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

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES 2nd FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING OREGON MEASURE 114
​

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed its second lawsuit in federal court challenging tenets of Measure 114, the Oregon gun control package narrowly approved by voters in November.

This is the fourth federal challenge to the gun control measure, which mandates training and the acquisition of a purchase permit by any individual hoping to buy a firearm in Oregon. SAF earlier filed a lawsuit challenging the measure’s ban on the future sale, manufacture, importation and possession of so-called “large capacity” magazines after Dec. 8, when the law is scheduled to take effect.

Joining SAF in this case are the Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (FPC), Daniel Azzopardi, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys James Buchal of Portland, Adam Kraut of SAF and William Sack of the FPC. Named as defendants are Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Oregon State Police Supt. Terri Davie, in their official capacities.

There is also an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

SAF’s new lawsuit focuses on Measure 114’s restrictive permitting and training requirements with no current mechanism to procure a permit. To obtain the purchase permit, an individual must be fingerprinted, photographed, submit to a background check and provide any “additional information determined necessary by state police rules.” They must also complete an approved firearm safety course, which includes a demonstration of the applicant’s ability to safely handle, fire and store a firearm. Course instructors must be certified by a law enforcement agency.

“We filed this lawsuit separately from our earlier action because the permitting process constitutes an egregious affront to the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no permit system in place, no guidance on who might qualify as a certified instructor and no forms on which applications may be made or permits may be granted, and no rules to carry Measure 114 into effect.”

“This measure created a requirement for a permit,” Kraut, who is also SAF’s executive director noted, “but didn’t create a system to get the permit. It sets specific mandates but provides no way to comply with those mandates. In essence, the measure effectively creates an outright ban on firearms purchases, which violates the Second Amendment.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF has not yet published an "alert" about this, but they filed their amended complaint on the pistol brace rule on February 17th.

You can read it at https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Doc.-50-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

DEFENDANT IN SAF’s N.Y. CASE AGREES COURT SHOULD GRANT PRELIM.INJUNCTION​

A defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of New York’s gun control law has filed a brief with the federal appeals court supporting the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, a move which SAF’s Alan Gottlieb welcomed as a pleasant surprise. The case is known as Hardaway, Jr. v. Nigrelli.

Gottlieb, who is SAF’s founder and executive vice president, said the brief filed by Niagara County, N.Y. District Attorney Brian D. Seaman reinforces plaintiffs’ assertion that the gun control law, which prohibits concealed carry in broadly-defined “sensitive places” including places of worship, is unconstitutional.

Seaman’s brief states he supports the application for a preliminary injunction “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law,” adding, “Therefore, the Court should affirm the Decision and Order of the district court granting the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ application for a preliminary injunction.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition and citizens Larry A. Boyd and Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., for whom the lawsuit is named. Defendants, in their official capacities, include Seaman, Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn and New York State Police Supt. Steven A. Nigrelli.

Federal District Judge John L. Sinatra granted the preliminary injunction and the state appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

“While this is certainly an unusual development,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we welcome the concurrence of District Attorney Seaman in our effort to secure the preliminary injunction. We believe New York’s gun control scheme is wholly unconstitutional. The New York Legislature apparently believes it is above the law and we are confident that the courts will rein in this blatant attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s directives in the Bruen ruling.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

PLAINTIFFS FILE MEMO SUPPORTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN IL TRANSIT CASE​

Plaintiffs in a case supported financially by the Second Amendment Foundation challenging a concealed carry ban on Illinois Public Transportation have filed a memorandum supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case.

The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. 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, and all are SAF members. 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.

According to the memorandum, Illinois bans law-abiding citizens, who are licensed to carry firearms under Illinois law from carrying their firearms for self-defense “on or into . . . [a]ny bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.” They contend the Public Transportation carry ban is unconstitutional.

“The State will not be able to demonstrate that the carry ban on public transportation is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting this case because it’s the right thing to do, and these plaintiffs 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.

“Buses and commuter trains are public places, but they’re hardly sensitive places,” he added. “This ban amounts to a public disarmament policy for which there really is no historical foundation.”



Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

​

SAF FILES BRIEF IN CHALLENGE OF HANDGUN SALES BAN TO YOUNG ADULTS
​

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed an appellant’s brief with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The case is known as Reese v. ATF.

Joining SAF are the Louisiana Shooting Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk; George J. Armbruster, III at Armbruster & Associates; Joseph Greenlee, FPC Action Foundation; John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, DiGuiseppe Law Firm and Adam Kraut at SAF.

Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its director, Steven Dettelbach and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

At issue is the ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults, because this prohibition is at odds with the Second Amendment, SAF and its partners contend.

“At the time the Second Amendment was adopted,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “there were no restrictions on the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms because of their age. Indeed, people in that age group, because as Americans they were in the civilian militia, were actually required to acquire firearms.

“Young adults over age 18,” he added, “can exercise other constitutional rights. They can vote, get married, enter into contracts, start businesses, run for office, join the military where they may fight and die for their country, but they can’t legally buy a handgun because of existing laws.”

“There is no historical regulation from any relevant time period that supports this handgun ban for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, a practicing attorney representing the group in this case. “Under last year’s Bruen ruling, the appeals court must review this case by determining whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by the handgun ban. We think the lower court erred in its initial ruling because there is no historical evidence of any such ban for people in the 18-to-20-year age group.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

38th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference
​

Sponsored by the Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms and
the Second Amendment Foundation
​

Road To Liberty
​

Dear Gun Rights Supporter:

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Foundation are excited to invite you to the 2023 Gun Rights Policy Conference.

This year’s GRPC will be held in Phoenix, Arizona September 22nd through September 24th at the Marriott Phoenix Airport.

With the increased threat of anti-gun legislation, the critical situation in our courts and the upcoming elections, now is the time to come together.

Your presence at GRPC, networking with other attendees, and meeting national activists is vital to developing new plans and the continuation of the successful strategies that have won Second Amendment victories. There is no charge for GRPC, but pre-registration is required.

People can register for the conference through this link. Hotel reservations can be made here. Booking through this link will give you our negotiated rate of $159.00 per night Thursday, September 21st – Monday, September 25th. Rooms in the block are limited, book soon to get this special GRPC rate.

The conference is free and as in past years, we will start with a Friday night reception, continue the conference all day on Saturday, end Saturday with another evening reception and finish Sunday strong with another half day of presentations. Complementary light appetizers are served at the receptions and a complementary box lunch is provided Saturday. All other travel, lodging, and meals are to be paid for by the attendee.

You can help make this GRPC a huge success by registering yourself and getting the word out to your family and friends. We would love if you would forward this email to your family and friends who might be interested in registering.

With warm regards,



Alan M. Gottlieb

Chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder Second Amendment Foundation

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF FILES BRIEF IN 5TH CIRCUIT CASE
RE: GUNS AND ‘CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES’​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in a case which could upend prohibitions on firearms possession by people using intoxicants or controlled substances because such laws violate the right to keep and bear arms.

The case is known as United States v. Daniels. SAF filed the brief in response to the unusual request by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals following oral arguments, which were heard June 5. Because no amicus briefs had been filed, the panel invited briefs from amici curiae “who wish to supply relevant information regarding the history and tradition of restrictions on the use and possession of firearms as pertinent to the issues presented in this case. Of particular interest are historical gun regulations applicable to intoxicated or impaired individuals.” Briefs were due by July 6.

“We’re not advocating for or against specific laws,” explained SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a practicing attorney. “The Fifth Circuit panel asked for briefs regarding any historical prohibitions, and our response is solely written to address that question. Long story short, we could not find any such historical gun regulations that essentially strip someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, because they may have been under the influence of, or impaired by, an intoxicating substance.”

As noted in the 31-page brief, “Having set the stage for the proper analytical framework, attention must be turned to this nation’s nonexistent history and tradition of disarming people who, at some undefined point, may have been intoxicated.” The brief was prepared and submitted by attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik at Bochner PLLC in New York.

“This case raises an important issue regarding the lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Court requested amicus briefs regarding historic analogues, and we are happy to oblige.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

HELP FUND OUR LEGAL EFFORTS

SAN FRANCISCO BACKS DOWN ON GUN CONTROL AFTER SAF, CRPA VOW TO SUE​ BELLEVUE, WA – The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has backed down on a proposed ordinance that would make much of the city into a “gun-free zone” after the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association promised legal action. The proposal was championed by Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who essentially tabled the motion indefinitely, after bemoaning the 2023 Supreme Court Bruen decision, which is giving gun control proponents fits, while jarring the San Francisco Police Department to start issuing carry permits. She referenced, perhaps as a face-saving maneuver, proposed state legislation that may be adopted later this summer by lawmakers in Sacramento, as a reason to stand down on the proposed ordinance. “This happened after CRPA and SAF sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining why the planned ordinance would be unconstitutional,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, a longtime practicing attorney and gun rights authority in California. “It is truly unfortunate that San Francisco politicians refuse to respect the Second Amendment and can’t accept the new legal reality that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.” “As soon as we were advised of this proposal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we took action. This is not the first time we’ve had to stop extremist gun control in San Francisco. We successfully sued the city twice over attempted handgun bans, and won both times. We’re prepared to do it again, but our letter to the Board of Supervisors evidently has made that unnecessary.” “Our warning to the Board of Supervisors was direct and left little room for doubt about our intentions,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The letter clearly explained why the proposal was bad policy, and would result in another SAF-CRPA victory. We also reminded the Board it should wait to see whether the state legislation is adopted and how it fares under litigation. That appears to have had the desired impact.”

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF WILL OPPOSE DOJ STAY REQUEST TO SUPREME COURT IN GUN PARTS KIT CASE​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its attorney, Chad Flores, are preparing a response to an application to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to stay a ruling which vacated the “final rule” defining gun parts kits as firearms in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the ruling, and the government wants a stay pending appeal to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF was allowed to intervene in the case. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. “This case ultimately challenges the authority of the ATF to simply change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will vigorously pursue this issue through the courts.” “The Fifth Circuit last week issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut recalled. “We expect to prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged, which the government wants to enforce while this case winds its way through the courts, despite the fact that the court found ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, which bodes well for SAF and its members.” Gottlieb said SAF’s response will oppose the request for a stay, and will likely be filed next week. “The government is saying that a kit to make a firearm should be treated the same as a firearm, and that an incomplete firearm is also a firearm,” Gottlieb noted. “Their position is simply nonsense.”

DONATE NOW

 

[hso]

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF FILES REPLY BRIEF IN CHALLENGE OF MARYLAND CCW LAW​

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in a federal challenge of Maryland’s restrictive concealed carry statute today filed their reply to the state’s arguments against an earlier motion for a preliminary injunction in the case known as Novotny v. Moore.

The response brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

SAF is joined in the case by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla.

The lawsuit focuses on SB1, a bill signed by Gov. Wesley Moore, which has added new restrictions on where legally-licensed citizens may carry firearms for personal protection. Maryland is attempting to wildly expand so-called “sensitive places” in an attempt to virtually prohibit lawful, licensed concealed carry in almost every venue in the state outside of someone’s home or business.

“As we maintained in our initial lawsuit, the State of Maryland is desperately trying to justify its extremist policy by offering alleged historical analogues that don’t really exist,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we noted earlier, instead of trying to comply with the new guidelines set down in the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year, Maryland lawmakers responded by adopting gun laws more restrictive than they were before. This is tantrum-level stubbornness usually confined to elementary school playgrounds, and it doesn’t belong in state legislatures or governors’ offices.”

“Today’s brief further underscores the fact that Maryland’s recently enacted restrictions on carry are incompatible with this nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “In defense of its law, Maryland grasps at straws and reasoning well removed from a logical pathway to justify its new existence. Our brief systemically refutes the positions put forth by the government and demonstrates that the challenged restrictions are constitutionally impermissible.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF FILES OPPOSITION BRIEF WITH SCOTUS IN RECEIVER CASE STAY​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay in its case challenging the government’s attempt to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms.” The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, and last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule which SAF successfully challenged. SAF has intervened in the case. “With our attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, we’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly.” SAF maintains the district court acted properly when it held the administration’s new “firearm” definition in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF contends in its opposition brief that while no stay should occur, the high court should grant certiorari so the court may deem the new definition to be illegal. “The Biden administration’s new definition is in direct contradiction to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and they know it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The administration is attempting to literally re-define what constitutes a firearm. We contend that District Judge Reed O’Connor’s summary judgment in this case was spot-on, and we are hopeful Justice Alito will understand and concur with our position.” SAF notes that the administration wants to re-define what constitutes a firearm, without any Congressional action. If allowed to go forward, it would create a situation where the White House can make law and simply bypass Congress. “This kind of a power grab simply cannot be allowed,” Gottlieb said.

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF REPLIES TO CONNECTICUT’S OBJECTION IN MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have submitted a reply to the state’s objection to SAF’s amended motion for a preliminary injunction. The case is known as Grant v. Lamont, in U.S, District Court for the District of Connecticut. Joining SAF are the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton. SAF originally filed the lawsuit last September, naming Gov. Edward M. Lamont, Jr. as the main defendant, along with several other officials. The case involved Connecticut’s one-size-fits-all-type “assault weapons” ban, under which firearms previously identified as “any other firearm” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were suddenly reclassified last year as “rifles” or “short-barreled rifles.” They all became “assault weapons” under the state’s definition. “The state is attempting to convince the court that these firearms are not in ‘common use,’ which evidence clearly shows otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The defendants are asking the Court to adopt unprecedented legal standards that squarely contradict established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, and we’re fighting back.” In its 17-page rebuttal to the state’s objection, SAF contends the defendants have not supplied any evidence or analogues supporting the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” “The state argues that the ban is necessary because modern semi-automatic rifles ‘present an unprecedented technological advance that requires a more liberal use of analogies,’ when clearly that is not allowed under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We’re hopeful the court will recognize this as we move forward in this case.”

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

ILLINOIS 5TH CIRCUIT COURT REVERSES, REMANDS FOID CARD CHALLENGE CASE​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Illinois 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has finally reversed and remanded a lower court ruling in a case which could determine whether the Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card requirement is constitutional. The Second Amendment Foundation notes this will be the third go-round for the case in White County Circuit Court, but it could ultimately end up before the Illinois State Supreme Court, noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. The case was brought and funded by SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The five-page order was unanimous, with Justices John B. Barberis and Barry L. Vaughan concurring with Justice Thomas M. Welch, who delivered the opinion. Noting that, “The State has filed a motion for summary relief arguing that the basis of the court’s dismissal—that it was impossible for Brown to comply with the statute—is not one of the bases upon which a charge may be dismissed before trial,” Justice Welch confirmed the defendant, Vivian Claudine Brown “agrees that the cause should be remanded.” “We’re delighted the courts will finally have an opportunity to hear arguments in the actual case which challenge the constitutionality of the FOID card,” Gottlieb said. “Hopefully, this time around, we won’t see the case bogged down by more procedural issues which have allowed the court to avoid addressing the main issue at hand, which is whether the FOID card requirement actually passes constitutional muster.” The case dates back to when Brown was originally charged with unlawful possession of a firearm without also possessing a FOID card, in May 2017. “This case has been bouncing around for six years,” Gottlieb noted, “and it is high time to move forward.”

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN WASH. MAGAZINE BAN CASE​ BELLEVUE, WA. – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion in U.S. District Court for summary judgment in its challenge of Washington State’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Sullivan v. Ferguson. SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., 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 FPC Foundation, Brian Abbas at Mountain States Legal Foundation, and locally by Joel Ard at Ard Law Group. “We maintain the magazine ban is unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our motion, magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are in common use across the country. There are millions of such magazines, including huge numbers in Washington, and modern rifles and pistols come from the factory with magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.” “Designating ten rounds was an arbitrary number,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “for which there is no justification. Anti-gun lawmakers and Gov. Jay Inslee seemed to settle on that number as some sort of magic limit. There is no basis in this nation’s history or tradition to restrict firearm magazine capacities to such an illogical number.” As SAF notes in its motion, the magazine ban is “a complete prohibition on commerce in ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The Supreme Court has three times answered the specific question of what historical traditions of firearms regulation can possibly support modern day bans on certain types of ‘arms.’ Those cases establish that states can only ban arms that are ‘dangerous and unusual.’ Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are neither.” “Courts and legislatures do not have the authority, nor can they be allowed to second-guess choices made by law-abiding citizens by questioning whether they really ‘need’ firearms and the cartridge magazines designed to be used in those firearms,” Gottlieb observed.

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

SCOTUS GRANTS STAY IN FRAME, RECEIVER CASE DURING 5TH CIRCUIT APPEAL​ BELLEVUE, WA – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay sought by the Biden administration in a federal challenge of the “new rule” on frames and receivers published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, allowing the rule to remain in effect while the case moves through the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) was allowed to intervene in the case, which is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, as a plaintiff. The high court stay is in effect through the final disposition of the appeal, including a petition for certiorari. If that petition is made and denied, the stay terminates. If certiorari is granted, the stay remains in effect pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. “While we are disappointed that the Government’s final rule remains in effect pending the outcome of our appeal,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we remain optimistic that we will ultimately prevail. We believe the district court’s rationale, striking down the final rule, was legally sound and we look forward to defending our position on appeal.” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was not discouraged by the court ruling on what essentially is a procedural matter. “The Supreme Court, in issuing its ruling, did not address the merits of the case,” Gottlieb noted. “They only said the stay will remain in effect pending the appeal now before the Fifth Circuit, and disposition of a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. “Now that the Fifth Circuit can actually rule on the merits of this case,” Gottlieb added, “we expect a very favorable ruling.” Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 7. Kraut said this signals the case “is going to move quickly.”

DONATE NOW

 

[old lady new shooter]

APPEAL BRIEF FILED IN CHALLENGE OF CAL. ANTI-GUN-SHOW LAW​ BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging a California statute designed to end gun shows on city, county and state-owned property in the Golden State have filed a 103-page appellants’ brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. SAF is joined in this case by B&L Productions, Captain Jon’s Green Can Lockers, L.A.X. Firing Range, DBA LAX Ammo, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and South Bay Rod and Gun Club. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront, Michel & Associates, Long Beach, Calif., and Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho. At issue is AB 893, which the brief asserts was clearly intended to end gun shows on city, county and state property in California by banning the buying and selling of firearms, ammunition and firearms components. The law is being challenged on First and Second Amendment grounds. “Banning gun shows has been the goal of anti-gun politicians and the gun prohibition lobby in California for a long time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They contend it’s wrong for the state to ‘benefit’ from the sale of firearms, but it goes deeper than that. They simply do not like firearms or the people who own, collect and use them, and ultimately it is their desire to eliminate firearms ownership.” “Gun shows are more than places where people buy and sell firearms and related products,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “They offer venues where like-minded gun owners meet, exchange ideas and ideals, sometimes participate in classes on genuine firearm safety, gun laws and other subjects all protected speech under the First Amendment.” Both SAF officials stressed that all firearms and ammunition sales at gun shows must be done in compliance with all federal and state laws.

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

As in the past, this year’s conference and all materials are free!

ANNOUNCING THE 2023 GUN RIGHTS POLICY CONFERENCE​ BELLEVUE, WA – The 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, will be held Sept. 22-24 in Phoenix, Arizona. The theme of this year’s event, which will be held at the Marriott Phoenix Airport Hotel is “Road to Liberty!” Registration is available online at the SAF website. For those unable to attend, the conference will be available on multiple virtual platforms including YouTube and Facebook. This year’s conference will be attended by more than 600 gun rights advocates and activists, and will feature a veritable “Who’s Who” of leaders in the Second Amendment movement. More than 80 speakers will offer presentations on a variety of subjects including legislation, the upcoming campaigns for the 2024 elections, firearms litigation and more. Already scheduled are such notables as Alan Gottlieb, Adam Kraut, Massad Ayoob, Mark Smith, AWR Hawkins, John Fund, Tom Gresham, Mark Walters, Steven Gutowski and representatives and staff from SAF, CCRKBA, FPC, NRA and GOA as well as leaders of state organizations. A complete list of speakers will be added at a later date. As in the past, this year’s conference and all materials are free! Friday, Sept. 22: The conference begins with registration and an evening reception, 7-9 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 23: The conference gets fully underway with panel discussions, individual presentations and the annual awards luncheon. It’s an all-day event running 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday, Sept. 24: The conference wraps up with more panel discussions and reports, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said this year’s event occurs at a critical time for the Second Amendment movement. “Our rights have been under continuing and unrelenting attacks from the Biden administration,” Gottlieb said, “while we have seen several Second Amendment victories in the courts and the various state legislatures. We are witnessing continued growth in the number of legally-armed citizens, with more than half of the states now enjoying Constitutional/permitless carry. “We’ve come a long way since the first GRPC was held in Seattle in 1986,” he added. “We will be delighted to see old friends and make new ones, and we expect this year’s conference to be an awesome event for everyone.”

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF RESPONDS TO STATE’S APPEAL IN MN BAN ON YOUNG ADULT CARRY​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s ban on firearms carry by young adults has filed a response brief to the state’s appeal of SAF’s court victory. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined in the case by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three young adults, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson and Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The case was originally filed in June 2021 and is now before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is whether Minnesota’s ban on firearms carriage by young adults in the 18-to-20-year-old age group violates the Second Amendment. Earlier this year, U. S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez ruled the Minnesota law preventing young adults from obtaining carry permits is unconstitutional. “The state is stubbornly clinging to the unconstitutional law, and our response is quite clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We expect to win again at the Appeals Court level.” “Judge Menendez made the right call in this case almost five months ago,” concurred SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We remind the court that the Second Amendment refers to a right ‘of the people’ without mentioning age, and certainly young adults fall within the definition of ‘the people’ ever since they’ve been allowed to vote, and generations before that when they were considered part of the militia, and have been accepted into the military.” SAF’s brief also reminds the court that the Second Amendment extends to all Americans, and this was established in the 2008 Heller ruling, and reiterated in the Bruen ruling in 2022.

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

NOTE: For anyone who is unaware, CCRKBA is the sister organization of SAF.

CCRKBA SUBMITS AMICUS BRIEF IN CASE CHALLENGING N.J. ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’​

Aug 18, 2023 | 0 comments

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a case challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute. The case is known as Koons v. Platkin.
In May, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.
At that time, the Second Amendment Foundation—CCRKBA’s sister organization—filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay.

CCRKBA is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation in support of the appellees. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay at the Benbrook Law Group in Sacramento, California.

“Our interest in this case is to ensure that New Jersey’s regulation of firearms is consistent with the original meaning of the Second Amendment as the framers understood it,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision in June 2022, it cautioned the lower courts to evaluate whether laws challenged on Second Amendment grounds met the burden of history; that is, whether today’s laws were crafted faithfully to the rights as they were understood when the people adopted the Constitution in 1791.

“It is pretty clear to us,” he continued, “that in this case, New Jersey hasn’t met that burden at all. Instead, the state has attempted to focus the court’s attention on Reconstruction-era laws, which came along decades after the Constitution was adopted, and in a different century!”
The court brief notes, “The many locations New Jersey now hopes to treat as ‘sensitive’ cannot possibly be analogized to the core founding-era sensitive locations recognized in Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller. The historical record shows that, at the founding, carry restrictions were strictly limited to locations where the government exercised a heightened level of control to secure the proper operation of government, which stands in stark contrast to New Jersey’s sweeping restrictions…Indeed, early Americans were required by law to carry firearms in many of the locations—such as places of worship and at public assemblies—where the State now seeks to disarm citizens altogether. “New Jersey’s current impulse to protect potential victims by disarming everyone at public gatherings thus runs directly contrary to the Founders’ solution…New Jersey’s bans fail Bruen’s test. The injunction should not be disturbed.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF, PARTNERS FILE RESPONSE BRIEF IN CHALLENGE OF N.J. ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’​ BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” statute have filed a response brief to the state’s appeal. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin. In May, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction against the state. New Jersey sought a stay of that order pending appeal, to which SAF filed a brief in opposition. SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and four private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Jensen, Beacon, N.Y. “The state is trying to justify the challenged provisions of its ‘sensitive places’ law, which makes it virtually impossible for people with carry permits to actually go to most places,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Essentially, Garden State residents can walk out the front door with their legally-carried firearms, but they can’t really go anywhere.” “We maintain the District Court acted properly by issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of this ‘sensitive places’ statute,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Anti-Carry Default provision of the law, which prohibits carrying on private property without the owner’s express permission, is tantamount to prohibiting lawful carry in most public places. The section prohibiting carrying a gun in a vehicle, unless the gun is unloaded and placed in a securely fastened case literally makes legal carry impossible while traveling.” Both SAF officials say it is impossible for the state to show the challenged provisions of the law, known as Chapter 131, are consistent with a historical tradition of firearm regulation. “It is a requirement of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year,” Kraut noted, “and they can’t meet that requirement because there was no such Founding-era tradition. The state has failed to show such examples, and the injunctions should be upheld.”

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

NOTE: For anyone who is unaware, CCRKBA is the sister organization of SAF.

CCRKBA: ‘SEATTLE MAYOR EXPLOITS TRIPLE MURDER TO ATTACK STATE PREEMPTION’​

Aug 21, 2023 | 0 comments
BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s immediate reaction to Sunday’s triple homicide at a hookah lounge in the city’s Mount Baker area “was a predictable launch pad for an attack on Washington State’s model firearms preemption law,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Instead of encouraging people to help police solve this terrible crime and bring the perpetrators to justice,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Mayor Harrell reminds us he is ‘partnering’ with state lawmakers to ‘end state preemption over firearms’ so the city can adopt policies which, experience tells us, will only impact law-abiding citizens and not prevent a single tragedy.

“Bruce Harrell was on the city council in 2015 when they hastily adopted the city’s notorious tax on gun and ammunition sales,” Gottlieb recalled. “In the years since, homicides have more than doubled in Seattle, the gun tax revenue has never come close to the forecast and the mayor and his allies continue blaming guns when they should be blaming the people misusing those guns.

“Mayor Harrell seems to forget that Seattle did adopt a policy—the gun tax—on the promise it would help prevent gun-related violence and the past eight years have shown it to be a total failure,” he added. “Instead of talking about getting guns off the street, how about focusing on getting criminals off the street?

In a statement posted on his official website, Harrell says Seattle police are “investigating with haste to hold the perpetrators responsible.” He says the city is taking a “holistic approach” to dealing with the challenge of violent crime in the city.

“The mayor and city council can take any approach they desire,” Gottlieb observed, “but when they promote and adopt social policies which the public, especially the criminal element, see as soft on crime, at the end of the day all they are doing is pontificating. Preemption has provided uniformity in state gun laws for nearly 40 years, and what seems to escape Mayor Harrell and other gun control advocates is that you cannot prevent violent crime by penalizing people who don’t commit crime, or by repealing a law which protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners from one state border to the other.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST MARYLAND ‘RED FLAG’ LAW​ BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and one of its members, Donald S. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the so-called “red flag” law enacted by the State of Maryland five years ago. The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division. Defendants are Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, Dorchester County, Dorchester County Planning and Zoning Director Susan E. Webb, and Dorchester County Sheriff James W. Phillips. All three are sued in their official capacities, and Webb is also being sued personally. SAF and Willey are represented by attorneys Edward Andrew Paltzik and Serge Krimnus of the Bochner PLLC law firm in New York City. According to the federal complaint, for almost two decades Dorchester County authorities have “relentlessly pursued Willey for de minimis nuisance and zoning infractions.” More than two years ago, Webb allegedly stepped up the effort by accusing Willey of operating an illegal business on his property, leaving his yard in poor condition and for an “unpermitted disturbance to a 100-foot tidewater buffer.” These complaints were ultimately withdrawn, resulting in a consent order regarding the alleged condition of Willey’s yard. Earlier this year, one of Webb’s inspectors entered Willey’s property to conduct a compliance inspection, culminating with Webb issuing new notices for Willey to make other improvements. Several days later, Webb and one of her inspectors visited Willey’s property without advance notice, as required by the consent order. At that time, Webb allegedly berated Willey before “violently” affixing Notices of Violation to a fiberglass cover on his boat, damaging the boat cover. Webb subsequently filed for an Extreme Risk Protective Order (“ERPO”) to have Willey’s firearms and ammunition confiscated, alleging threats, which Willey steadfastly denies. The complaint accuses Webb of committing perjury resulting in seizure of Willey’s firearms and ammunition and forcing Willey to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation. The lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned. “This is the sort of nonsense we have repeatedly warned about,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “These so-called ‘red flag laws’ can be abused and weaponized against private citizens who have done nothing wrong. It is an outrage.” Likewise, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “Red flag laws are based on the inherently Orwellian belief that you can take actions against someone for an alleged crime that hasn’t occurred. Such laws authorize seizure and punishment for a crime nobody committed but which could occur at some place and time in the future. This may work in a science fiction movie, but should not be allowed in real life.”

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF LAUNCHES ‘CAPTURE THE FLAG’ EFFORT TO CHALLENGE ‘RED FLAG’ LAWS​ BELLEVUE, WA – Two days after filing a federal lawsuit challenging a so-called “Red Flag” law in Maryland, the Second Amendment Foundation is announcing the launch of a new project to take subsequent legal actions against similar laws in several states. This new initiative is called “Capture the Flag,” and it will focus on abuses and mis-application of “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)” statutes which have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia. “SAF’s ‘Capture the Flag’ initiative looks to challenge these laws that deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms, where appropriate, based on evidentiary standards that are constitutionally impermissible,” explained SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a practicing civil rights attorney. Kraut said the project will initially focus on “Red Flag” laws in six states: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington. “SAF has been concerned about these statutes since they first started showing up,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We have already taken legal action against officials in Maryland for an egregious abuse of the law against a citizen in Dorchester County. But all of these laws should raise alarms because they prioritize citizen disarmament ahead of due process, and that can easily lead to deprivation of rights under color of law.” Kraut said the fundamental flaw in all of these laws is that they essentially consider people guilty until they prove themselves innocent, a concept diametrically opposed to the way our criminal justice system is supposed to work, where the burden of proof is on the state, not the individual. “When any citizen is unjustly deprived of his or her rights, it is an affront to all of us,” Kraut observed, “and we must do whatever we can to prevent it, including challenging such laws in federal court. ‘Capture the Flag’ provides the means for us to seek out such cases and take appropriate action.” SAF encourages individuals residing in California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or Washington that have been subject to a baseless, groundless and unsubstantiated ERPO to contact the organization by sending an email to [email protected] with information regarding the circumstances surrounding the petition, order, and outcome. The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

DONATE NOW

​

 

[old lady new shooter]

SAF CELEBRATES 49 YEARS OF CHALLENGING, DEFEATING GUN CONTROL​ BELLEVUE, WA – This Saturday, Aug. 26, marks the 49th anniversary of the founding of the Second Amendment Foundation, an organization which has become a powerhouse in firearms rights litigation, with significant victories all over the map, including a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2010, McDonald v. City of Chicago. “As the saying goes,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we’ve come a long way, but we still have a long way to go in our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” Right now, the SAF staff—a small but dedicated group based in a two-building complex—is planning for the 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC). This year’s event will be held Sept. 22-24 in Phoenix, Arizona for the two-day event, which attracts hundreds of gun rights activists and leading Second Amendment advocates from around the country. Attendance at the GRPC is free, and to pre-register, sign up here. SAF’s litigation efforts began with two early court victories, challenging a ban on handgun sales in New Haven, Connecticut and an outright ban on handgun ownership in San Francisco, California. “Those were two key lawsuits we won, and that was just the beginning of something which has grown into an organization we can proudly say represents and protects American gun owners and their right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb observed. Since then, SAF has filed more than 250 lawsuits and currently has 50 legal actions filed in court defending Second Amendment rights. In addition, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Legal Preemption Project has removed over 600 local anti-gun-rights laws off the books simply by threatening to go to court. Adam Kraut, a practicing civil rights attorney based in the Philadelphia area, and who came on board late last year as SAF’s Executive Director, is excited and planning for the future, which includes a bigger 50th anniversary celebration in 2024. “We’re living in challenging and exciting times,” Kraut said, “and I am glad to be a part of this organization. What SAF has accomplished with a veritable skeleton crew over the past four decades only signals what we have on the horizon as we continue to expand our legal footprint. “We’re just getting started,” Kraut said.

DONATE NOW

​