After citing the “single function of the trigger” statutory definition of a “machinegun,” the ATF claims “some FRT devices allow a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger.” By virtue of its very namesake, “forced-reset trigger” systems require an additional pull before firing another shot.

The letter ends with a directive to contact a local ATF Field Office if “uncertain whether the device you possess is a machinegun.” Out of an abundance of caution, FPC suggests that individuals, entities, and businesses who are now or have been in possession of “forced-reset triggers” consider the below measures through which you may be able to protect and preserve your rights should ATF contact you, visit you, and/or demand that you surrender any item in your possession. Read more

Under the history and tradition of the Second Amendment, nonviolent offenders should not lose their natural right to keep and bear arms.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition today announced the filing of an important brief with the Supreme Court of the United States asking it to grant certiorari in Morin v. Lyver, a case challenging Massachusetts’s lifetime ban on firearm purchases as applied to a person convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor. FPC’s brief is joined by FPC Action Foundation (formerly Firearms Policy Foundation) and can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 2004, Massachusetts resident and License to Carry (LTC) permit holder Alfred Morin, Ph.D, traveled to Washington, D.C. with a handgun. Unaware of District of Columbia laws, he saw a sign prohibiting firearms at the American Museum of Modern History and approached a guard to inquire about checking his gun. Police arrested Dr. Morin and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia sentenced Dr. Morin 60 days imprisonment on each count, as well as three months of supervised probation and 20 hours of community service.

Under Massachusetts law, an individual who has been convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor can obtain a license to possess a handgun at home after five years have passed. However, this same person can never obtain authorization to purchase a handgun— meaning that the only way they can obtain one is through inheritance. Dr. Morin, the petitioner, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which upheld the Massachusetts handgun purchase ban. Read more

DENVER – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed amicus brief with the United States Court for the District of Colorado in the case of Delbert Sgaggio v. De Young, et al., a case where the magistrate judge recently concluded that Sgaggio’s criticism of City of Woodland Park, Colorado government employees was “obscene” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The proposed amicus brief, authored by Eugene Volokh and FPC’s Matt Larosiere, can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 2018, Mr. Sgaggio posted comments critical of the Woodland Park Police Department on the police department’s and the City’s respective public Facebook pages. His sharp and stinging criticisms of the City and its employees, in which he referred to local law enforcement as “punk ass pigs,” “bitches” and “dirty ass cops,” were deleted and he was banned from posting on the government’s page. Sgaggio sued, claiming the City violated his rights protected under the First Amendment.

“Once the government lets the public comment on government Facebook pages, it can’t block particular comments based on the viewpoint they express – and that’s exactly what happened to Mr. Sgaggio,” said Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively on the First and Second Amendments. Read more

In another Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) legal victory, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled on appeal that Philadelphia’s ordinance requiring the reporting of “lost or stolen” firearms violates State law. The opinion in City of Philadelphia v. Armstrong can be found at FPCLaw.org.

Section 6120(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) states that, “No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”

However, the City of Philadelphia enacted and is enforcing its Code Section 10-838a, which states, “No person who is the owner of a firearm that is lost or stolen shall fail to report the loss or theft to an appropriate local law enforcement official within 24 hours after the loss or theft is discovered.”

In yesterday’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that the City’s ordinance was preempted by State law. The Court’s opinion, authored by Judge Patricia A. McCullough, ruled that Philadelphia “does not make any meaningful argument for a change in the current state of the case law, opting instead to essentially ignore the precedential authority of this Court as if it does not exist…Here, the facts, procedural history, and legal background of this case establish that the City is attempting to enforce a law that it knew, or reasonably should have known, was unenforceable due to our 2008 decision in Clarke, as well as the preceding and succeeding case law from this Court.”

The ruling further notes that “the City’s decision to proceed with prosecution under Section 10-838a, a lost and stolen reporting law, and then incredibly claim that the law is actually a ‘straw purchaser’ law, which, in any event, has also been held to be preempted by this Court…evidences a form of bad faith and harassment on the part of the City.”

“The Commonwealth Court correctly held that the City of Philadelphia’s prosecution of Mr. Armstrong under its Lost and Stolen Ordinance constituted ‘bad faith and harassment,” said Joshua Prince, attorney for Mr. Armstrong. “There could be no dispute that the ordinance was preempted and as a result, directed the trial court to permanently enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcement of its ordinance.”

“The City of Philadelphia has repeatedly passed ordinances regulating firearms which have been struck down by the Courts of Pennsylvania,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s vice president of programs. “In spite of those prior cases, and having had an ordinance like the one at issue found invalid, Philadelphia has elected to waste taxpayer dollars while harassing and bullying Mr. Armstrong, all while likely knowing the cost to defend against such an action would be too much for any single individual. FPC has, and remains, committed to protecting individuals from unlawful statutory schemes.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón’s letters sent to credit card companies asking them to stop processing payments for select firearm parts, which are legal to purchase under federal law:

When the law isn’t on their side, tyrants will attempt to strongarm the private sector into doing their authoritarian bidding for them. Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón’s latest attack on Second Amendment rights, this time coercive requests to credit card companies to stop processing payments for all purchases of gun parts, is a prime example of such an authoritarian approach to regulation. However, it is notable that Gascón’s letters highlight how California’s voluminous and Byzantine gun control laws fail to prevent crime, and again make clear his policy preference of redlining the rights of the People in spite of the Constitution. Read more