Latest SAF ALERTS...This thread is for your information only; no comments/replies, please.

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

66ae6463-ef5a-6ff3-aa79-984e5ac1fc05.png
Dear Gun Rights Supporter,

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are excited that the 2022 Gun Rights Policy Conference, our 37thGRPC, will be an in person as well as streamed across multiple platforms.

On behalf of the SAF Board of Trustees and the CCRKBA Board of Directors, we would like to invite you to join us for what is sure to be one of the best and most far-reaching yet. 

Since the first GRPC held in Seattle in 1986, it has evolved and grown from 20 speakers and 70 attendees to over 120 speakers and 6500 registered participants in 2021.

We are heading to Dallas, Texas September 30 through October 2nd. We will be at the Westin – Dallas Fort Worth Airport in Irving, Texas. The conference is free and as in past years, there will be two receptions, a day and a half of presentations and an awards luncheon where we will all be able to gather and make and renew friendships. (Travel, lodging and other meals are to be paid by the attendee.)  You can register here. Hotel reservations can be made here.  Booking through this link will give you our negotiated rate of $115.00 per night Thursday, September 28th – Sunday, October 2nd. 

Our team is busy working on the details of the LIVE conference and more information will be sent to you each month.

We are all looking forward to seeing you!

Sincerely,

The GRPC planning team

SAF.org
(425) 454-7012

CCRKBA.org
(425) 454-4911
 
6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg


ATF inflating ‘ghost gun’ numbers hoping Congress inflates its budget
by Lee Williams

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is counting the number of Google searches for “ghost guns” claiming that the data supports their theory that homemade firearms are skyrocketing in popularity among criminals. The “ghost gun” crisis, which the ATF itself ginned up, appears to be nothing more than the agency’s latest and most desperate attempt to increase its dwindling budget.

The ATF’s newfound use of internet search trends as a crimefighting tool was revealed in a recently released 306-page report titled: “National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessments: Firearms in Commerce.”

In April 2021, Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered ATF to produce a “comprehensive report on firearms commerce and trafficking.” What they got was a bit of dealer and industry data mixed with supposition and theories that were both light on actual facts and previously shown to be false – all slickly packaged into a plea for more money, more agents and more authority.

The report repeats bogus “ghost gun” claims, which have already been debunked by dozens of senior law enforcement sources and a congressional whistleblower. In other words, ATF submitted a report to the President and to the Attorney General of the United States containing information it knew was false.

The report also cites how the agency is struggling to keep up with the staffing levels of other federal law enforcement agencies, especially FBI and DEA, which could explain why they’re stretching the truth a bit in their report. Some of its claims are laughable. However, nothing in the entire 306 pages is as ridiculous as the amateurish research methods they used to create and support their fictitious “ghost gun” theories.

Google and media data

Americans have been legally making guns in their homes since before there was a United States of America. ATF admits this in their report, kind of, stating that the Gun Control Act of 1968 “does not regulate the making of firearms by private individuals who are not engaged in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms.” After that brief disclaimer, however, the report rarely mentions the legality of homemade guns, which ATF calls “Privately Made Firearms” or PMFs.

The internet, the report states, “provides manufacturers of these technologies, plans, and parts direct access to a mass market. To illustrate this point, one need only conduct an internet search and review the number of results and speed at which the results are returned.”

The authors entered five PMF phrases into a Google search box: “80% Receivers, Ghost Gun kit, AR-15 receiver, 3d printed gun and Polymer 80.”

“The Google searches returned more than 5 million pages of search results and more than 130 thousand marketing and instructional videos,” the report states. However, it never puts this number into context. For example, my search for Bigfoot produced 39 million results. A search for UFO Abduction insurance produced more than 760,000 results.

The authors also searched for news stories about “ghost guns,” and to no one’s surprise they found a few, which they also claim proves they are increasingly used in crimes: “The increase in news stories is reflective of the increase in PMF use in crimes and PMF recoveries by law enforcement,” the report states. It does not explain how the authors made this leap in logic.

Debunked numbers

The entire crackdown on “ghost guns” is based on a hoax that has been promulgated by ATF and Joe Biden.

“Last year alone, law enforcement reported approximately 20,000 suspected ghost guns to be – to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s a tenfold increase in these ghost guns from 2016. Tenfold in five years,” Biden said last April. “These guns are weapons of choice for many criminals. We’re going to do everything we can to deprive them of that choice and, when we find them, put them in jail for a long, long time. Law enforcement is sounding the alarms. Our communities are paying the price. And we’re acting.”

The “ghost gun” drama was started by Carlos A. Canino, the former Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the ATF’s Los Angeles Field Division. In 2020, anti-gun activists asked Canino about the prevalence of homemade firearms in California. An earlier study said 30% of the guns recovered by ATF in California were unserialized “ghost guns,” but Canino said the real numbers were actually much higher. “Forty-one percent, so almost half our cases we’re coming across are these ‘ghost guns,’” Canino said.

A story by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project revealed that the ATF could not verify Canino’s comments.

“I contacted the Los Angeles Field Division earlier today after your initial email, and their Public Information Officer was unable to verify any figures provided in 2019 by former-SAC Canino without knowing the time-period(s) he used for his comments,” an ATF spokesman admitted in an email.

After the story was published, a staff member for a U.S. Congressman came forward. This whistleblower, who asked that their name be withheld from publication, revealed even more problems about the ATF’s “ghost gun” numbers.

The whistleblower asked the U.S. Justice Department for “ghost gun” data, since the ATF falls under the DOJ’s purview.

“Because it is not currently a federal crime to own either a homemade firearm or a braced pistol, DOJ claims they do not have accurate/comprehensive databases to track their use in crimes. They compile information from state and local police units – but that information is only as good as what is reported,” the whistleblower said in an email. To be clear, the Department of Justice told a U.S. Congressman’s staff member that their “ghost gun” data is neither accurate nor comprehensive.

“Despite that,” the whistleblower said in an email, “the DOJ sent a document stating: ‘Privately made firearms (PMFs), known as ghost guns, are a rapidly growing contributor to violent crime. From January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020, there were approximately 23,906 suspected PMFs reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement, including in connection with 325 homicides or attempted homicides. The trendline is troubling: in 2016, local law enforcement reported to ATF 1,750 suspected PMFs; by 2020, that number had grown to 8,712, an increase of over 400 percent.”

This is the same data ATF submitted in their report to Biden and Attorney General Garland – data that the DOJ said is “neither accurate nor comprehensive,” – data the ATF knew was false.

Takeaways

The authors who wrote this report are not shy about the real reason for the 306-page document.

“Over the past three decades, ATF has not been funded and staffed commensurate with staffing increases received by other DOJ law enforcement agencies. In 1973, ATF had 3,829 employees, including 1,622 special agents and 826 industry operations investigators. In 2022, ATF has 5,410 employees including 2,653 special agents and 760 industry operations investigators. This represents a 41% increase in total employees.

By contrast, in 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had 2,775 employees of which 1,470 were special agents. In 2021, DEA employed 9,848 employees of which 4,649 were special agents. This represents a 254% increase. Similarly, in 1973, the FBI had 20,527 employees. In 2021, the FBI employed 35,842 employees. This represents a 75% increase.”

It's clear the ATF is looking for a 21st Century mission – something more relevant than regulating untaxed cigarettes or bootleg corn liquor – so they turned to “ghost guns,” a fiction which Biden and the legacy media were only too happy to help promote.

Besides, the dozens of senior law enforcement professionals across the country I have spoken to say “ghost guns” are not a problem in their jurisdictions. The ATF, they say, must be conflating homemade guns and factory-made firearms that have had their serial numbers illegally removed to come up with their large numbers, or, more likely, ATF is just making the numbers up, hoping to increase their budget.

The research methods ATF used for this report indicate nothing is out of bounds. Claiming there are now more plans on the internet for “ghost guns” so there must be more “ghost guns” makes no sense. There are more plans online now for atomic bombs, time machines and the perfect Bundt cake than there were years ago. Does this mean they too are growing in popularity? And basing any conclusion on media stories is legendarily dumb. I spent more than 20 years in the legacy media. The vast majority of my former colleagues could not articulate the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Ask them anything about “ghost guns” and they wouldn’t have a clue.

The ATF has always been somewhat of a laughingstock – a pariah among federal law enforcement agencies. That they would now invent a fake problem and then hold their hand out to Congress for more money to fix it shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, this is the federal agency that believed pressuring a retired Green Beret into sawing off a shotgun barrel, laying siege to 76 men, women and children and running guns into Mexico were sound law enforcement strategies, despite the number of lives lost as a result.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

JOINT STATEMENT FROM SAF AND CCRKBA ON UVALDE
Legitimate, law-abiding American gun owners are today as outraged and saddened as everyone else by the horrible acts of a crazed murderer in Uvalde, Texas. The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms join our fellow citizens to grieve the unimaginable loss suffered by the Uvalde community and the citizens of Texas.

The past 24 hours have allowed us to learn far more about the killer and the circumstances surrounding his deplorable act of violence. Unlike anti-gun-rights politicians including Joe Biden, who quickly exploited this horror to push an agenda aimed at diminishing the Second Amendment and shifting blame to millions of gun owners, we waited for more information.

If there is blame beyond that of the killer, it must be shared by political leaders whose policies have turned our public schools into soft targets, and by self-appointed activists and school boards that have resisted school resource officer programs, opposed and prohibited programs that train teachers and staff to provide armed first response in an emergency, while perpetuating dangerous “Gun Free School Zone” laws.

President Biden demanded “commonsense gun laws.” We believe it is time for common sense, period. We spend billions of dollars on foreign aid. We can provide millions of dollars to local law enforcement agencies for school resource officers. We protect our politicians with armed security. Let’s protect our schools to the same degree.

Let’s take advantage of a great resource: our retired military and law enforcement professionals. They protected our nation and our communities. They can easily protect our school children.

Instead of demonizing gun owners and the firearms industry, bring them to the table and benefit from their knowledge. Together we can succeed where the gun prohibition agenda has disastrously and repeatedly failed.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

Biden’s second ATF nominee garnering support among key Senate Dems
by Lee Williams

Like his first choice, Joe Biden’s second choice to lead the ATF can’t define an “assault weapon” either.

Former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach testified Wednesday he would leave it to Congress to define an “assault weapon,” even though during his unsuccessful 2018 run for Ohio Attorney General Dettelbach called for an “assault weapon” ban, restrictions on standard-capacity magazines, universal background checks and Red Flag laws.

“When I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons,” Dettelbach told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. “I did not define the term, and I haven't gone through the process of defining that term. That would only be for the Congress if it chose to take that up.”

His non answer drew a stinging rebuke from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican and staunch Second Amendment supporter.

“I think it's very telling that you're nominated to lead the ATF and you don't have a definition of assault weapon,” Cotton said. “The point is there is really no such thing as a category of weapons known as assault weapons. There are rifles, there are shotguns, there are pistols. They have properties, they have features, but there is no such thing as a category of assault weapon.”

The Biden-Harris administration is working overtly and covertly to get their second ATF pick confirmed. They do not want to face the public embarrassment that would follow if they lose yet another nominee.

Biden pressed the Senate to act quickly Wednesday as he was signing so-called police reform legislation, by conflating the mass murder that occurred the day before in Uvalde, Texas with Dettelbach’s nomination.

“The idea that an 18-year-old can walk into a store and buy weapons of war, designed and marketed to kill, is, I think, just wrong. It just violates common sense. Even the manufacturer – the inventor of that weapon thought that as well. You know, where is the backbone? Where is the courage to stand up to a very powerful lobby? But here is one modest step: The federal agency that measures and ensures that gun laws are enforced and the Second Amendment is abided by – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the AFT (sic) – has not had a Senate confirmation leader for seven years because of these disputes,” Biden said Wednesday. For seven years, they’ve been out – without anyone in charge. I nominated a supremely qualified former prosecutor who has broad bipartisan support from law enforcement and the community overall. His hearing was held easier today – earlier today, I should say. The Senate should confirm him without delay, without excuse. Send the nomination to my desk. It’s time for action.”

Biden was not the only administration official to conflate recent mass murders with Dettelbach’s nomination.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Wednesday that “as we saw with the tragic shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo – where ATF agents have played a key role in the investigations – and with daily gun violence plaguing too many of our communities, now is the time to provide ATF the leadership it needs to redouble its work to enforce our gun laws and make our communities safer.”

Apparently, the pressure is paying off for the White House. Several Democrats who opposed Biden’s first choice for the vacant ATF directorship, David Chipman, said they may likely support Dettelbach.

Sen. Angus King, an Independent from Maine, told CNN Dettelbach’s attitude was better than Chipman’s, adding “This guys is the right guy.”

Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Jon Tester (D-Montana) each said they had productive private meetings with Dettelbach, but were waiting until the hearings conclude before they announce their decisions. Both senators come from gun-friendly states and both publicly opposed Chipman’s nomination.

The White House will need the support of every Democratic senator, including moderates like Manchin and Tester, to confirm Dettelbach’s nomination.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION FILES
FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO WA MAGAZINE BAN
The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson and several other officials, challenging the state ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” for rifles and pistols. The case is known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., a California-based group; Rainier Arms, LLC and a private citizen, Gabriella Sullivan. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C., Cody J. Wisniewski at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and locally by Joel Ard at Ard Law Group.

Besides Ferguson, defendants are Washington State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste, King County Sheriff Patti Cole-Tindall, Kitsap County Sheriff John Gese, Grays Harbor County Sheriff Rick Scott, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, Kitsap County Prosecutor Chad M. Enright and Grays Harbor County Prosecutor Katie Svoboda.

“We’re asking the court to declare Washington’s ban on original capacity magazines to be unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth amendments,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We want an injunction against the state because this ban criminalizes something that is common in a majority of states, and also leaves law-abiding Washington citizens more vulnerable to attack by ruthless criminals.”

Under provisions of a law passed earlier this year, Washington bans the future sale, importation, manufacture and distribution of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten cartridges. These are widely considered standard capacity magazines by manufacturers of firearms for which they are designed. The legislation was signed in March by Gov. Jay Inslee and takes effect July 1.

“Many of the most popular handguns and modern semiautomatic rifles come standard with magazines that hold more than ten rounds,” Gottlieb noted. “Such firearms are legally owned by Washington residents. As we note in the lawsuit, there is no reliable proof that restrictions on new manufacturing or sales of such magazines will reduce violent crime. This law unfairly and arbitrarily penalizes honest citizens for crimes they didn’t commit, in the hopes of preventing crimes they wouldn’t dream of committing.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

The media has reached an agreement on guns, not the Senate

by Lee Williams

If the legacy media had their way, your front door would explode and seconds later you’d be hip-deep in armed gun-grabbers delivering high-caliber butt-strokes to your noggin until you surrendered the combination to your gun safe. That is the level of anti-gun bias today’s legacy media uses whenever they report on anything related to guns or the Second Amendment. Their recent stories on developments in the Senate are no exception to this rule.

“The Senate has finally reached an agreement on guns,” a CBS news actor breathlessly announced Monday morning. Except the Senate hasn’t reached any agreement. Ten Republican Senators have agreed in theory to back a gun-control framework, which is lightyears away from agreeing to support an actual gun-control bill.

Once again, the legacy media is way ahead of the actual story. Once again, they are reporting what theywant to happen, instead of what actually happened. Rather than reporting the truth, today’s media consistently pushes its own agenda, which in this caseis their belief we need more gun control.

To be clear, a bipartisan group of 20 Senators – 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats – led by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), announced yesterday their support for a proposal, which is not a bill.

According to a press release from Murphy’s office, the proposal is “a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country.”

“Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities,” Murphy said in the statement. “Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law.”

You can read the full text of Murph’s proposal, as well as which Senators have announced their support, here.

Is this development concerning to those of us who value our God-given constitutional rights? Yes, it certainly is. However, we do not yet know what provisions of the proposal will be included in the bill, or even if there will be an actual bipartisan bill.

The National Rifle Association said as much in a statement released Sunday night:

“As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on "frameworks". We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review. The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation.”

While some of the concepts contained in the Senators’ proposal are likely unconstitutional, it is a proposal, not legislation, at least not yet. We need to monitor developments closely and keep in contact with our elected representatives. While the gun banners are celebrating wildly while the cameras roll, do not fall victim to the media’s spin. That, friends, is exactly what they want. They survive solely on clicks and ratings. Do not feed the media beast.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

HIGH COURT RULING IN N.Y GUN CASE AFFIRMS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a carry permit is a long-overdue affirmation that the right to bear arms exists outside the home, and always has, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“We are gratified that the high court has said there can be no bureaucratic prerequisite to exercising one’s constitutionally-protected right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many generations, New York’s requirement has been the vehicle by which the constitutional rights of average law-abiding citizens have been deprived under color of law.

“Government bureaucrats have routinely been arbitrary and all-too-eager to prevent honest people from having the means to defend themselves against violent crime outside of their homes,” he continued. “This pattern of exclusivity—allowing only those with wealth and political connections to legally carry guns in public—has been an affront to the constitution for decades, and now officials in a handful of other states with similar arbitrary requirements are on notice they can no longer perpetuate what amounts to an outrage against the constitution. We’ll see how this ruling affects eight other states with similar laws including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.”

SAF congratulated the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association for its victory, and for its daunting determination to see this battle through to its conclusion. This case was only allowed to be brought because of SAF’s 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago which overturned that city’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“We expect bureaucrats and even judges in various courts to resist today’s ruling,” Gottlieb acknowledged. “Too many of them have resisted and even ignored the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald rulings on Second Amendment rights in the past. We’re putting them on notice we’ll be watching for any such misconduct and we won’t be shy about taking legal actionespecially if New York City officials adopt near city wide ‘sensitive area’ restrictions making it impossible to carry in New York City.

“This is a clear victory for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” he added, “and a staggering defeat for the gun prohibition movement and their billionaire financiers. Elitists who have their personal, armed private security have no business trying to undermine the rights of less-privileged citizens whose lives are just as important. Whenever gun prohibition forces lose, average people win, as they did today.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

Chief among these cases is Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh, a case brought by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Other cases include challenges to restrictive gun laws in Hawaii, New Jersey and California. In addition, a SAF case called McDougall v. Ventura County, which challenges a closure of gun shops two years ago during the COVID-19 panic, has been vacated by a Ninth Circuit en banc panel and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s New York ruling.

“This is incredibly good news,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

Gottlieb, who also chairs the Citizens Committee, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to remand the McDougall case back for further proceedings consistent with last week’s Bruen ruling sends a strong signal that federal courts can no longer use a made-up “two-step” process to determine Second Amendment cases. As Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion, “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”

“Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen,” he noted, “and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.”

“It is also important,” Gottlieb said, “that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF FILES NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN GUN RIGHTS CASE
Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in a case challenging the ban on handgun purchases by young adults, ages 18-20, based on language in the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

The notice states, “As Plaintiffs have argued, text, history and tradition all point uniformly in this case toward 18-to-20-year-olds having equal rights to other adults with respect to firearms, including the right to purchase them, and the Government has not pointed to any sufficiently rooted analogous historical restrictions that would take this case outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

“The high court ruling in Bruen clearly opens lots of doors in our pursuit of gun rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and this case is one of them.”

The case is known as Reese, et.al. v. BATFE.

As explained in the Notice, “The standard Bruen establishes for Second Amendment challenges is precisely the standard for which Plaintiffs argued in their briefing on their motion for summary judgment: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“We’re continuing to look back over several cases to determine which courses of action can be followed in the aftermath of the court’s June ruling,” Gottlieb acknowledged. “The importance of the Bruen decision cannot be overstated.

“Our mission is not about promoting gun ownership, but protecting rights,” he observed. “For decades, liberal anti-gun politicians and activist judges have pushed legislation and issued decisions that have combined to erode rights protected by the Second Amendment. We are determined to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF, PARTNERS FILE FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST NEW CALIFORNIA GUN LAW

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and several partners have filed a federal lawsuit for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in a case challenging the constitutionality of a California law prohibiting gun shops, sporting goods stores, and any “firearm industry member” from advertising, marketing or arranging for placement “any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

It is a First Amendment case known as Junior Sports Magazine, Inc., et al, v. Bonta. Joining SAF in the motion are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., the CRPA Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Turner’s Outdoors, Inc., California Youth Shooting Sports Foundation, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., and two private citizens.

The statute in question—identified as AB 2571 throughout the complaint and signed into law June 30—clearly focuses on any “firearm industry member” in its prohibition, which violates not only the First Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, plaintiffs contend.

“The First Amendment protects commercial speech that promotes legal products and services,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You simply cannot single out people engaged in a legal business enterprise and forbid them from advertising or promoting their products just because you don’t like them. That’s what this case is all about.”

While the law prohibits pro-gun advertising and display, the suit notes, “AB 2571 does not, however, prohibit anti-gun organizations not ‘formed for the express purpose of promoting, encouraging, or advocating for the purchase, use, or ownership of firearm-related products,’ like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Gun Free Kids, and Everytown for Gun Safety, from offering and soliciting youth memberships or using branded merchandise, like hats, t-shirts, stuffed animals, coloring and activity books, stickers, pins, and buttons, bearing anti-gun messages and slogans—or even images of unlawful firearms—to spread their political messages, promote their organizations, or solicit memberships and/or financial support.”

“It’s clearly a double standard codified into law that cannot be allowed to stand,” Gottlieb said. “We’re determined to see that it doesn’t.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

ASSOCIATED PRESS MAKES SMART GUN CHANGE TO STYLE BOOK
After years of incorporating the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapons” into news reports involving firearms, especially when used in crimes, journalists are now advised by the Associated Press to avoid the “highly politicized terms,” and the Second Amendment Foundation says it’s a “smart gun change.”

“It’s about time the media realized the terms ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’ are inflammatory and meaningless,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Those terms have become part of the gun prohibition lobby’s lexicon, and unfortunately, journalists across the country have been all-too-willing to adopt their vocabulary and repeatedly use it in their reports.

“I’m glad to see the AP Stylebook now recognizes that these firearms only fire one round each time a trigger is pulled,” he continued, “and really function no differently than any other semi-auto rifle, pistol or shotgun, all of which have been in common use in this country for more than a century.”

According to an AP Style Tip, “The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle. An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted.

“Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon,” the AP adds, “which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.”

As noted by Gottlieb, “The gun prohibition lobby has always used ‘assault rifle’ or ‘assault weapon’ to confuse and frighten the public and make people think it’s a fully automatic ‘weapon of war.’ Now we’ll have to see how intellectually honest journalists will be in adopting this correct terminology, rather than continuing to use these deliberately misleading references.

“This laudable effort by the Associated Press may help restore the level of trust the public should have in the media,” he observed. “It will be interesting to see if the media now challenges politicians and anti-gun lobbyists whenever they use such terms, especially since ‘AR’ never referred to ‘assault rifle’ but to Armalite Rifle, and the gun control crowd has always known it.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF FILES MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN CA GUN CASE
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the California case of Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb is hopeful for a preliminary injunction, noting, “We’re filing because a right delayed is a right denied.” He is represented by attorney Don Kilmer of Idaho.

Gottlieb noted this is a First Amendment case, because it challenges a recently-signed law—AB 2571—which prohibits pro-gun advertising and display of “any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

In his Declaration in support of the motion, Gottlieb explains, “It is critical to the success of SAF that its promotional material, publications, and messages about the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ be permitted to reach a broad public audience, including minors and young adults.”

Among SAF’s activities is its support and sponsorship of an initiative called “2A Gaming.” Gottlieb describes this effort as “an outreach program funded by SAF with the goal of growing the Second Amendment Community.” The audience consists of people who play video games, especially games that focus on firearms.

“Part of the purpose of 2A Gaming is to persuade gamers, whose experience with firearms may – at first – be limited to digital experience, to seek out friends and shooting clubs to obtain the necessary training and make that first trip to a range for a live fire experience,” he detailed.

“We hope to educate the younger generation,” Gottlieb added, “on safety and where their gun rights come from; and also seek to shift the political culture in the United States from one that demonizes and fears guns, to an attitude of respect and protection for our nation’s Second Amendment heritage.”

He says the ban on merchandizing codified in AB 2571 would include a ban on SAF-branded t-shirts, hats, other clothing, toys, games, pins, stickers and other material that “promote” a “firearm industry member.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
Apropos the discussion we recently had in General "a good argument against raising the age for gun ownership to 21" in which many members argued that whatever the age of majority is should be the age of majority for gun rights as well, here comes SAF arguing exactly that position in this Minnesota lawsuit:

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF FILES SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN MINN. CARRY BAN LAWSUIT
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment in a federal lawsuit in Minnesota, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington.

Joining SAF are the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens in the affected age group. Defendants are John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, plus three county sheriffs, Mille Lac County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry, in their individual and official capacities.

The Second Amendment Foundation in this case is represented by COOPER & KIRK, PLLC. a national recognized constitutional and civil rights law firm based in Washington, D.C.

“We recognize the rights of law-abiding young adults to vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, suddenly we treat them like children. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

“Minnesota law prohibits private citizens from carrying guns outside the home or vehicle without a permit,” he added, “but the state does not issue permits to anyone under age 21. This is patently unfair to an entire class of citizens who have otherwise achieved ‘majority status’ to exercise these other rights and privileges, but their right to keep and bear arms is kept off-limits. Young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

The time has come, Gottlieb said, for courts to remedy this situation and eliminate what amounts to a double standard.

“You either have the rights of an adult, or you don’t,” he observed. “Rights are an all-or-nothing package, whether you are 18 or 81. This inconsistency in law needs to be fixed.”
 
July 26 (missed earlier). Note this is over a month AFTER the big SCOTUS win NYSRPA vs Bruen.

6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

New Jersey Acting Attorney General targeting 1st, 2nd Amendments with new nuisance-lawsuit team
by Lee Williams


New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced Monday he has created a new statewide office specifically designed to harass the gun industry through civil nuisance lawsuits.

According to a press release issued Monday, the mission of Platkin’s Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement or SAFE Office will be to bring “civil enforcement actions against firearm companies to hold them accountable for violations of the law that harm the health and safety of New Jersey residents.”

The SAFE Office’s primary tool will be a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed earlier this month, which allows the Attorney General to file civil suits “for certain public nuisance violations arising from sale or marketing of firearms.”

“At a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is undermining states’ efforts to protect their residents from the carnage of gun violence, New Jersey’s Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement Office will use the new public nuisance legislation to hold the gun industry accountable,” Platkin said in his press release. “With the establishment of this office, we are sending a clear message to every participant in the firearms industry: if you violate our laws, you will pay.”

Platkin’s plan drew a swift response from Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“Weaponizing the New Jersey Department of Justice to file public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and retail dealers for making and selling legal firearms is deplorable,” Gottlieb said. “The Second Amendment Foundation will challenge this blatant attack and chilling effect on the right to make, sell and purchase firearms in court. New Jersey may have been the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights but they are the last state to recognize it.”

A history of overreach

Last year, we revealed that former New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal was using “undercover” detectives to entrap firearms retailers and manufacturers – especially those in other states – into selling products prohibited in New Jersey, in the hopes that the exorbitant fees and penalties he could extort from them through the state’s the state’s Consumer Fraud Act would force the owners out of business.Grewal has since resigned as attorney general to take a position with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In his Monday press release, the current Attorney General touted Grewal’s targeting of two Florida gun dealers he claimed were “advertising and selling illegal large-capacity magazines (LCMs) to New Jersey consumers online.” One dealer agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty. The AG has not collected on the other dealer’s civil judgement of $175,000.

Now, instead of relying on New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, Platkin said the new civil nuisance law will “provide even more robust enforcement tools, by allowing the Department to hold firearms manufacturers and retail dealers accountable for endangering the safety and health of New Jersey residents through the sale, manufacture, distribution, or marketing of lethal, but nonetheless legal, firearms.”

Advertising is protected speech

Platkin is on extremely shaky ground, constitutionally. Not only is he using civil nuisance lawsuits to infringe upon the Second Amendment, his plan to regulate marketing/advertising could prove unconstitutional, too.

The First Amendment protects advertising, which is known as “commercial speech.” However, advertising found to be deceptive may be regulated.

The Supreme Court established rules for regulating commercial speech in its 1993 decision Edenfield v. Fane.

“The commercial market place, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment,” the High Court found.

Takeaways

New Jersey’s new SAFE Office, like the plethora of anti-gun laws recently passed in New York andCalifornia, is clearly retaliatory for the massive Second Amendment victory in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Platkin admitted as much in his press release.

Now, Platkin along with Governors Hochul and Newsom will have to be taught that bluster and braggadocio are not an affirmative defense for violating both the Constitution and an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, residents of New Jersey, California and New York will have to wait to enjoy the same legal protections of other states, whose governors care more about following the law and obeying their oath to the U. S. Constitution than they do pandering to their political base.


The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
from August 2nd, also previously missed:

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF QUESTIONS HIRING OF GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE BY WA ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Second Amendment Foundation today is wondering how far Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson will go to politicize his agency, after hiring Ben Carr, identified by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility—a Seattle-based gun control group—as vice president of its foundation board of directors.

The Alliance filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by SAF and the Firearms Policy Coalition challenging Washington State’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” in which Ferguson is named as one of the defendants, in his official capacity.

“Why should the Alliance think Ferguson needs their help to defend the ban,” wondered SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After all, they’ve got their own man working in the Attorney General’s office.”

When the lawsuit was filed, Ferguson vowed to “vigorously defend” the law, insisting “This challenge will not succeed.”

“If he’s so confident,” Gottlieb questioned, “Why does he need the help of a billionaire-backed, radical advocacy organization?

“Bob Ferguson has politicized and weaponized the Attorney General’s office,” Gottlieb said, “and having a senior official from a gun prohibition advocacy organization on staff while he is a defendant in a federal lawsuit challenging a gun control law he will defend appears highly questionable, to say the least.

“It’s disgusting,” he added, “and a slap-in the face to every Washington State gun owner that Ferguson has put a member of the board of a gun ban advocacy group on his staff at taxpayer expense. The public should be outraged, and the question now needs to be asked, has Attorney General Ferguson crossed the line of ethical propriety?”

The lawsuit was filed in June, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. It is known as Sullivan, et.al. v. Ferguson, et.al.
 
from August 11th, also previously missed:

6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

Family-owned legacy gun shop the latest casualty of Joe Biden’s war on gun dealers
by Lee Williams

Master gunsmith James Morrison founded JM Gun Repair 46 years ago, after doing gun repairs in his garage.

The gun shop has been a local institution ever since, offering firearms, black powder and reloading gear, ammunition including hard-to-find calibers and James’ incredible skills as a master gunsmith with 50 years of experience.

The business is perfectly located, straddling the county line between Sarasota and Bradenton, Florida.

“This has been a family legacy for 46 years,” said James’ grandson, Noah Morrison. His father and uncle work at the shop too.

Noah, who just turned 21, dreamed of becoming the third generation of Morrisons to operate this family business. However, his dreams were dashed when George Hancock, an ATF Industry Operations Investigator, known as an IOI, walked into the shop, at around the same time Joe Biden announced his war on “rogue” gun dealers.

“During the audit, he found faults in our paperwork,” Noah said. “In in the past, for these types of minor faults, an auditor would have just handed us a pen and told us to fix them.”

Noah’s father Benwayne Morrison, agrees.

“These were clerical errors, but they changed the definition,” he said. “Under their new definition, they said our violations were willful. After 46 years we never gave a gun to someone who shouldn’t have it, but that didn’t matter. None of the violations were on Biden’s ‘rogue’ gun dealer list.”

Rogue defined

Biden first announced his zero-tolerance policy in June 2021. Part of his scheme included five criteria, which he claimed defined a rogue dealer:

1.) transferring a firearm to a prohibited person

2.) failing to run a required background check

3.) falsifying records, such as a firearms transaction form

4.) failing to respond to an ATF tracing request

5.) refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection in violation of the law

However, the ATF is revoking licenses for the most minor of errors – errors not on Biden’s five-point list.

As a result, a special report we published in May revealed that FFL revocations increased a staggering 500 percent.

No due process

Effective Aug. 23, JM Gun Repair can no longer transfer or sell firearms. The family intends to keep the shop open, selling ammunition, reloading and black powder supplies, gear and other accessories, but not guns or even gunsmithing services. They posted a note on their website announcing the changes.

“Our family legacy is gone,” Benwayne said. “My father started this business. A master gunsmith is a rare breed. He can tell you the details about a gun made 100 years ago. He’s still sharp as a tack. Our family was screwed over by the ATF.”

The worst part for him and his family is that there was no way to appeal the ATF’s order.

There was no due process.

Benwayne contacted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office, but was told since it was a federal matter, he should contact Florida Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. Benwayne never received a response from Scott’s office. One of Rubio’s assistants told him to send more information, but he has not heard back.

Illegal registry

Both Benwayne and Noah believe there is another, unspoken reason why the ATF is revoking hundreds of FFLs. Anytime a gun shop closes or is ordered out of business, they must mail years of records to the ATF.

“They’re building a gun registry, and that’s illegal,” Benwayne said. “If you want to build a registry, the easiest way to do it is to have gun dealers supply their records. That’s the quickest way for them to find out who has what kind of guns. If they shut down a 46-year-old store that’s had thousands of sales, all of a sudden, they’ve got a lot of records.”

Neither Jason Medina, public information officer for ATF’s Tampa Field Division, nor Aaron Gerber, the Division’s Director of Industry Operations, returned calls seeking comment for this story.

Takeaways

It’s clear that the Biden-Harris administration believes if they eliminate all the gun dealers, they will eliminate all the guns. But since there is only a handful of real rogues out of the 50,000 licensed gun dealers doing business in the country, the administration had to devise another tactic. As a result, they came up with the “willful” scheme.

Now, even the most insignificant clerical error as a willful violation, which means the dealer is a rogue, and their license is quickly revoked. The ATF was happy to play along, since they’ve always been more than willing to bend over for the White House, regardless of the constitutionality of the request.

The two hallmarks of the Morrison family business have always been safety and family. Benwayne used to train Boy Scouts. His father taught Hunter Safety classes. They educate every first-time gun buyer before they leave the shop.

“My parents could have retired years ago, but they wanted to keep the business going for their children and their grandchildren,” Benwayne said. “It’s frustrating to me that now my son Noah is old enough to be part of the family business, but he can’t. We’ve always been a law-abiding shop. We’ve done our best for nearly a half century to educate the public and keep the public safe. So, if they can do this to us, they can do this to anybody.”


The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
from August 13th, also previously missed:

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER GUN SHOW BAN
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s Senate Bill 264, a ban on gun shows held on public property that was passed and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Joining SAF are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. B&L Productions, Inc., d/b/a Crossroads of the West; Gerald Clark; Eric Johnson; Chad Littrell; Jan Steven Merson; Inc; Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association; and the Second Amendment Law Center, Inc. The case is known as B&L Productions v. Newsom.

SAF is represented by noted civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer, who successfully represented SAF in overturning the ban on gun shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County, where the defendants were ordered to pay plaintiffs close to half-million dollars in combined damages and attorney fees

Named as defendants in this case are California Gov. Gavin Newsom in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, Attorney General Robert Bonta in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Karen Ross, in her official capacity as Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture, and Todd Spitzer, in his personal and official capacity as District Attorney of Orange County. The 55-page federal complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

“The state has been regulating gun show operations almost out of existence, and more restrictive than brick-and-mortar retail gun shops or even internet sales,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “Now the California Senate Bill 256 ban amounts to a total deprivation of rights under the color of law, including the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under the law.

“This lawsuit follows our successful action against the Del Mar Fairgrounds,” he added, “but the regulatory ban regime now in place in California applies to any gun show on public property, anywhere in the state. What is alarming to us is that Crossroads of the West has followed the rules, and so have vendors at their gun shows. Yet, the state is prohibiting constitutionally protected activities that are common all over the country, and are already highly regulated. “Like it or not,” Gottlieb observed, “gun shows are public forums where like-minded people can meet and discuss various issues, engage in firearm sales and purchases, learn about gun safety and enjoy the camaraderie inherent at such events. Obviously, the defendants don’t like that, but they simply cannot violate constitutional rights to satisfy a personal disdain.”
 
from August 15th, previously missed:

6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

CNN defends its source of misleading mass-shooting data from SAF’s criticism
In a story published Sunday, CNN was forced to prop up the long debunked Gun Violence Archive – the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that provides the cable network and other anti-gun groups with sensational, misleading and inaccurate mass-shooting data.

The CNN story states that the Supreme Court Justices who dissented in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, INC. vs Bruen, cited data from the Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, which falsely claimed there have been 277 mass shootings since the beginning of 2022 – an average of one mass shooting per day.

“The dissent was just the latest example of the growing influence of the Gun Violence Archive, a tiny nonprofit that has for less than a decade attempted to log every single incident of gun violence in the US in real time,” CNN wrote. “The organization has been cited by the Supreme Court, policymakers and media outlets like CNN primarily for its ongoing tally of mass shootings, which it defines as any incident in which four people are shot, excluding the shooter.”

Mark Bryant, the GVA’s executive director, told CNN he is noticing the phrase “according to Gun Violence Archive” cited more frequently in news stories, which Bryant sees as an affirmation of his group’s efforts.

It is not until later in the story – much later – that CNN mentions the misleading definition the GVA uses to define a mass shooting, which the Second Amendment Foundation first exposed.

“When most Americans hear the term ‘mass shooting,’ they picture a crazed gunman stalking the halls of a school or a shopping mall, coldly and randomly executing innocent young victims," CNN wrote, quoting from the Second Amendment Foundation’s July 2021 story. “What does not come to mind are rival drug crews shooting it out in Chicago or Detroit, or a madman murdering his entire family.”

Bryant told the cable network that he views the Second Amendment Foundation’s criticisms as “irrelevant.”

“My answer on that is, the same number of people are shot whether you call it a ‘mass shooting’ or whether you call it a ‘shooting that four people or more were shot,’” Bryant told CNN. “But they just don't like when the (term) 'mass shooting' is used, some don't like that.”

Misleading definition

Not included in the CNN story was a full explanation of the vast differences between the GVA’s definition of a mass shooting and how the FBI categorizes the crime, or the massive discrepancies the two definitions produce.

For example, according to Bryant’s all-inclusive definition, there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.

According to their report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:


  • Shootings in public places
  • Shootings occurring at more than one location
  • Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
  • Shootings resulting in a mass killing
  • Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
  • Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
  • Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects

Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:

  • Self-defense
  • Gang violence
  • Drug violence
  • Contained residential or domestic disputes
  • Controlled barricade/hostage situations
  • Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
  • An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril

By comparison, the Gun Violence Archive excludes nothing, even if the shooting is gang or drug related – the two main causes of most violence in the country today.

Last year, when we asked Bryant if he believed that the average news consumer even considers domestic violence or gang warfare when they hear the term mass shooting, Bryant said:

“I don’t know. I know what we want to do is provide numbers and let the journalists, advocates and ‘congress critters’ look at the data, glean details and drill down on it.”

Takeaways

CNN’s story says the GVA is looking for a “permanent funding source” since their lone donor is in his 80s. They’re also seeking a potential replacement should Bryant, who is 67, decide to retire.

That’s the real reason for CNN’s story. The network cannot afford to lose the sensational, click-bait headlines GVA’s stories produce. Besides, the GVA is also used by anti-gun politicians, gun prohibitionists and other media outlets to infringe upon our rights. Keep in mind they cite GVA’s fake data as proof our rights need some infringing. That’s the real danger of GVA’s misleading data.

Now, when ill-informed Supreme Court Justices parrot GVA’s gibberish, that danger grows exponentially.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
from August 16th, getting caught up!


5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF APPLAUDS SMITH & WESSON’S RESPONSE TO Democrat SUBPOENA
The Second Amendment Foundation today applauded Smith & Wesson President and CEO Mark Smith for his reaction to a subpoena issued as part of an attempt by Capitol Hill anti-gunners to blame his company and other gun manufacturers for a wave of violent crime resulting from soft-on-crime policies promoted by the same Democrat congressional majority.

In a statement, Smith observed, “A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies. But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.”

“We think Mark Smith speaks for the entire firearms community, from manufacturers on down to individual gun owners who are tired of being the whipping boys for congressional gun grabbers,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For decades, Democrat anti-gunners have scapegoated gun makers and gun owners for their own ineptness in preventing crime and keeping our communities safe.

“Beltway gun prohibitionists, supported by billionaire-backed gun control lobbying groups and their media lapdogs have endeavored to erode the Second Amendment with the ultimate goal of erasing it from the Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb continued. “They have demonized the firearms industry, firearms owners, the guns they own and the organizations that fight a daily battle in defense of the right to keep and bear arms. And they deny any responsibility for the crime wave their failed social policies have cultivated. In short, their collective moral compass is so dysfunctional the needle has twisted off the dial.”

Gottlieb said he concurs completely with S&W’s Mark Smith, who noted in his public statement, “We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.”
 
August 17th:

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF THANKS BROWNELLS FOR SUPPORTING MAGAZINE BAN LAWSUIT
Brownells has donated $59,884 to the Washington-state-based Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to help fund the lawsuit against the state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines, which was signed into law on March 23, 2022.

“The Second Amendment Foundation really appreciates the financial support that Brownells has given us to make our lawsuit possible,” said Alan Gottlieb, SAF Executive Vice President. He added, “This is not the first time Brownells has helped fund our ‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’ efforts.”

Brownells raised the funds during its “Mag Dump for Washington State” event – lasting from March 14 until June 24, 2022. The event promised consumers that a percentage of sales from every Brownells aluminum 30-round magazine sold would be donated to aid in SAF’s Washington legal effort.

“Brownells is a passionate defender of the Second Amendment,” said Ryan Repp, Brownells VP for Marketing. “We support several pro-Second Amendment organizations, but we see SAF as a stalwart in the fight preserve our Constitutional freedoms. It’s a pleasure to make this donation to aid in their fight to help the citizens of Washington.”

Many Washington state residents took advantage of the Mag Dump to purchase reliable standard-capacity magazines during the grace period between the day Senate Bill 5078 was signed into law and July 1, the day the magazine ban took effect.

To learn more about standard-capacity magazines Brownells offers, visit www.brownells.com.
 
August 18th:

5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF SEEKS INJUNCTION AGAINST NEW JERSEY IN FIRST AMENDMENT CASE
The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed, Inc. of Texas have filed for an injunction in their federal case challenging a New Jersey statute that prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information in an ongoing legal action.

SAF and Defense Distributed are asking the court to set an expedited briefing schedule and resolve their motion promptly. The motion may be read here.

“The New Jersey attorney general is wielding a blatantly unconstitutional speech crime against us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and it’s time for this nonsense to stop. New Jersey’s strategy has been to deploy evasive tactics to delay court rulings. Not only is New Jersey engaging in prior restraint, causing us irreparable harm across the country, but also the legal gamesmanship is deliberately designed to increase our litigation costs, in what appears to be an effort to discourage us from further pursuit of our case.”

The motion was filed in the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals. SAF and Defense Distributed are represented by attorneys Chad Flores of Houston, Josh Blackman of Houston and Matthew A. Goldstein of Washington, D.C.

The motion says New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin’s motive is to “stop any substantive ruling anywhere.” Gottlieb said this is nothing more than an effort to stonewall the case and prevent it from moving forward.

“We have chased the AG from one court to another and another and another,” Gottlieb said, “all in an effort to enjoin the same unconstitutional censorship. In each court we have asked for the same relief we seek here, and in each court the AG opposed with procedural gamesmanship and obstruction. He’s not simply trying to delay justice; he’s dancing around in an attempt to deny justice altogether in this case. All this does is reinforce our belief he expects to ultimately lose and he’s trying to delay the inevitable. It’s unconscionable for this to be allowed to continue.”
 
6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

10 Tips for new gun writers, podcasters, and YouTubers
by Lee Williams

Nowadays, during what historians will likely call Obama’s third term, Joe, Kamala and the rest of the White House commissars have targeted every link of the firearm chain: from the manufacturers who produce the weapons, to the credit card processors who facilitate the transactions, to the carriers who ship the guns to the dealers – and man, have they ever targeted our gun dealers.

Few outside the gun-rights community are aware of these assaults on our constitutionally protected freedoms, because the legacy media has not covered any of it, which is certainly nothing new.

Today’s traditional media pays scant attention to the Second Amendment or gun rights, and when they do, their stories are so inaccurate and biased they’re unreadable.

There are thousands of reporters and editors making up the legacy media, backed by multi-billion-dollar corporations, hedge-fund owners and high-dollar advertisers.

We have less than 100 good folks reporting about issues that affect us. Most have day jobs and report parttime.

That, friends, needs to change.

We need more pro-gun reporters – watchdogs who can hold their public officials accountable, at the local, state and federal level – brave souls who can help get the word out when they spot an infringement.

It’s not difficult to do, since smartphone technology and social media can make anyone a journalist.

It doesn’t matter what platform you use to publish a story – social media, a website, a podcast or a YouTube channel – because a hard-hitting pro-gun story generates buzz, and buzz generates action.

Public officials don’t like their switchboards overwhelmed with irate callers or their inboxes overflowing with angry emails.

If you want to help – if you want to write pro-gun stories, here are some tips you may find helpful.

Report don’t rewrite

There is nothing stopping anyone from reporting their own pro-gun stories – period.

Some folks will rewrite a story from the legacy media, and sprinkle in a dash of pro-gun perspective. While this can work, there’s an inherent problem with this practice. It allows the legacy media to set our editorial agenda. In other words, it allows the anti-gun media to determine what we read online or watch on a podcast or YouTube channel. That, friends, we must not allow.

Reporting is actually pretty easy. If I can do it, anyone can. It’s all about listening to people. The best reporters I know are also the best listeners. They also get out of their chairs.

You have the same access to press conferences and other public events as any credentialed reporter, since reporters have no special access. Legally, they’re members of the public, too. If a public official tries to bar you from attending a press conference, which are by design open to the public, they’ve screwed up and that’s newsworthy.

Similarly, no local government can require media credentials or press passes and then bar you from an event for not having them. That’s a First Amendment violation, and it is also newsworthy.

Good reporting begins with thorough planning and preparation. Good reporters will become subject-matter experts long before they set their first word into type by researching their topic online, talking to experts in the field, and by researching in the library.

Ask good questions

I write out my questions in advance of a lengthy interview. It helps keep me organized, and I don’t waste time trying to come up with my next question.

I use the DQT – the Direct Questioning Technique. Direct questions are designed to elicit a narrative response rather than a yes/no answer. After all, your goal is to get the subject talking so you can quote them.

Throughout the interview, I will use control questions – questions I know the answer to – and repeat questions – questions I’ve asked before but rephrased – to make sure the subject is being truthful.

I try to avoid compound questions – What is your name and what is your favorite color? – and overly complex questions, as they tend to confuse the subject.

Don’t forget to question the target of your story, or at least make an attempt. I have yet to have a conversation with any ATF spokesperson, but fairness dictates I still make the attempt every time.

Public records

Whenever possible, I try to use official documents as a basis for my stories, after I’ve verified their authenticity. Documents don’t lie and they don’t need attribution. In other words, you don’t need to tell anyone how you obtained the documents.

Documents can’t be taken out of context, and they are very difficult to refute.

Become familiar with your local open-records and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. Each state has different laws. Some, especially Florida, have penalties if the public official refuses to produce the documents in a timely manner.

Keep in mind that the type of official records that can be obtained through a FOIA request are not always paper documents. I’ve had tremendous fun requesting a public official’s text messages, their daily calendar and the GPS records from their official vehicles.

Most states allow a citizen to request an official’s social media posts too, and they penalize the official if they delete their posts.

If you suspect an official is anti-gun, get their social media history. Anti-gunners always out themselves on their social media. They can’t help it.

Libel and offers of anonymity

I strongly recommend researching libel law until you have a thorough understanding of what you can and cannot publish. The truth has always been the best defense against libel claims, but nowadays anyone can be sued for even the most trivial of reasons. While the target of your story may not like what’s published, if it’s true, legally, there’s little they can do.

Also, be careful offering anonymity. It can bite you if you’re sued and you have to defend yourself in court. The sole purpose of some libel lawsuits is to determine who leaked the information. If a judge orders you divulge the name of a source whom you granted anonymity and you refuse, you can be held in jail on contempt charges until you give up the name.

Edit your work

There’s an old journalism saying: Everyone needs an editor. It’s certainly true, especially for me. It’s always difficult to edit your own work. Find someone who can read your stories and make suggestions. If you can’t find anyone, you can always send them to me. I’m happy to help.

Publish on multiple platforms

If you launch a website and post a story, few outside your circle of friends will ever see it. The best way to get more views is by publishing on multiple platforms.

I recommend posting a story on a website and then adding links on multiple social media channels. I’d also tag pro-gun websites on your social media, and then email them links to your story too.

The more you share, the more people will read your story.

I recommend creating a list of websites and social media accounts that you use every time you publish a story.

Monitor responses

Once a story is published, you should monitor the response – especially from the target of your story. They may hold a press conference or issue a statement. There may be resignations or firings, or they may refute your story and point out alleged inaccuracies.

If you made a mistake, own it. We’re all human. Mistakes happen. When you admit a mistake, it builds credibility with your readers.

Generally, I’ll fix the error in the story and then add a note at the top indicating that there was an error in the story that was fixed.

Follow-up stories

I believe that when you publish a major story you’re only half done.

A hard-hitting story gets people’s attention. Then, it’s time for the follow-up stories. Don’t stop writing until the issue you revealed is resolved.

Public officials are accustomed to the “one and done” tactic of the legacy media. Once they see your follow-up stories – once they realize you’re not going to stop – they’re more likely to take action. So don’t think of writing a story. Think of writing a series of stories.

This is the best way to hold public officials accountable.

Investigative reporting

I was an investigative reporter at four newspapers and I still have trouble defining the term.

Generally, an investigative reporter has the luxury of time. That the major difference.

Some stories can take weeks. Some can take months or ever years.

The payoff is worth it. Laws can be changed. Civil rights can be restored. Bad officials can be outed and held accountable.

The one commonality about investigative stories is that they all start at the local level when someone discovers a problem and starts digging.

Support

If this is a path you want to venture down, thank you. Our community certainly needs more eyes and ears out there.

The legacy media is facing massive cuts and layoffs, so the politicians believe no one is watching. They need scrutiny now more than ever, especially the anti-gun pols.

If I can help in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. My cell is (941) 284-8553 or you can send me an email me at [email protected]

Good luck!

Lee

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF, ALLIES FILE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN CA LAWSUIT
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in a federal lawsuit challenging a ban on communication, advertising and marketing of products and information to young, current and potential shooters, have filed an emergency motion for a writ of mandamus in the case. The motion was filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


They are challenging the law, adopted by passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any “firearm industry members” to “advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” They are asking for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law.


SAF is joined by Junior Sports Magazines Inc., Raymond Brown, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Inc., Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, The CRPA Foundation and Gun Owners of California. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel of Long Beach, Calif., and Don Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho.


According to the motion, “Relief is needed no later than August 26, 2022. If the Court requires more time to consider this petition, however, effective relief could be had if the district court either (1) agrees to hear Petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction on a day not usually reserved for law and motion, or (2) elects to decide the matter without hearing on the parties’ papers already on file.”

The motion notes that if relief isn’t granted within the requested time, “Petitioners will suffer ongoing and irreparable harm—i.e., the loss of their fundamental First and Fourteenth Amendment rights—until the district court elects to hear and rule on Petitioners’ pending motion for preliminary injunction.”

“The clock is ticking,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and we’re really running out of time. This law amounts to a restraint on our rights of speech, press and the ability to participate in lawful activities related to the Second Amendment, as well as the First Amendment. Rights delayed are rights denied.”
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF FILES ‘ALL WRIT’ PETITION TO CHALLENGE CHILLING CA GUN SUIT LAW
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the case of Jones v. Bonta, challenging a California law restricting the rights of young adults to purchase long guns, are asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an “All Writ” enjoining the state from enforcing a new state law that penalizes plaintiffs in cases contesting state gun laws.

SAF is joined by the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., North County Shooting Center, Inc., Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, LLC, Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range, Thomas Furrh, Kyle Yamamoto and Matthew Jones. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and Haley N. Proctor at Cooper and Kirk PLLC, and John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, APC.

According to the All Writs petition, “This case concerns California laws that restrict the rights of 18-to-20-year-old law-abiding adults to purchase long guns. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these restrictions violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a preliminary and permanent injunction against their enforcement.”

The petition asks the court to prevent the state from enforcing provisions in Senate Bill 1327, passed earlier this year, specifically Section 2 of the law, which applies only to suits that seek “declaratory or injunctive relief” against the enforcement of any “law that regulates or restricts firearms.”

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a writ pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 enjoining Defendants from initiating a future action to obtain costs and attorneys’ fees under Section 2 regardless of the outcome of the present action, the petition states.

“We are taking this unusual step because of the chilling effect this new law has on challenges to state gun laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Section 2 of the new statute is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It violates the First Amendment which, among other things, protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“As we note in our petition,” he added, “without access to the courts, citizens cannot defend any of their rights. Contrary to what the state may argue, this isn’t about guns, it’s about rights.

“The California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom may think they can ride roughshod over the Constitution,” Gottlieb observed, “but they really can’t, and we’re hoping the court quickly erases any doubt.”



Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

SAF FILES REPLY SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN MN CARRY CASE

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s ban on concealed carry by young adults have filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment in the case, known as Worth v. Harrington.

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens in the affected age group. Defendants are John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, plus three county sheriffs, Mille Lac County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry, in their individual and official capacities. The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In their motion, SAF’s attorneys note, “Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen…this challenge to Minnesota’s Carry Ban must be analyzed through ‘a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.’ First, the Court must determine whether the conduct Plaintiffs wish to engage in is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. If it is, the Carry Ban is unconstitutional unless Defendants can show it is consistent with a tradition of regulation found in constitutionally relevant history.”

“Our lawsuit was filed in early June, prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Based on the language in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion, our motion today is a common-sense step in defending the rights of law-abiding young adults. They can vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things, but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, Minnesota law slams the door. Now, the Supreme Court has provided new guidance, which we believe supports a summary judgment.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Washington, D.C.


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
 
Back
Top