Second Amendment Foundation

Uncategorized

Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Filed In California

June 27, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees have filed suit in US District Court against Alameda County, California due to the county’s use of a zoning law to present a gun shop from opening. They are joined in the suit by John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza who had attempted to open a gun shop there.

The County of Alameda requires that all gun shops be 500 feet away from the nearest residence, liquor store, or school. The location chosen by the businessmen above had met that standard until the county changed how it measured the distance. Alameda County Board of Supervisors made this change after the gun shop had been given a condition use permit and a variable by the local Board of Adjustment. In doing so, the supervisors negated the variance that had been issued by the Board of Adjustment.

I have served on my local Board of Adjustment for over 18 years and am the current vice-chair of the Board. The actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to change the ordinance after the fact and nullify the variance is most unusual. As boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies, appeals of their decisions are usually made in the local Superior Court.

Below is the joint press release on Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The County of Alameda’s zoning law requiring that gun stores be located 500 feet away from residential properties is not rational and cannot withstand any form of constitutional scrutiny, argues a new federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco, California. Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

The complaint describes how plaintiffs Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamza had actually been granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the property on which they intended to open a gun store until the variance was revoked by the Alameda Board of Supervisors. “John, Steve, and Gary did everything right. They had their paperwork in order,” said attorney Donald Kilmer. “Their store was moving forward, things were going great, and then they were blindsided by the County long after putting money, labor, and time into opening their store. That’s a serious due process problem for the County.”

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga, and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

The City of Sunnyvale recently conducted a study that showed gun stores had no correlation with area crime. “The right to buy firearms is just as much a protected part of the Second Amendment as the right to buy books is protected under the First Amendment,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Just like we saw in the Nordyke case, Alameda County continues it’s long-running effort to undermine the fundamental civil rights of it’s citizens to purchase firearms that they have a right to buy.”

According to the lawsuit, the county allowed an objection to the businessmen’s permit to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate. “The outcome of this lawsuit may very well have far-reaching implications for firearms dealers not just in California, but across the United States,” noted co-counsel Jason Davis. “Hopefully we can address these issues for dealers once and for all.”

“Alameda County has a long track record of denying Second Amendment Rights to its residents, even those enumerated in our Constitution,” explained Cal-FFL president Brandon Combs. “We’ve seen over and over again how local rules like those Alameda County adopted are sold to municipalities by anti-gun extremist groups like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, and other Joyce Foundation-funded spinoffs.”

“They want to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that’s simply not going to happen on our watch. We will make sure Americans have a neighborhood gun dealer to sell them the tools they need to defend themselves from violent attackers.”

The case is captioned as Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. The docket and filings as they become available can be viewed at http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html.

Uncategorized

SAF On Lawsuit Against San Francisco And Oakland

May 14, 2012 by

The Second Amendment Foundation has released a statement on their joint lawsuit with the CalGuns Foundation challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s and the City of Oakland’s refusal to return legally owned firearms to persons exonerated of a crime.

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the police departments in San Francisco and Oakland, California for refusing to return firearms to people who had been charged with crimes, but subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Calguns Foundation and two private citizens. The case is known as Churchill, et al. v. Harris, et al.

The police agencies apparently are relying on a state Department of Justice document that requires proof of ownership of each firearm before they are returned. But Don Kilmer, counsel for the plaintiffs, has noted that, “In California, the Evidence Code makes it clear that simple possession is proof of ownership of almost all types of common property, including firearms. The California Department of Justice is misleading police departments in such a way that they violate the rights of gun owners who were investigated and found to have not violated the law.”

“What the police departments are doing is a deliberate theft of personal property, and they know it,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our partners at the Calguns Foundation have properly argued that this is inexcusable, and they are right.

“We saw this sort of property theft following Hurricane Katrina,” Gottlieb recalled, “and we took that case to federal court, and won. Government agencies simply cannot seize private property and refuse to give it back by playing bureaucratic games.”

“Law-abiding Californians should not be forced to seek out expensive legal representation just to get back what is rightfully theirs in the first place,” added Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman.

“This cannot be allowed to continue,” Gottlieb observed. “That’s why we have taken this action, and we expect to prevail.”

Uncategorized

CalGuns Foundation And SAF File Suit Against San Francisco And Oakland

May 12, 2012 by 1 Comment

The CalGuns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed suit against California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the City and County of San Francisco, and the City of Oakland over their refusal to return lawfully-owned firearms to their rightful owners after an investigation exonerated them. The case, Churchill et al v. Harris et al, is being brought in US District Court for the North District of California. The attorneys in the case are well-known California gun rights lawyers Don Kilmer and Jason Davis.

From the CalGuns Foundations on the suit:

San Carlos, CA (May 9, 2012) – In an important step to secure the rights of California gun owners, The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual residents of California have filed a new federal lawsuit in San Francisco. The case, entitled Churchill, et. al. v. Harris, et al., alleges that the police departments of both San Francisco and Oakland are unlawfully refusing to return lawfully-owned firearms to individuals who have had charges dropped after police investigations proved that they had done nothing wrong.

The ongoing seizure of those firearms is a violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. What’s more, the departments’ refusal to return property after all charges are dropped is theft.

“In California, the Evidence Code makes it clear that simple possession is proof of ownership of almost all types of common property, including firearms,” said Don Kilmer, attorney for the plaintiffs. “The California Department of Justice is misleading police departments in such a way that they violate the rights of gun owners who were investigated and found to not have violated the law.”

The Oakland and San Francisco Police departments appear to be relying on a Department of Justice document that is being attached to the required “Law Enforcement Gun Release”, or LEGR, reports indicating that the requester may lawfully own and possess firearms. The document claims that the requesting person has to provide proof of ownership for every firearm when they go to retrieve their seized property.

According to longstanding California law, every firearm seized during a police investigation must be inventoried; a copy of that list is given to the person from whom firearms are seized. Every law enforcement agency knows which person they took firearms from and what specific firearms were taken.

“It’s hard enough for a law-abiding gun owner to live through the uncertainty and fear caused by a false allegation or arrest, but to have the very people who are trusted and sworn to serve them then steal their property after they’ve been exonerated is inexcusable,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Law-abiding Californians should not be forced to seek out expensive legal representation just to get back what is rightfully theirs in the first place.”

A copy of the complaint and case filings can be downloaded here. The full docket can be viewed at this link.

Uncategorized

SAF Files Suit Against Housing Authority In Illinois

April 5, 2012 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in US District Court for the Central District of Illinois against the Warren County (IL) Housing Authority. The WCHA bans personally owned firearms by residents in the government-subsidized housing. The suit is brought on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler who is a disabled former police officer.

The attorney in the case is David Sigale who is the co-counsel in the Ezell case and served as co-counsel in the McDonald case.

I haven’t read the complaint yet but I do think the Second Amendment Foundation has shown brilliance in the choice of its lead plaintiffs over the years. In this case, a disabled police officer who has a need to protect himself.

From the SAF release:

SAF SUES OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN IN WARREN CO, ILLINOIS

For Immediate Release: 4/4/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA’s ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

“Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime.”

“People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means,” added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. “Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else.”

“It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago,” Gottlieb said. “That case nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies. Mr. Winbigler and people like him deserve the full protection of the Constitution, especially if they live in subsidized public housing.”

Uncategorized

Four Wins In A Month!

March 30, 2012 by 4 Comments

Heads must be spinning at the Brady Campaign’s headquarters with news that the Second Amendment Foundation just won its fourth Second Amendment case this month. The latest case is from Massachusetts where U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock found that the commonwealth’s ban on handgun possession by permanent resident aliens contravened the Second Amendment.

From the Second Amendment Foundation’s announcement of their win in Fletcher v. Haas:

SAF WINS 2A CASE IN MASS, STRIKING DOWN GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIENS

For Immediate Release: 3/30/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock concluded that “…the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment.”

The case involves two Massachusetts residents, Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal, whose applications for licenses to possess firearms in their homes for immediate self-defense purposes were denied under a state law that does not allow non-citizens to own handguns. SAF was joined in the case by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. and the two individual plaintiffs. The case is Fletcher v. Haas.

“This is our fourth court victory this month in our campaign to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “It is one more step toward repairing decades of Second Amendment erosion.”

In his 41-page ruling, Judge Woodcock wrote, “The Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime, as applied to Fletcher and Pryal, does not pass constitutional muster regardless of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies…The possibility that some resident aliens are unsuited to possess a handgun does not justify a wholesale ban.”

“With each strategic victory over a specific statute,” Gottlieb said, “SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are advancing the line a little more. Since our landmark victory in the McDonald case that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, we’ve been carefully picking laws to challenge, chipping away at years of gun control extremism. So far this month, we have posted victories in Maryland, North Carolina, Washington and now, Massachusetts.

“Our battle is hardly finished,” Gottlieb concluded. “We’ve got to roll back generations of onerous gun laws. It’s going to be a long march, and these wins are just the first small steps.”

Uncategorized

The Second Amendment Foundation On The Bateman Win

March 29, 2012 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation, an organizational plaintiff in Bateman v. Perdue, released this concerning the win today. There were those who had suggested that we go through the NC General Assembly to get the Emergency Powers ban changed. Many of us in North Carolina as well as Grass Roots NC and the Second Amendment Foundation opposed that move while this case was still active. I think the judgment of SAF, GRNC, and those who felt it was important to wait for this victory was vindicated with Judge Howard’s decision.

SAF VICTORY STRIKES DOWN NORTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY POWERS GUN BAN

For Immediate Release: 3/29/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in North Carolina has just struck down that state’s emergency power to impose a ban on firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency, ruling that the provision violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs. Defendants in the case were Gov. Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the state’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, in their official capacities.

In his opinion, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, senior United States district judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, wrote, “…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

“When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the gun ban crowd said that we were a ‘one-trick-pony’ and that we would never knock out another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland, Illinois and North Carolina.

“We filed this lawsuit on the day we won the McDonald case against Chicago,” he added, “extending the Second Amendment to all 50 states. This was part of our strategy of winning firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Gottlieb pointed to language in Judge Howard’s ruling that solidifies the Second Amendment’s reach outside the home. The judge noted that the Supreme Court in Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms “was valued not only for preserving the militia, but ‘more important(ly) for self-defense and hunting.”

“Therefore,” Judge Malcolm wrote, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.”

“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote. They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”

Uncategorized

Alan Gottlieb Takes On Chris Matthews Over Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

March 23, 2012 by 4 Comments

I don’t think MSNBC’s Chris Matthews felt any tingles up his leg in his exchanges with Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation today. Gottlieb and anti-gun Florida State Sen. Chris Smith (D-Broward/Palm Beach County) were guests today on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. The topic of discussion as one might expect was the State of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

Gottlieb made a very good point early on when he said “indict the person, not the law”. He went to say that it didn’t appear to him that the law applied here as, in his opinion, Zimmerman didn’t stand his ground. Rather he pursued Trayvon Martin. This is the same point that Sebastian and others have made repeatedly.

Uncategorized

The Third Win This Week!

March 8, 2012 by

In what amounts to the third legal victory for gun rights this week, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously denied Seattle’s petition for review of Seattle’s ban on guns in parks. Lower courts had found that Seattle’s gun ban violated Washington State’s preemption law and overturned the park ban.

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

SAF HAILS WA HIGH COURT DENIAL OF SEATTLE GUN BAN APPEAL

For Immediate Release: 3/8/2012

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted that the Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously denied the City of Seattle’s petition for review in the case of Winnie Chan v. City of Seattle, a legal action brought by SAF, the National Rifle Association and five individual plaintiffs.

The decision affirms the state’s long-standing preemption law and two lower court rulings, thus preventing the city from banning firearms from city parks property.

It was the third straight loss for the city, which had first attempted to ban firearms from park facilities under former Mayor Greg Nickels, in open defiance of Washington State’s model preemption statute. Following its initial loss in King County Superior Court, the city, under Nickels’ successor, Mayor Mike McGinn, appealed its loss to the State Court of Appeals. That court also ruled unanimously against the city, which petitioned the state high court last year for review.

“We are proud that the State Supreme Court panel, led by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, unanimously rejected Seattle’s flagrant attempt to override state law and violate the civil rights of citizens living in or visiting the city,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Mayor McGinn and the City Council should be ashamed that they pursued this pipe dream in an effort to turn the city into a banana republic. By letting the appeals court ruling stand, other anti-gun officials in city and county governments are on notice that they simply cannot ignore state law.

“We are equally proud of our partners in this important legal action,” he continued. “We were joined by the NRA, Washington Arms Collectors, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and five courageous citizens. Our plaintiffs were willing to stand up to the city and public officials who seem determined to transform Seattle into a political gulag where a civil right can be dismissed at will in the interest of political correctness.

“And finally,” Gottlieb stated, “we are all very proud of our legal team led by Steve Fogg and Molly Malouf at Corr Cronin. They did a marvelous job, not only for their clients, but for the citizens of this state, whose civil rights apply everywhere, whether the City of Seattle likes it or not.”

You will note that both the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA were parties in the original case. It is good to see that they can work together when needed.

Uncategorized

The Second Amendment Foundation On Their Win In Woollard

March 5, 2012 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation released this today celebrating their win in Woollard et al v. Sheridan.

MARYLAND RULING A ‘HUGE VICTORY’ FOR SECOND AMENDMENT, SAYS SAF

For Immediate Release: 3/5/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Ruling in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan – a case brought by SAF in July 2010 on behalf of Maryland resident Raymond Woollard, who was denied his carry permit renewal – the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”

U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg noted, “In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”

“This is a monumentally important decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be. Once again, SAF’s attorney in this case, Alan Gura, has won an important legal victory. He was the attorney who argued the landmark Heller case, and he represented SAF in our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“Equally important in Judge Legg’s ruling,” he added, “is that concealed carry statutes that are so discretionary in nature as to be arbitrary do not pass constitutional muster.”

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

“Judge Legg’s ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights, and provides gun owners with another significant victory,” Gottlieb concluded. “SAF will continue winning back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

This might be a good time as Joe Huffman said to donate to the Brady Campaign’s tequila fund and then real money to the Second Amendment Foundation.

Uncategorized

Glock Is First Gold Level Sponsor Of SAF

February 27, 2012 by

Glock, Inc. has stepped up and become the first Gold Level Sponsor in the Second Amendment Foundation’s corporate sponsorship program. Unlike the Joyce Foundation who continues to throw their money away on the gun prohibitionists, Glock’s money is going to an organization that is actually winning. Of course VPC (and others) will be quick to call this “blood money” but I think Alan Gottlieb will be equally as quick to just laugh in their face over that claim.

From the SAF news release:

GLOCK FIRST GOLD LEVEL SPONSOR IN NEW SAF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

For Immediate Release: 2/24/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Glock, Inc. has joined the SAF’s new corporate sponsorship program at the Gold level. Glock’s continuing support of the Second Amendment Foundation and of SAF’s on-going litigation efforts in defense of firearms civil rights is rapidly becoming legendary.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb made the announcement, noting that Glock remains the largest corporate contributor to the Foundation – largely in recognition of the important legal efforts SAF has mounted and will continue to pursue.

“The generosity and dedication of management and ownership at Glock continue to impress me, and I want to thank them and all the Glock employees who make our partnership with Glock possible,” said Gottlieb.

“SAF’s victory in McDonald v. Chicago opened up many legal opportunities for us to move forward against a wide variety of unreasonable and often unconstitutional limits on firearms rights,” he continued, “and we must continue to expand our legal challenges with all possible speed. The substantial support of our corporate sponsors significantly broadens our ability to respond quickly and effectively to legal opportunity.”

“Glock’s latest support comes at an important time,” Gottlieb added. “Most of our members and supporters make contributions in the $10 to $25 range, and Glock’s significant additional support as a sponsor makes a major difference in our efforts to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Gottlieb urged SAF supporters and all Americans who are concerned about firearms freedoms to support Glock and other companies that support their Second Amendment rights.

“There are times in the history of any movement, and in the lives of every person, when it is important to stand up and be counted,” Gottlieb said. “Glock has, more than once, stepped up to the plate when it really does count, and we will be eternally grateful for their generosity and their unwavering dedication to the Second Amendment.”