ThinkingAfield.org

SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 that are designed to suppress and chill legitimate challenges to firearms regulations and were enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law. The complaint in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“On July 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1327, which includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies solely to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations,” details the complaint. “In simple terms, Section 1021.11 enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Firearms plaintiffs, moreover, cannot be ‘prevailing parties’ under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to fees.”

“Section 1021.11 is not even rationally related to any legitimate government interest and therefore would fail even rational basis review,” the complaint goes on to argue. “As noted above, SB 1327 was apparently adopted in retaliation for Texas’s SB 8 in connection with abortion statutes. Retaliation is not a rational justification for the classifications in this case and, indeed, is an utterly impermissible justification.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in California, asking for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the state’s new law which includes a one-way fee shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies only to litigation challenging state gun laws.

Joining SAF are plaintiffs James Miller; Ryan Peterson; John Phillips; Gunfighter Tactical, LLC; PWGG, L.P.; San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee; California Gun Rights Foundation; and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; John W. Dillon; Dillon Law Group, P.C.; and George M. Lee. Defendants are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, Director of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The complaint asserts the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also says the new California law enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Therefore, firearms plaintiffs cannot be “prevailing parties” under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to recover fees and costs.

As noted in the lawsuit, SAF has been forced by the law “to refrain from challenging California gun-control laws that it believes are unconstitutional, including by forcing Plaintiff SAF to remove itself from litigation that had already commenced.”

“In its effort to silence any opposition to unconstitutional gun control laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the California Legislature adopted this new statute which details when and under what circumstances attorney’s fees may be awarded in cases challenging those gun laws.

“Essentially,” he continued, “this new law is designed to suppress any defense of the Second Amendment in court by imposing standards that violate the First Amendment. The law upends Congress’s regulation of fee awards by, among other things, purporting to change who may be considered a ‘prevailing’ party entitled to fees. Simply put, the new law is unconstitutional, and it should not be allowed to stand.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay at the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento.

WILMINGTON, DE (September 23, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order enjoining Delaware’s bans on self-manufacturing and possession of home-built firearms in its Rigby v. Jennings lawsuit. The opinion and order can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“These statutes burden constitutionally protected conduct because possession of firearms and firearm frames and receivers is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ and Defendant has not shown that these firearms and components are not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” wrote Judge Noreika in her opinion. “Further, Defendant has offered no evidence that these statutes are consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

The Court went on to hold that “the right to keep and bear arms implies a corresponding right to manufacture arms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless if no individual or entity could manufacture a firearm. Thus, if possessing untraceable firearms is protected by the Second Amendment, then so too is manufacturing them.”

The Court’s Order states in pertinent part that: “Defendant [Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings], her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her, and all persons who have notice of the injunction are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing 11 Del. C. § 1459A(b); 11 Del. C. § 1463(a); 11 Del. C. § 1463(c)(1) and from enforcing 11 Del. C. 1463(b) to the extent that the Court has found it likely unconstitutional (i.e. the statute’s provisions that bar the manufacturing and assembly of untraceable firearms, but not the prohibitions against distributing untraceable firearms).” The Order issued today further denied the State’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

“The self-manufacture of arms is deeply rooted in American history,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “It has been a celebrated tradition since the earliest colonial days, it helped save America’s war for Independence, it was essential to western expansion, and it has led to many of the most innovative technological breakthroughs in our nation’s history. We are pleased that the court recognized this essential element of the right to keep and bear arms and will continue to fiercely advocate for its protection.” Read more