ThinkingAfield.org

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to the Solicitor General’s opposition, filed on behalf of the Trump Administration, in Rush v. United States, a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) short-barreled rifle restrictions:

Once again, the Trump Administration has chosen to defend federal gun control instead of the Constitution. In its latest filing, the administration urged the Supreme Court to reject review of a case raising a serious and valid Second Amendment challenge to the NFA’s short-barreled rifle provisions—laws with no historical justification and no place in a free society.

The administration’s position on the Second Amendment is now unmistakably clear: federal gun control is good and constitutional, but state gun control is bad and unconstitutional—unless, of course, it mirrors the federal controls they favor.

Earlier this year, President Trump directed the Attorney General to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Filing briefs that defend the government’s power to tax, register, and criminalize the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms does the exact opposite. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to California Governor Gavin Newsom signing AB 1127—the so-called “Glock ban”—which criminalizes the sales of widely owned, constitutionally protected handguns:

Governor Newsom has once again proven that California’s political class will stop at nothing to attack peaceable people and their rights. AB 1127 is an unconstitutional, bad-faith attempt to outlaw some of the most common firearms in the United States.

But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now. Not ever.

FPC and our legal team have been preparing a challenge to AB 1127 for months. We and our allies will move swiftly to strike down this unlawful and immoral ban in federal court. The Constitution—not Gavin Newsom—defines the limits of government power, and we will make sure he once more learns that lesson.

Individuals who want to support this lawsuit should join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a response brief in its Ziegenfuss v. Martin case, a federal lawsuit challenging Texas laws that unconstitutionally ban peaceable people from carrying firearms in everyday public places like bars, sporting events, and racetracks.

In its filing, FPC dismantled arguments made by court-appointed amici (“friends of the court”) defending the bans. The amici claimed Texas (and all governments) can prohibit carry by carving out “sensitive places” at will, but the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision flatly rejects that theory.

As FPC explained, constitutional rights cannot be erased with labels or policy preferences, and under binding Supreme Court precedent, every restriction must be justified in this Nation’s historical tradition. But there is no such tradition to point to, and thus the laws must be struck down as unconstitutional.

“Texas cannot escape the Constitution by slapping the words ‘sensitive place’ on vast swaths of ordinary public life,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The government has no power to redefine rights out of existence. Our history and traditions show that people have always had the right to be armed in public, including where crowds gather. That right does not disappear when you walk into a restaurant, attend a ball game, or watch a race.”

Unless the Court requests further filings, the case is now fully briefed and awaiting the Court’s final decision. Read more

After a district court in Louisiana ruled earlier this week that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) must turn over its member list as part of the court’s judgment in Reese v. ATF, the organization, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed its motion to amend the judgment.

The case challenges the federal law which prevents licensed firearm dealers from selling or transferring handguns to adults under 21. The judgment entered earlier this week stated that, “Within twenty-one days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs…shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.”

“Once we read the judge’s order, we took quick and decisive action to ensure our member data will not be supplied to anyone, much less the government,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Thankfully the Department of Justice agreed with our position and has joined in this motion to amend the judgment. However, it should still be made extremely clear, SAF has never – and will never – provide the government a list of our members, and we won’t be strong-armed into turning over the private data of those who support SAF and the Second Amendment.” Read more