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

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S NEW GUN CONTROL SCHEME
​

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new gun control law adopted in New York State following the Supreme Court’s nullification of its previous concealed carry state that required “proper cause,” alleging the state’s new statute is just as unconstitutional as the previous law.

Joining SAF is the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and two private citizens, Brett Christian and John Boron. Defendants are Kevin Bruen, superintendent of the New York State Police, and John J. Flynn, Erie County District Attorney, in their official capacities. The case is known as Boron v. Bruen. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, passage of Senate Bill S 51001 by state lawmakers in Albany “replaced one unconstitutional licensing scheme with another.”

The new measure bans the lawful, licensed carry of firearms in so-called “sensitive places,” and presumptively most property in the state, creating a de facto ban on firearms carry for personal protection. As a result, SAF and its partners are asking for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief from the court.

“The New York Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul are making a mockery of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June, which struck down the state’s onerous ‘proper cause’ requirement in June,” Gottlieb said. “While they’re playing politics, the rights of law-abiding New York citizens are being cavalierly trampled. We cannot allow that to happen just so anti-gunners in Albany can play games with the constitution, just to see whether they can get away with it.

“The fact that New York’s new regulatory scheme essentially prohibits lawful carry in most public places is outrageous,” he continued. “The state is being too clever by half, and we’re confident that the federal courts, with the recent guidance from the Supreme Court on Second Amendment jurisprudence, will bring a quick end to this nonsense.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and Nicolas J. Rotsko with Phillips Lytle, LLP in Buffalo, NY.


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

ATF’s vagueness on frame and receiver rule harming businesses, gun rights

by Lee Williams​

Companies selling 80% receivers and other homemade firearm parts have been getting uncomfortable calls and questions from their credit card firms and payment processors. Their ability to process payments could soon end, they’re being told.

Grid Defense, formerly Ghost Firearms, which is located in Daytona Beach, Florida, got a call from their Mastercard payment processor Wednesday.

“We were told we may be violating some of their policies regarding ATF’s new frame and receiver rule,” said TJ, co-owner of Grid Defense.

To be clear, he does not blame their payment processor or even Mastercard. He blames the ATF for not providing accurate and timely guidance. Of course, his biggest concern is what will come next – when will the ATF tell the financial industry that ARs or even ammunition should not be purchased with credit cards.

“The ATF is not being clear about their frame and receiver rule, which went into effect last month, so they’re causing private companies to be confused about their ruling, and it is going to negatively effect this industry,” he said. “The ATF likes to muddy the waters with confusion, and it’s starting to effect American commerce and the Second Amendment. I hope these large financial companies choose to support the Second Amendment. If they don’t and the ATF will muddy the waters over unfinished receivers, what will be next?”

For his business, the frame and receiver rule is relatively simple, TJ said. The 80% AR receivers he sells do not come with drilling jigs or finishing instructions. As such, they’re considered an unfinished receiver and not a firearm.

“As far as the federal government will tell you – the ways they’ve described the rule – unfinished receivers without a jig or finishing instructions remain fully legal and not a firearm,” TJ said. “Nothing has theoretically changed since the way business was done previously, with respect to the aluminum 80% AR-type receivers.”

Grid Defense has already received several determination letters from the ATF, and recently submitted several more determination requests.

“The ATF is not answering those, which is causing private financial companies to react even though it’s not necessarily the law, because of the ATF’s unwillingness to give further guidance on the matter,” TJ said. “We are fortunate. We believe our payment processor is 2A-friendly and that they are on board with disputing allegations that we are violating the rules. We have worked with them, but we believe Mastercard may not understand it and is not getting the correct guidance from the ATF.”

Grid Defense has reached out to other businesses offering similar products, and was told they, too, are being questioned.

“We can still sell and ship products to customers. We can still do it,” TJ said. “There’s no reason we’re not allowed to take payment processing for them.”

ATF Public Information Officers in Florida did not return calls seeking comment for this story.

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.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF BACKS FEDERAL CHALLENGE OF ILLINOIS TRANSIT CCW BAN
​

The Second Amendment Foundation announced today it is financially supporting a federal lawsuit filed by four Illinois residents who are challenging a ban on licensed concealed carry on Public Transportation under the state’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

Plaintiffs in the case are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel and Douglas Winston. They are all residents of counties in northern Illinois in the greater Chicago area. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill. The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul.

Defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities.

“We’re financially supporting this case because it is the right thing to do,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “All four plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding citizens who cannot exercise their fundamental rights as spelled out by three Supreme Court rulings, including SAF’s 2010 McDonald victory that nullified Chicago’s unconstitutional handgun ban.

“Illinois lawmakers have made it as difficult as possible for honest citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” he continued, “and the prohibition on licensed carry while traveling via public transportation is a glaring example. This ban is a direct violation of the Second and Fourteenth amendments, and we are delighted to support this case because it cuts to the heart of anti-gun extremism.

“Buses and commuter trains are public places, but they are hardly sensitive places,” Gottlieb observed. “The four plaintiffs in this case rely on public transportation to travel to and from various places, including work, and they should be able to carry firearms for personal protection while in transit. However, current laws, regulations, policies and practices enforced by the defendants have made that legally impossible.

“Illinois is trying to perpetuate an indefensible public disarmament policy despite the clear meaning of Supreme Court rulings,” he concluded, “and we’re going to help the plaintiffs put an end to this nonsense.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER LAW SUPPRESSING GUN LAWSUITS​

The Second Amendment Foundation today 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.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF ASKS COURT TO DECLARE HANDGUN BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL​

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in West Virginia, challenging the federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults ages 18-20, and is asking for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and two private citizens, Benjamin Weekley and Steven Brown. Defendants are the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and Attorney General Merrick Garland, in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The case is known as Brown v. ATF.

Weekley and Brown, both being in the affected age group, were unable to purchase handguns from a West Virginia sporting goods store earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, “The Handgun Ban impermissibly infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding, peaceable individuals aged eighteen to twenty,” and further asserts the ban “is flatly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment” and Supreme Court opinions in the 2008 Heller case and 2022 Bruen decision.

“There is no historical evidence supporting an arbitrary prohibition on purchase and ownership of handguns for young adults over the age of 18,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Indeed, history goes the other direction, with young adults considered mature enough for militia service, duty in the armed forces and in today’s world being able to vote, run for public office, start businesses, get married, enter into contracts and enjoy the full protections set down in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.

“Yet these same young adults are hampered by a politically selected age limit that prohibits them from purchasing handguns from licensed firearms dealers,” he added. “This makes absolutely no sense. This handgun ban for young adults is an unconstitutional infringement of their rights s protected by the Second Amendment.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES MEMORANDUM FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
​

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of California’s new law that includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty to discourage lawsuits against restrictive gun laws have filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, PC, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC filed the memorandum, which asserts plaintiffs have already suffered harm due to the constitutional violations contained in the new law.

The lawsuit, and this new memorandum, allege the law (Section 1021.11 of the California Penal Code) is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and that it also violates the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The statute also discriminates against gun rights plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, according to the lawsuit.

SAF is joined by Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, PWGG, L.P., the San Diego County Gun Owners’ PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Dillon Law Group, P.C., John Phillips, Ryan Peterson, George M. Lee, John W. Dillon and James Miller, for whom the lawsuit is named.

The new motion also says Section 1021.11 has “caused several Plaintiffs to dismiss or refrain from bringing additional lawsuits challenging other California firearms regulations that they believe are unconstitutional.”

“We are pulling out all the stops in fighting this new statute because of its egregious nature,” said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb, one of the plaintiffs in the case known as Miller v. Bonta. “Section 1021.11 is part of Senate Bill 1327, adopted earlier this year in reaction to a Texas law passed last year, which is about abortion. The California law was crafted as a political response to the Texas statute, which California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the chief defendant in our case, described as ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’

“Bonta is trying to have it both ways,” Gottlieb continued. “He simply cannot protest a law he considers unconstitutional by enforcing another law which is equally unconstitutional in what amounts to a childish political snit that began with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California legislature.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF SUES CITY OF GLENDALE, CA OVER GUN BAN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY​

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners on October 10th filed a federal lawsuit asking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Glendale, Calif., its police chief and city clerk. The case is known as CRPA v. Glendale.

Joining SAF are the Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Joshua Robert Dale and Konstadinos T. Moros of Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho. In addition to the City of Glendale, defendants are Police Chief Carl Povilaitis and City Clerk Suzie Abajian, in their official capacities. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

“The City of Glendale’s municipal code generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on any city property, with no exception for citizens with concealed carry permits,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ban applies not just to city property, but also publicly-controlled property or public-affiliated private property, with the only exceptions being streets, roads and sidewalks. Such restrictions relegate the right to keep and bear arms to the status of a strictly-regulated government privilege.

“Our lawsuit is blunt,” he continued. “The Glendale ordinance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection extends outside the home. As we note in our complaint, the burden is on the city to prove that all areas falling within the definition of ‘city property’ are so-called ‘sensitive places,’ and they cannot do it.”

As explained in the 24-page complaint, the city has 47 parks and recreation facilities (including four community centers, one golf course, three soccer fields, and sixteen ball fields), playgrounds, eight public libraries, three downtown parking structures and other city-owned or operated parking lots, the Glendale Civic Auditorium and civic center complex, a youth center, an emergency center, undefined “open spaces” and “plazas,” and an unknowable amount of properties in the possession of private companies under contract with the city.

“That broad definition essentially turns much if not most of the city into a gun-free zone where Second Amendment rights do not exist, and that simply doesn’t pass the smell test,” Gottlieb stated. “We are hopeful the court quickly recognizes this and grants our request.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF SUES NEW YORK OVER CHURCH GUN CARRY PROHIBITION
​

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal court challenging the new concealed carry statute in New York State that, among other things, prohibits concealed carry in churches.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and two private citizens, Bishop Larry A. Boyd of Buffalo and Rev. Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., of Niagara Falls. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Defendants are State Police Supt. Kevin P. Bruen, Niagara County District Attorney Brian D. Seaman, and Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn, all in their official capacities. The case is known as Hardaway v. Bruen.

The 23-page federal complaint says Hardaway and Boyd “are leaders of their respective churches, who wish to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public for self-defense” and for the safety of their congregants, but are prohibited from doing so because the state law prevents them from doing so.

“Here is yet another example of the sweeping irrationality of New York’s hastily-slapped-together law, which was obviously written to allow the state to dance around the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “One would think by now the state would have wised up and changed its law to comply with not only the letter of the high court ruling, but the spirit in which the decision was written.

“Instead,” he continued, “New York officials are determined to fight progress, not to mention the Supreme Court’s common sense, by engaging in legal acrobatics that promise to mire the state in federal lawsuits for the foreseeable future. The right of self-defense is the oldest human right, and New York’s law is written to frustrate the exercise of that right at every turn.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle, LLP in Buffalo.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF APPLAUDS TENN. COURT RULING AGAINST HOUSING AUTHORITY GUN BAN​

The Second Amendment Foundation scored a victory in a ruling by a Tennessee Appeals Court panel striking down a gun ban by a public housing authority in the community of Columbia on the grounds it violates the Second Amendment, citing recent Supreme Court language in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

SAF supported Columbia resident Kinsley Braden in the case. He was represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and Eugene R. Hallworth, of Columbia. The case is known as Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr., explained, “(I)n light of the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Bruen and keeping in mind the presumptively unconstitutional status of Columbia Housing’s policy based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, we conclude that a total ban on the ability of law-abiding residents—like Mr. Braden—to possess a handgun within their public housing unit for the purpose of self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”

Judge Clement also noted, “Because Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as a landlord of property it owns, it must establish that its leasehold restrictions on firearms is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’.” The lower court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court ruling.

Judge Clement was joined by Judges Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer in the unanimous ruling.

“We’re delighted with the appeals court ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This underscores the far-reaching effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen opinion. Mr. Braden was evicted from the public housing complex because he had a firearm. The court properly held that such a prohibition is a non-starter. Rulings like this make it clear the Second Amendment means what it says.

“This is another victory in our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF Files Memorandum for TRO Against NY Gun Law​

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a memorandum in support of their earlier motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the case of Hardaway Jr. et.al. v. Bruen, challenging New York state’s restrictive new gun control statute.

The lawsuit was filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. It involves Bishop Larry A. Boyd of Buffalo and Rev. Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., of Niagara Falls, who are challenging a ban on legal firearms carry in churches, which they say is unconstitutional. Joining SAF is the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.

As explained in the new motion, since a murderer killed nine parishioners at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015, Reverend Hardaway has almost always carried a firearm for self-defense on Sundays and at services on the premises of the churches he has pastored. New York has now stripped Reverend Hardaway, Bishop Boyd, and other New Yorkers of their ability to defend themselves should the need arise at their places of worship.

“When New York lawmakers adopted their new restrictive gun legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in the Bruen case, they quickly went overboard,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “All places of worship or religious observation suddenly became ‘sensitive locations.’ Now, Rev. Hardaway and Bishop Boyd and others are no longer allowed to carry firearms for their personal protection, even though they’ve been doing so for quite some time. This is regulatory extremism at its worst, and we’re seeking a TRO and asking for a preliminary injunction to put a stop to it.”

The motion was filed by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle, LLP in Buffalo. They represent the plaintiffs in the initial lawsuit.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

FED. JUDGE LETS ANTI-GUN GROUP JOIN SAF MAG BAN CASE AS DEFENDANTS​

A federal judge in Tacoma, Washington has allowed a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group to intervene as a defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of an Evergreen State magazine ban which became effective July 1.

The billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility requested intervention only days after the law took effect. Their motion was supported by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and State Patrol Chief John Batiste, who are defendants in the case. The Alliance supported the magazine ban as part of its gun prohibition political agenda, and Ferguson requested the legislation earlier this year.

“Apparently the Alliance is worried Ferguson isn’t capable of defending his own magazine ban in this lawsuit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Obviously, after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision last June, the gun ban lobby fears the state may not be able to defend any of its gun laws, including a couple passed by initiative campaigns the Alliance financed.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Daniel Martin and Gabriela Sullivan. The case is known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

“A few days after the high court handed down its ruling in Bruen,” Gottlieb recalled, “the Supreme Court granted certiorari to two other magazine ban challenges, in California and New Jersey. The court vacated lower court rulings in both cases and remanded the cases back to the respective appeals courts for further action in compliance with the language in Bruen.

“Based on the Supreme Court’s action in both magazine ban cases,” he added, “it is clear such restrictive laws might be in serious trouble, which explains why the Alliance is interested. Courts in California have already ruled that state’s magazine ban is unconstitutional, and that position may now stand when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has to reconsider the case under the new guidelines set down in the Bruen ruling.

“If the Alliance wants to hold hands with Ferguson,” Gottlieb said, “that’s their business. Maybe he needs the moral support.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF, ISRA VICTORY IN ILL. FOID CASE​

The Second Amendment Foundation confirmed today its federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Police that compelled the agency to hire additional personnel in order to clear a backlog of applications for Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards because the issue has been resolved, and dismissed. The case was known as Marszalek v. Kelly.

Joining SAF in the legal action, which was filed in July 2020, were the Illinois State Rifle Association and several individual plaintiffs. The lawsuit was also supported by the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix, Ariz. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., Gregory Bedell of Chicago, Ill., and Timothy Sandedur with the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

“The issue was quite simple and we’re glad it is resolved,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, restrictions were put in place in Illinois that caused the Illinois State Police to completely fail in its statutory responsibility to process applications for FOID cards in 30 days. However, the state was taking up to six months, and sometimes more, to complete this process, and the result was Illinois citizens were being denied the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

At the time, the State Police said pandemic restrictions prevented it from hiring additional staff to process applications while the agency updated its system. Thanks to pressure from SAF, ISRA and the court, the State Police cleared the application backlog and acknowledged its obligation to speed up the process and comply with the time frame.

“We’re satisfied with the outcome,” Gottlieb said, “and we’re especially pleased at the support from the Goldwater Institute.”

While this lawsuit is dismissed, there are other legal challenges in Illinois which are still pending.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

COURT GRANTS TRO TO SAF IN NEW YORK GUN LAW CHALLENGE​

A federal court judge in Buffalo, N.Y. has granted a temporary restraining order in a case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation that challenges New York State’s new concealed carry law, declaring the state’s “place of worship” restriction is unconstitutional.

“Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms—from Heller and McDonald to its June 22 decision in Bruen—dictates that New York’s place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional,” wrote District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr.

The order is effective immediately and prohibits enforcement of this provision.

“We’re delighted with the quick action by Judge Sinatra,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We believe this law to be wholly in violation of not only the letter but the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.”

Joining SAF in the case, which is known as Hardaway v. Bruen, is the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., on behalf of Bishop Larry A. Boyd of Buffalo and Rev. Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., of Niagara Falls.

“As we noted in our petition for the TRO,” Gottlieb observed, “Reverend Hardaway has almost always carried a firearm for self-defense on Sundays and at services on the premises of the churches he has pastored. New York has now stripped Reverend Hardaway, Bishop Boyd, and other New Yorkers of their ability to defend themselves should the need arise at their places of worship. The restrictive new statute prevented both men from doing so.”

The motion was filed earlier this week by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle, LLP in Buffalo. They represent the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, which was filed only a week ago.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF NAMES ATTORNEY AND 2A LITIGATOR ADAM KRAUT AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
​

The Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”), a pioneer and national leader in defense of the right to keep and bear arms, today announced that attorney and experienced Second Amendment litigator Adam Kraut has been named as its Executive Director.

Kraut brings almost a decade of experience in the Second Amendment realm as a litigator and educator. Throughout his career, Kraut has represented individuals, companies, and institutional plaintiffs in state and federal litigation and regulatory matters.

In addition to his legal background, Kraut draws management experience from his time in the non-profit world, where he was responsible for overseeing the programmatic functions of a liberty-based non-profit, which concentrated on Second Amendment issues. He also managed a federal firearms licensee. Kraut comes with a variety of media experience, having written for publications such as Recoil magazine, Recoil Web, and other online publications, writing and hosting a YouTube series, hosting and appearing as guest on multiple podcasts, and appearing on television.

“We’re delighted to have Adam coming aboard at a time when our legal activities are greatly expanding,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “He brings a wealth of experience to the position, at a critical time when we are challenging an array of restrictive gun control laws that clearly have restrained peaceable, law-abiding citizens while accomplishing nothing in the effort to reduce violent crime.

“Adam has been a SAF Life Member since 2013,” Gottlieb added. “He has a keen understanding of our mission, our history and our effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time. We are proud to bring him aboard to fill an important role as we ramp up our fight to restore and expand the Second Amendment as the cornerstone of our Constitution.”

“I’m eager to continue SAF’s legacy of innovation and excellence in the legal, educational, and public arenas,” Kraut said. “For the better part of half a century Alan has built SAF into an organization which took a unique vision and made it reality. I look forward to working closely with him to shepherd the organization forward. We will continue to create the foundation for the next series of cases we hope to take to the Supreme Court to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is restored to its original meaning. At the same time, we will work to guarantee SAF’s longevity by bringing the next generation of gun owners into the fold.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES REPLY BRIEF CHALLENGING ILL. FOSTER HOME, DAY CARE GUN BAN​

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a reply brief in its appeal of a lower court ruling upholding an Illinois ban on firearms for the purpose of immediate self-defense in the homes of law-abiding adults licensed to provide day or foster care.

SAF is joined in this action by the Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry and two private citizens, Darin E. and Jennifer J. Miller. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, D.C.

The appeal is filed in the U.S. Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is known as Miller v. Smith.

“Our case dates back to before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision in June of this year,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bruen ruling is fatal to the state’s position that rules allowing this gun ban are constitutional. The Bruen ruling did away with the ‘two-step’ approach to determining Second Amendment-based challenges.”

As noted in their brief, SAF and its partners remind the Seventh Circuit that “Modern firearm restrictions must be closely analogous to historical restrictions, and the inquiry into historical analogues does not give the State a regulatory blank check.”

“This is yet another case of Illinois government trying to perpetuate restrictions on law-abiding gun owners contrary to Supreme Court rulings,” Gottlieb observed. “We have lost count of the number of cases we’ve had to file in Illinois, but we are in this for the long haul. It is just one more example of our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF Warns Cal. City Against Zoning To Prevent Gun, Ammo Retail Sales
​

The Second Amendment Foundation has cautioned the mayor of Redwood City, Calif., against continuing a moratorium on allowing firearms retail sales within its jurisdiction, which could result in litigation against the city on Second Amendment grounds.

The city has adopted an “Urgency Ordinance” which placed a moratorium on firearms dealers from opening businesses within the city. Extensions on the moratorium, if voted for, may last for up to two years.

In a letter to Redwood City Mayor Giselle Hale, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut notes, “By indefinitely preventing any firearms or ammunition retailers from opening within the city, Redwood City hasdirectly impeded its residents from acquiring the means to protect themselves and their families, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

While Kraut acknowledges there are examples of permissible regulations “that may be imposed on firearm and ammunition retailers that would comport with the Constitution,” he also had words of warning to Mayor Hale and the city.

“SAF has a storied history of suing municipalities, states, and the federal government for Second Amendment violations,” Kraut wrote. “Should Redwood City continue to deprive its residents of the ability to acquire arms and ammunition through an indeterminate moratorium on firearms and ammunition retailers from opening a business, SAF will examine all legal remedies available to it, its members, and those who may be affected by the City’s flagrant disregard of its citizens’ constitutional rights. It is my hope that Redwood’s City Council will promptly take action to remedy this situation to avoid unnecessary litigation.”

SAF has been involved in dozens of legal actions against municipal and state-level gun regulations, including its landmark challenge of Chicago’s ban on handguns which resulted in the Supreme Court’s June 2010 ruling that nullified the ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. The victory opened the doors to many subsequent and successful challenges of state and local gun control laws.


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF SUPPORTS PREVIOUS MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION IN NY CHURCH CASE
​

The Second Amendment Foundation filed further arguments in its motion for a preliminary injunction to go along with the temporary restraining order granted by the court against the State of New York’s enforcement of a “place of worship” firearms ban, telling the federal court “the State’s Place of Worship Ban remains unconstitutional.”

“With Plaintiffs suffering ongoing, irreparable harm and the public interest being squarely in favor of upholding constitutional rights, a preliminary injunction is warranted,” SAF said in its reply to issues raised by the defendants in their effort to have the issue rejected. The Reply in Support of Their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction” was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The case is known as Jimmie Hardaway, Jr. et.al. v. Steven A. Nigrelli, et.al.

In the 12-page document, SAF notes, “The State has not identified any tradition of a complete ban on firearms in places of worship.” Indeed, as stated a few lines later, “The tradition at the Founding included imposing a duty to carry in church because of a society beset by violence.”

“New York is making arguments that fail to provide any real justification for the ban,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It boils down to the state simply wanting the ban just to prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for personal protection in as many places as possible.

“For more than a century,” he continued, “New York was able to maintain an unconstitutional prohibition on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by honest citizens. Even after the Supreme Court struck down that restriction, the state has been scrambling to continue keeping its citizens disarmed by any means necessary. New York’s new gun control law essentially allows the state to thumb its nose at the high court, and this has to stop.”

The SAF brief, submitted by attorneys Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle LLP in Buffalo, NY, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., acknowledges there were some limitations on carrying arms during the Founding era at “polling places, legislative assemblies and courts.” However, “There is no similar Founding-era precedent for banning guns in churches,” the brief says.


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES MOTION TO INTERVENE IN CHALLENGE OF NEW GOV’T. ‘FIREARM’ DEFINITION
​

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the federal government’s new regulatory definition of a firearm, including the frame or receiver.

The case is known as VanDerStok, et.al. v. Garland, et.al. and was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. A company known as Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc., d/b/a/ 80 Percent Arms, has already been allowed to intervene as a plaintiff.

Joining SAF is Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company.

“We are intervening because our members have already suffered massive irreparable harms from this new regulatory move,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because it contradicts the statute it is supposed to be administering. When Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, it defined a firearm to include the finished frame or receiver. But the new rule expands that definition and criminalizes unfinished frames and receivers, and ‘parts kits’ that include those components.

“Furthermore,” he added, “the new rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to comply with mandates in the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in June, and because it is essentially an exercise of legislative power it doesn’t have, because Congress could not constitutionally grant such authority to a federal agency.”

Gottlieb said the new regulatory definition of a firearm is unprecedented. It is a glaring example of agency overreach under the Biden administration, which has been pursuing an anti-gun agenda since Joe Biden was sworn into office in January 2021.

“President Biden and his administration are supposed to protect and defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb observed,” but since taking office, he’s been overseeing efforts to gut the right to keep and bear arms, and discourage citizens from exercising that right.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING DELAWARE GUN BAN
​

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Delaware’s recently-adopted ban on so-called “assault weapons” on the grounds the legislation—known as House Bill 450—violates the Second Amendment.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, a Nevada-based group, DJJAMS, LLC, a firearms retailer in Delaware’s New Castle County, and two private citizens, Gabriel Gray and William Taylor. Named as a defendant is Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gellert Scali Busnenkell & Brown LLC in Wilmington. The case is known as Gray, et.al. v. Jennings.

“One week after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Bruen decision in June,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “Delaware Gov. John Carney signed House Bill 450, which we believe is clearly unconstitutional. Yet this new statute categorically bans the protected conduct of possessing, self-manufacturing, transporting, importing, selling, transferring, purchasing, receiving and lawfully using constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation.”

The new statute lists dozens of firearms described generically as “assault long guns” and 19 handguns described as “assault pistols,” plus so-called “copycat” firearms. Violators can be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to eight years in prison.

“By adopting this statute after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, Delaware is clearly ignoring the court, and the Second Amendment,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case cuts right to the heart of our mission, which is to defend the rights of gun owners by challenging egregious gun control laws in court. This law is extremism on steroids, and cannot be allowed to stand.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES REPLY SUPPORTING MOTION FOR P.I. IN NY PARKS BAN CASE
​

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a reply supporting its earlier motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of Christian v. Nigrelli, challenging New York State’s ban on carrying firearms in public parks under the state’s new concealed carry law.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and Brett Christian, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys Nicolas J. Rotsko, Phillips Lytle LLP of Buffalo, N.Y. and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken with Cooper & Kirk PLL in Washington, DC. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

“We are asking the court for a preliminary injunction and filed this new motion in support of the original complaint because it is imperative the court step in to prevent enforcement of this ban on carry in public parks,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state’s new law bans firearms for ordinary, law-abiding citizens in every public park when there is no historical evidence of such blanket bans upon which the state bases its position.

“Mr. Christian has refrained from carrying firearms in parks and has even stopped visiting those parks he used to utilize prior to the new law taking effect,” Gottlieb added. “He has also refrained from carrying on public transportation, and in businesses open to the public, because the change in state law has increased the potential for his arrest and prosecution. Since New York’s new law took effect, he has only exercised his constitutional right to carry three times, while before he was able to carry nearly every day.”

The law, S51001, was hastily adopted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s century-old carry statute that required applicants for carry permits to show “good cause.” The new statute includes broad restrictions on where citizens may legally carry.

“This case perfectly illustrates the extreme nature of New York’s S51001,” Gottlieb stated. “We’re hoping the court acts quickly on our motion, and brings a halt to this nonsense.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES MEMORANDUM IN MOTION FOR INJUNCTION IN CA GUN SHOW BAN CASE​

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging California’s new statute banning gun shows.

Joining SAF in this action are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., B&L Productions, Inc., d/b/a Crossroads of the West and four private citizens, Gerald Clark, Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell and Jan Steven Merson. They are represented by attorneys Anna M. Barvir, Michel & Associates, P.C., and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Donald Kilmer. The case is known as B & L Productions, Inc. et al v. Gavin Newsom et al.

The original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A hearing is scheduled Jan. 6, 2023.

The 33-page memorandum asserts that the purpose of the new legislation was banning gun shows statewide. The memorandum states, “There is no evidence that California’s gun shows—already more heavily regulated than other avenues for firearm sales—pose some unique threat to public safety. And California has identified no other compelling interest that might justify its ban. Instead, the legislative history reveals the legislators’ bare desire to make a ‘value statement’ about guns and gun shows and to get California out of the business of profiting from such events. In short, California’s animus for Plaintiffs, their commerce in lawful products, and the cultural aspects of these events is the not-so-hidden motivation behind the State’s action.”

“Gun shows are gathering places for like-minded citizens with common interests rooted in their exercise of the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state is essentially trying to prohibit freedom of speech and association in public forums by banning gun shows, simply because backers of this legislation have a visceral dislike of guns and the people who own them.

“It is alarming that the government of any state, including California, would attempt to legislate against the First Amendment rights of people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” he added. “We will pursue this case for as long as it takes to see that justice is served.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN N.Y. PRIVATE PROPERTY CASE​

A federal judge in western New York has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “private property exclusion” tenet of the state’s new gun control law, calling it unconstitutional.

The case, known as Christian et. al. v. Nigrelli, et. al., was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of Brett Christian, a private citizen. U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo handed down the 27-page ruling.

Noting that the private property exclusion “makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent,” Judge Sinatra noted, “Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations…New York fails that test.”

Judge Sinatra added, “Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the ruling, which was issued late Tuesday afternoon.

“New York’s efforts to dance around the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision have become a painful exercise in legal acrobatics, which it seems obvious the courts can see through,” Gottlieb observed. “This case illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which lawmakers in Albany have tried to go in their efforts to get around the letter and spirit of the high court ruling.”

“Having New York’s unconstitutionally sound law enjoined is a win for the public,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut. “New York’s effort to restrict the public’s right to carry arms, through its imposition of outlandish requirements that have no roots in our country’s history and tradition, is a sign of how far its legislature is willing to go when it comes to depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. SAF looks forward to continuing to vindicate the rights of its members and the public.”

Judge Sinatra noted in his decision that Christian “is likely to succeed on the merits of his Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims…New York’s new private property exclusion violates the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside their homes.”


Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DELAWARE HB 450
​

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Delaware and enforcement of House Bill 450, which radically expands the state’s laws and bans so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., DJJAMS LLC, and two private citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray, for whom the lawsuit is named. The lawsuit names Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings as the defendant. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gilbert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

“We are hopeful that the Court will take swift action with today’s motion for preliminary injunction against Delaware’s ban on constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Each day this law is not enjoined, Delawareans suffer an impermissible deprivation of their constitutional rights. This cannot stand and we are hopeful that the Court will preliminarily enjoin the State from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds on the underlying merits.”

The brief notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Bruen case “rejected all interest balancing and the Third Circuit’s prior ‘two-step’ approach in the context of Second Amendment claims.” As a result, plaintiffs contend the Delaware General Assembly’s attempt to justify HB 450 by claiming it has “a compelling interest to ensure the safety of Delawareans” and that the banned arms, which are in common use, “have no place in civilian life,” are entitled to no deference.

“Banning an entire class of firearms may create the impression Delaware lawmakers are ‘doing something’ about violent crime,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but in reality, it will not prevent criminals from misusing firearms, and only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF THANKS LUTH-AR FOR BRONZE CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP
​

The Second Amendment Foundation is pleased to announce that Luth-AR, LLC, founded by Randy Luth and based in Buffalo, Minn. has renewed its corporate sponsorship for 2023 as a Bronze supporting member.

“We are once again honored that Luth-AR is continuing to participate in our ‘Corporate Sponsorship Program’ and especially founder Randy Luth’s continued enthusiasm for our work,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Everybody in the firearms community recognizes Randy as the founder of D.P.M.S./Panther Arms, and as a leader in producing modern sporting rifles and components.”

“Luth-AR is proud to provide support to the Second Amendment Foundation as a Bronze Corporate sponsor,” Luth said. “Alan Gottlieb is fighting the good fight across the national landscape, and SAF continues to win in court on behalf of gun owners from coast to coast. Because the foundation is so willing to mount these legal challenges, we’ll steadfastly support Alan and his team.”

In the aftermath of this year’s important Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, Gottlieb observed, many new opportunities have opened up allowing us to challenge gun control laws, including gun and magazine bans, and carry prohibitions in New York, California, Oregon, Washington and everywhere else politicians and their elitist supporters are attacking our Second Amendment rights.

“SAF is proud to be on the cutting edge of gun rights litigation as we head into 2023,” Gottlieb stated. “The support we are receiving from corporate sponsors such as Luth-AR keeps us in the fight. We know Randy Luth and his crew will be with us as we continue our effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.

“We continue to face a fanatical citizen disarmament effort,” he added. “Joe Biden has vowed to ban semi-autos during his presidency, and he is showing no signs of surrender. With dedicated corporate sponsors like Randy Luth, we’ll do our best to stop him.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST CAL’S ATTEMPT TO MOOT SAF GUN CASE​

A federal judge in San Diego has rejected an attempt by the State of California to moot a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit seeking to overturn a Golden State statute designed to penalize any plaintiffs, and their attorneys, in cases challenging California gun control laws. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The eight-page order was signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez.

SAF’s initial lawsuit challenges what it calls a “one-way fee shifting penalty” in California’s new gun control law that was adopted as a response to, and was modeled upon a Texas statute on abortion, which the defendants argued was unconstitutional, according to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. SAF and its partners have asked for a preliminary injunction in their federal challenge of the law.

SAF is joined by James Miller, for whom the lawsuit is named, plus Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, PWGG, L.P., the California Gun Rights Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. plus John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, P.C.; and George M. Lee.

“California wants it both ways,” Gottlieb observed. “The state believes the Texas abortion statute is unconstitutional, yet it adopted a gun control law that mirrors the language in the Texas law and contends it is legal. Obviously, Judge Benitez saw right through that flimsy sham and refused to moot our challenge of the California statute.”

In his ruling, Judge Benitez observed, “The enactment of (the California statute) is presently tending to insulate California firearm regulations from constitutional review. Individuals, associations, and attorneys who ordinarily represent such clients are refraining from seeking judicial relief from California regulations that they believe conflict with federal constitutional rights. The injuries are concrete and particularized, actual and imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical.”

“Long story short,” Gottlieb said, “we’re going to move forward in our lawsuit because California cannot be permitted to use the law to suppress constitutional challenges to its increasingly radical gun control schemes.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.