Second Amendment Foundation

Uncategorized

Funding Gun Rights Groups

June 6, 2011 by 1 Comment

Thanks to a tweet from our good friends at CSGV, I found a way to send money to the Second Amendment Foundation. I’m sure that wasn’t their intention but it works just the same. They tweeted:

@CSGV
Buying a #Groupon today through#Goodsearch = a 10% donation for gun violence prevention (cause is Educational Fund… http://fb.me/GNlplxh7

They link to a page called GoodSearch. If you search the Web or shop through them, participating non-profits get a donation. Of course, CSGV wants you to name their sister group, the (so-called) Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. However, a quick search turns up the Second Amendment Foundation as a participating group.

So now you can help fund more lawsuits against anti-gun governments and laws by using this page. Isn’t it fun to turn the tables on the gun prohibitionists?

Uncategorized

An Area In Which The NRA Excels

June 4, 2011 by

The legislative arena along with the concomitant lobbying is one of the areas in which the National Rifle Association really excels. The embedded letter below is evidence of their success.

The letter to President Barack Obama urges him to stop the stonewalling over Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). It was spearheaded by Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) who was one of the keynote speakers at the recent NRA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. The letter is signed by 31Congressional Democrats.

In an ideal world, the NRA would concentrate on training, the legislative arena, and other areas in which being a mass organization really helps and leave the court challenges to the Second Amendment Foundation. While the NRA does have good lawyers, it is the Second Amendment Foundation that has the agility, smarts, and legal expertise in Alan Gura to bring the strategic Second Amendment cases which will get the appellate wins.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. There are some in the NRA’s hierarchy who believe the NRA has to be the be-all and end-all of all things Second Amendment. The result so far has been a number of “me, too” cases, overly broad complaints, and poorly vetted plaintiffs as well as interference in the strategic civil rights litigation of the Second Amendment Foundation. It is time for the adults in the NRA to rein in those who seek organizational glory at the expense of the Second Amendment.

Project Gunrunner Letter to POTUS June 2011(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

June 2, 2011 by

From the amicus brief submitted to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peruta v. County of San Diego by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation.

An official’s personal views of someone’s suitability to enjoy constitutional rights, or of an individual’s moral virtue, simply cannot be factors in regulating the exercise of constitutional rights.

This was written by Alan Gura in response to the requirements of California Penal Code Section 12050 which states that an applicant for a concealed carry permit must show “good cause” and be of “good moral character”.

Uncategorized

In New Jersey, Some Justice Is Done

May 27, 2011 by

The Second Amendment Foundation sent out the following yesterday afternoon. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the state of New Jersey, Jeffrey Muller was finally granted a handgun carry permit by Judge David Ironson. Back in March, this same judge had denied it. I’m not sure what changed the judge’s mind but it is about damn time.

NJ JUDGE ISSUES PERMIT TO PLAINTIFF IN SAF LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, WA – A New Jersey judge today announced he will issue a gun permit to one of the plaintiffs in a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, because applicants cannot show a “justifiable need” for a permit.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said today this “clearly indicates that our lawsuit is proper, and we are encouraged to press our case to its conclusion.”

Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson announced after a hearing in his courtroom this morning that a permit will be issued to lead plaintiff Jeffrey Muller. His application had languished for six months before Judge Philip Maenza, a defendant in the federal lawsuit, denied the permit without a hearing on the grounds that Muller did not have a “justifiable need.” Muller had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who threatened to kill him, in a case of mistaken identity. Several suspects have been arrested in that case, and Muller’s application for a permit had gained support from local and state police.

“Finally,” Gottlieb said, “one judge has done the right thing, but it took a federal lawsuit to make it happen. Our other plaintiffs are pushing ahead with the lawsuit so we can put an end to this practice once and for all.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and several private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a “justifiable need.” One of the remaining plaintiffs is a part-time sheriff’s deputy, a second carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. They are represented by attorney David D. Jensen.

“We’re moving forward with this case,” Gottlieb stated, “because there are far too many people just like Jeff Muller whose civil rights have been cavalierly denied on the whims of a judge.”

Ian Argent has some comments on it here. As Ian lives in New Jersey, I think he has a better perspective than most.

Uncategorized

SAF And CalGuns Sue California Over “Assault Weapons” Arrest

May 23, 2011 by

This was just released by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundations:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California, seeking to have the state’s definition of so-called “assault weapons” declared unconstitutionally vague.

Joining SAF and Calguns in the lawsuit is Brendan John Richards, an Iraq combat veteran who served as a U.S. Marine, and whose arrest and six-day incarceration in the Sonoma County jail – and subsequent dismissal of all charges – was the catalyst for this legal action. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the City of Rohnert Park and police officer Dean Becker.

Richards was jailed in May 2010 after Officer Becker, investigating a disturbance at a motel where Richards was staying, learned that Richards had two pistols and a rifle, all unloaded, in the trunk of his car. Becker, arrested Richards for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. However, in September of last year, the charges were dismissed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office, based on a report from the state Department of Justice that showed none of the guns met the state’s definition of an assault weapon.

“California’s law allows possession of a variety of firearms that do not meet the state’s assault weapons definition, which we believe is unconstitutionally vague,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Mr. Richards was jailed for almost a week, when he had broken no law because a police officer had a conflicting view and the District Attorney’s office believed him.”

“California attempts to make a distinction among firearms where no natural one exists,” noted Calguns Executive Director Gene Hoffman. “The generic definition of so-called ‘assault weapons’ was simply an attempt to prohibit possession of guns that look scary.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Don Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo. Kilmer said the case is indicative of the way things have become in California.

“Now that the right to keep arms has correctly been recognized as fundamental and applicable to California,” Kilmer said, “gun owners can’t be faced with the practice of ‘arrest them first and let the courts sort it out’ for exercising constitutional rights. That is just how things are done in our country.”

Uncategorized

Moore v. Madigan – More Plaintiffs Added To Complaint

May 20, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation’s case challenging the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition on the carrying of a handgun for self-defense just added one organization plaintiff, IllinoisCarry, and two individual plaintiffs, Peggy Fechter of Carmi and Jon Maier of Bloomington.

Below is their release on the amended complaint. I am working on a post comparing the SAF and NRA lawsuits against Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the state of Illinois. I hope to have it up sometime this weekend.

SAF ADDS PLAINTIFFS IN ILLINOIS FIREARMS LAW CHALLENGE
For Immediate Release: 5/20/2011
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation announced this morning that it has filed an amended complaint in federal district court in Illinois, challenging the state’s statutory prohibitions on the carrying of handguns for personal protection.

Joining SAF in this amended complaint are Illinois Carry, a volunteer organization founded to educate the public about Illinois gun laws, and two more private citizens, Peggy Fechter of Carmi, and Jon Maier, a resident of Bloomington. Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy remain active plaintiffs.

Defendants in the lawsuit are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Hiram Grau. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen of New York and David Sigale of Glen Ellyn. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield.

The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense deprive the plaintiffs of civil rights under color of law, making them “inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb welcomed the additional plaintiffs, noting, “After the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, we were overwhelmed by requests to participate. We want to assure everyone who contacted us that they do not need to be actual plaintiffs in order to benefit from a victory.

“SAF truly appreciates the wave of enthusiasm and support from gun owners all over Illinois,” he continued. “But right now we need to move forward and if people would like to support our lawsuit with a tax-exempt contribution to SAF, we would welcome that. We simply cannot take on more plaintiffs at this point and further delay the process.”

Uncategorized

ISRA Says Anti-Gun Legislators Only Have Themselves To Blame For Lawsuits

May 17, 2011 by

The Illinois State Rifle Association release the following which notes that the failure to pass HB 148 robs the Illinois State Police of money needed to upgrade their background check system and is directly responsible for the lawsuits filed by the NRA, ISRA, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., May 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

Illinois gun control advocates and their allies in the General Assembly delivered a “triple-whammy” against public safety recently when they sabotaged passage of HB148.

Under the provisions of HB148, well-trained, well-qualified Illinois citizens would be permitted to carry defensive firearms to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals. At the same time, HB148 would have provided upwards of $40 million in permit fees to the Illinois State Police to pay for upgrades to the state’s antiquated gun buyer background check system.

But, thanks to the short-sighted efforts of the gun control movement and its friends in the Illinois House, tens of thousands of law-abiding Illinois citizens will continue to suffer at the hands of murderers, robbers and rapists because they cannot lawfully defend themselves. Likewise, the gun control movement can take credit for saddling the state police with a background check system based on software developed in 1959.

Rounding out the triple whammy-against the citizens of Illinois is the fact that the actions of gun control advocates are to blame for a pair of lawsuits filed this week in federal court against the State of Illinois. Both lawsuits – one filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the other filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the ISRA – contend that the state is damaging law-abiding citizens by prohibiting the carrying of defensive firearms.

In a nut shell, the gun control movement’s efforts the kill HB148 have ensured that Illinois remains one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States. In addition to causing the loss of $40 million for better background checks, the gun control movement is now responsible for Illinois having to shell out millions in taxpayer dollars to pay legal bills related to the SAF and NRA/ISRA lawsuits. Once again, the extremist views of the gun control movement are costing the good people of Illinois dearly.

“The ISRA is very excited about being a plaintiff in the NRA/ISRA lawsuit,” commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. “This lawsuit defines the cutting edge of one of the most important questions of the day. That is, does the state have the right to decide who is worth defending and who is not?”

“The fact that two lawsuits have been filed against the State of Illinois this week is proof-positive that this issue is not going to go away,” continued Pearson. “The behind the scenes political gamesmanship that resulted in the scuttling of HB148 has not diminished the resolve of the good people of Illinois. Whether it is in the courts, in the legislature, or at the ballot box, we will relentlessly push forward until the citizen’s right to self defense is restored in Illinois.”

The ISRA is the state’s leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For more than a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

Uncategorized

Moore v. Madigan: SAF Sues Illinois Over Ban On Carrying For Self-Defense

May 13, 2011 by

The lead plaintiff in the Second Amendment Foundation’s latest suit is Michael Moore. Of course it is not the oafish Hollywood director who is the plaintiff. Rather this Michael Moore is the Superintendent of the Champaign County (IL) Jail. Prior to this, Mr. Moore worked for 30 years as a sworn corrections officer and a deputy sheriff in Cook County. Because Mr. Moore switched from a sworn position to a civilian position, he is no longer allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense in public.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed their suit yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. By happenstance, the judge assigned to this case, Judge Sue Myersclough, is the same judge hearing the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s case, Mishaga v. Monken. The lead attorney for this case is David Jensen who is also the lead attorney is the SAF’s suit against the City of New York.

I will have an analysis of the case up after I get a chance to thoroughly read it.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in Illinois, challenging the state’s complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.

The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are “inconsistent with the Second Amendment.” Joining SAF are two private citizens, Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy. Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen and David Sigale. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

“Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The state legislature recently stopped, by a thin margin, a concealed carry measure. After the 2008 Heller ruling and last year’s McDonald ruling against the City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, one would think that Illinois lawmakers would act quickly to comply with court decisions and the constitution.”

“Illinois is the only state in the country that completely prohibits its citizens from carrying guns for self-defense,” Jensen added. “It is incredible that this situation has persisted even in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, and we look forward to vindicating the rights of the people of Illinois.”

The lawsuit insists this case is not an attempt to force Illinois into some regulatory scheme, but only to clarify that the state’s current regulatory ban on firearms carry is impermissible under the Second Amendment.

“Every other state has some kind of regulatory scenario,” Gottlieb noted. “Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal. Only Illinois makes it statutorily impossible for average private citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.

“Whether Illinois lawmakers like it or not,” he added, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. A complete prohibition simply does not pass constitutional muster. The state cannot stick it’s head in the sand and pretend this problem does not exist..”

Uncategorized

SAF Sues In Virginia Challenging

May 10, 2011 by

The Second Amendment Foundation released this information on the suit against Eric Holder and the head of the Virginia State Police around 4:45pm EDT.

If you listened to Tom Gresham’s GunTalk interview with Alan Gottlieb on May 1st, it becomes clear that Alan was telegraphing SAF’s next move. He discussed the implications of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s ruling in Dearth v. Holder in which the court said that a citizen couldn’t be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they didn’t have legal residence in a state. In that case, Mr. Dearth was a U.S. citizen living abroad and was precluded from buying a firearm because he didn’t have a state of residence. Alan said he thought the Dearth decision laid the groundwork for challenging that part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which required residency in a state.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District’s handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

“This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence.”

“Americans don’t check their constitutional rights at the state line,” said Gura. “And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled that District residents have an individual right, protected by the Constitution, to have a handgun in their home,” Gottlieb noted. “The high court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Existing state and federal statutes violate both the spirit and letter of recent court rulings and the Constitution, and our lawsuit seeks to remedy that situation.”

UPDATE: Here is a link to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is Lane et al v. Holder et al.

Uncategorized

SAF Sues Massachusetts On Gun Rights For Legal Resident Aliens

April 15, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation along with Commonwealth Second Amendment is suing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of their refusal to grant legal resident aliens the ability to obtain a Firearms ID Card or a License to Carry.

As was the case in two earlier suits involving legal resident aliens, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on shakey legal ground denying them permits. Laws that discriminate based on “alienage” are subject to strict scrutiny. I am a bit surprised that the ACLU of Massachusetts didn’t see fit to bring this case as they did in Kentucky and South Dakota. Here is a link to the Kentucky case for some background on how courts have dealt with denial of gun rights to legal resident aliens.

SAF SUES OVER MASSACHUSETTS GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that denies legal resident aliens the licenses required to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, or purchase any kind of firearm.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Massachusetts grassroots organization, and two British citizens who reside in the commonwealth. They are represented by attorney Joseph M. Hickson III of Springfield. Defendants are Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, Northboro Police Chief Mark k. Leahy and Jason A. Guida, director of the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea.

The lawsuit alleges that Christopher M. Fletcher of Cambridge and Eoin M. Pryal of Northboro – both legal resident aliens – have been specifically denied the ability to obtain a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry of any kind. Before moving to Massachusetts, Fletcher lived in California, where he had a Basic Firearms Safety certificate and Handgun Safety certificate, which allowed him to purchase and own firearms including handguns. Pryal, who is married to a citizen of this country, and had a shotgun certificate and international dealer’s license while living in the United Kingdom.

“One of the fundamental principles in this country is that people have rights,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Among those rights is the right of self-defense, especially in one’s own home. Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal live here legally, they have been firearms owners, they are productive members of the community, yet they are being denied a basic right by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is wrong and our court challenge aims to correct that.”

“This lawsuit truly illustrates the contradictory and irrational nature of the Commonwealths’ firearms laws,” Comm2A President Brent Carlton added. “Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has broadly supported the immigrant community and noted our dependence on them for our continued prosperity while Massachusetts law treats those same individuals as inherently dangerous enough to justify their exclusion from certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This blanket prohibition runs contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and today’s challenge is supported overwhelmingly by well-established legal precedent.”

The Second Amendment Foundation has posted a copy of the complaint in Fletcher et al v. Haas et al here.