BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has once again funded and won a small but significant federal court victory in a Pennsylvania case in which a federal judge ruled that a man convicted of a misdemeanor crime several years ago, but who has demonstrated that he “would present no more threat to the community” than an average law-abiding citizen, may not lose his Second Amendment rights under a federal gun control statute known as 922(g)(1).

Julio Suarez was convicted in Maryland 25 years ago of a misdemeanor for carrying a firearm without a license. Since then, he has led an exemplary life, but the conviction was enough to cost Suarez his ability to buy and keep a firearm for defense of his home and family. He’s been married for 20 years, fathered three children and has a government security clearance. He is also an elder of his local church.

Middle District Court Judge William W. Caldwell said in his 26-page opinion that Suarez “is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said that “This case provides a building block upon which similar cases in which people are convicted of non-violent crimes might be challenged because they have lost their right to keep and bear arms as a result.”

“A person should not lose his or her constitutional rights for non-violent indiscretions that occur once in a lifetime,” added Attorney Alan Gura, who represented Suarez in this SAF-funded case. Read more

So why would anyone need more than a 10-round magazine?  Here’s why.

ROSEVILLE, CA – The Firearms Policy Coalition and 12 other state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.

According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual-rather than a collective-right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.” Read more