California

Uncategorized

Injunction Sought In California “Assault Weapon” Registration Lawsuit

August 15, 2018 by

As I reported about a month ago, a coalition of California gun rights groups, the SAF, and individual plaintiffs sued Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and the California DOJ over their computer system failures which made timely registration of “assault weapons” impossible. This coalition has now added four more plaintiffs in an amended complaint and is moving for a preliminary injunction.

More details are in the release sent out this afternoon. You would think that in California of all places that you could find competent IT professionals who could get a registration system not to crash. I guess not.


BREAKING: Gun Owners, Civil Rights Groups Seek Injunction in California “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his DOJ botched
the “assault weapon” registration program, putting thousands of gun
owners at risk of felony charges. Gun owners and civil rights advocates
are crying foul – and taking them to court.


SACRAMENTO, CA
(August 15, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and four
Second Amendment advocacy organizations announced today that they have
filed an amended complaint and a new motion seeking a preliminary injunction in the civil rights lawsuit Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al. over
the California Department of Justice’s failures surrounding the ‘bullet
button assault weapon’ registration program. A copy of the court
filings can be viewed or downloaded online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp. 

The amended complaint added as plaintiffs four additional gun owners
who were denied their rights by the DOJ, and also added the DOJ’s Chief
of the California Justice Information Services Division, Joe Dominic, as
a defendant. The motion seeks to enjoin sections of the Penal Code
relating to so-called “assault weapons,” including provisions that
subject the possession or transportation of such firearms to serious
criminal liability, including potential felony imprisonment and property
seizure, “throughout the pendency of this case, or until” the
plaintiffs and gun owners like them “have had a reasonable opportunity,
as determined by the Court, to register the qualifying firearms through a
functional registration system.” 

The plaintiffs argue that the DOJ had a legal duty to provide a
functional registration system throughout the registration period, but
that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due
to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to
the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s
CFARS-based registration system.” Because of that, the plaintiffs argue,
the State violated their civil rights protected under the state and
federal constitutions and denied them their statutory right to register
their firearms to avail themselves of legal protections against harsh
criminal laws. 

“[As we argue in our motion], this is about the injustice of forcing
people to comply with a law, and then depriving them of the means to do
so,” said attorney George Lee, lead counsel on the case. “It is simply
unconscionable that the Attorney General would even think about
enforcing a law where his Department’s own failures led to many people’s
inability to register their firearms in the first place.” 

In a declaration filed
with the court, the plaintiffs’ technical expert said that “it is very
clear” the problems experienced by the plaintiffs and others across the
state “were caused by either the DOJ’s CFARS servers being overloaded
and/or possibly by one of the State of California datacenters itself
being unavailable due to network routing or overload issues.” 

“This is fundamentally a simple lawsuit about a troubling issue.
Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ had one job to do: Provide a
functional system for gun owners to use in registering their eligible
firearms. But instead of doing their jobs, they created a huge new mess
for law enforcement and put innocent people and lawfully-owned property
at serious risk,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon
Combs. 

“This unjust California government-created problem must be stopped
immediately,” commented Second Amendment Foundation Founder and
Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb. “Gun owners should not be put
at risk due to state regulatory incompetence.” 

“The bottom line is that California cannot have it both ways. If the
state is going to require registration of firearms, it cannot make that
process illusory and set people up for confiscation of their property,”
said Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “Here, Becerra
and DOJ failed to perform their duties, failed gun owners, failed the
Legislature and Governor Brown, and failed the people of the State of
California.” 

Elaborating on the case, Combs explained, “Because of Becerra’s and
DOJ’s disastrous, incompetent, and possibly malicious handling of one
simple task, now thousands of gun owners are at risk of having their
guns seized or destroyed, or going to jail, simply for driving to the
gun range with a firearm that they legally acquired years ago.” 

“It is beyond clear that Attorney General Becerra is so distracted by
federal issues and President Trump that he’s completely forgotten to
fairly and properly enforce the laws of his own state – and to protect
the civil rights of innocent people first and foremost,” Combs said. 

“These plaintiffs and others like them should not have to face a
district attorney or jury in a criminal trial because Attorney General
Becerra and DOJ set them up from day one,” said Jonathan Jensen,
vice-president of Firearms Policy Foundation. 

The civil rights lawsuit is supported by The Calguns Foundation
(CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition
(FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). The plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San
Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and
prosecutor. 

Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault
weapons” before July 1 but were unable to, or who suffered a privacy
breach at DOJ, should contact the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline
immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or by telephone at 855-252-4510. 

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org)
is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to
defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the
fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,
through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach. 

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to
defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights,
privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right
to keep and bear arms. 

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members,
supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial
efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. 

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 650,000 members and supporters and
conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the
consequences of gun control.

Uncategorized

California Sued By Coalition Of Gun Rights Groups Over AWB Registration Disasters

July 12, 2018 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Firearms Policy Foundation have come together to sue the California Department of Justice, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and the head of the California Bureau of Firearms. Their complaint, filed in Shasta County Superior Court, is a constitutional challenge to the bullet button registration system and a writ of mandamus requiring the state to allow people to register as required under state law. That last bit might sound confusing but people had until July 1st to register their bullet buttons. The only problem is that many people were not able to do so because the system crashed. It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.

From their joint release:

The lawsuit argues that DOJ’s “bullet-button assault weapon” registration system was defective, often “crashing” completely, and the various failures prevented many gun owners from complying with the laws—potentially turning people into felons overnight.

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 11, 2018) — Today, attorneys for three gun owners and four civil rights organizations filed a new lawsuit and petition for writ of mandate that claims California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his Department of Justice (DOJ) violated their civil rights protected under the state and federal constitutions. A copy of the complaint can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp.

The lawsuit, captioned Harry Sharp, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., is supported by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Acting Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms, Brent E. Orick, and the California Department of Justice itself. The plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate, as well as Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and prosecutor.

“Many people, including our clients, did everything they could to comply with the law and avoid criminal liability,” commented Lee. “They used updated web browsers, hardware, different devices, and even did internet speed tests to make sure it wasn’t a problem on their end. The DOJ’s crashed system is a reflection of their cascading failures to build a system and allow people to register their guns before July 1 if that’s what they wanted to do.”

The complaint says the plaintiffs “seek an un-extraordinary result, compelled by the basic tenets of due process: That they simply be allowed to register their eligible firearms and comply with the law, and that the Attorney General, the DOJ, and their officers and agents similarly comply with the law by allowing such registrations and ensuring they are properly and timely processed through a functioning online database as they have been required by statute to do.”

Under California’s voluminous gun control laws, someone merely transporting an unregistered “assault weapon” to the shooting range – even if one believes it was legal and registered under other DOJ systems, like DROS – “is guilty of a felony” and possibly subject to a prison sentence of “four, six, or eight years.” Other crimes can be added on to that, including common separate charges like possession and manufacturing.

“Attorney General Xavier Becerra seems to care about everything but the constitution, the rule of law, and law-abiding California gun owners,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “If Becerra spent as much time doing his job as he does talking about his pet crusades against the federal government, hundreds of thousands of Californians would not be in legal jeopardy right now.”

“We’re suing because California DOJ’s Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS) broke down during the deadline week for people to register their firearms in accordance with new state laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For a whole week the system was largely inaccessible, so people who wanted to comply with the law simply couldn’t and now they face becoming criminals because they couldn’t do what the law requires.”

“Predictably the state of California wants to take guns away from the law abiding. In this instance they couldn’t even build a working system to respect gun owners’ rights,” explained CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “We simply want to allow those who want to comply with the law to have more time with a working registration system.”

“It’s like a bad version of ‘Catch-22’,” Gottlieb observed. “The government required registration by the deadline, but the online registration failed and people couldn’t register. They’re required to obey the law, but the system broke down, making it impossible to obey the law. Now these people face the possibility of being prosecuted. We simply cannot abide that kind of incompetence.”

“Once again, the DOJ and Attorney General Becerra unlawfully and unconstitutionally moved the goal posts on peaceful, law-abiding gun owners,” observed FPF Vice President Jonathan Jensen. “Their failures should not result in people going to prison and losing their property.”

Combs noted that the case is not an endorsement of firearm registration, which carries its own risks, as many news reports have shown.

“Gun owners had a right to decide how they would approach these serious legal issues,” explained Combs. “Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ denied gun owners the opportunity to exercise their rights and make an informed choice, forcing them into the sights of fascist, hyper-aggressive special agents who kick in doors and put gun owners in jail. That’s completely unacceptable and totally deplorable.”

Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault weapons” before July 1 but were unable to should contact the Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or by telephone at 855-252-4510.

Uncategorized

California AG Becerra And Cal DOJ Served With Petition By Firearms Policy Coalition

May 24, 2018 by 1 Comment

I’ll say right off the bat that I don’t understand policies and procedures in California. While it is a beautiful state with bad roads and even worse gun laws, their legal and administrative procedures are a bit of a mystery to me. When I received the notice below from the Firearms Policy Coalition, I wondered why a petition with signatures was being served on the attorney general. After I started to read the petition – written by a North Carolina lawyer no less! – I started to understand that citizens and groups in California use petitions to put government officials on legal notice about their action. In this case, it has to do with underground and unpublished firearms regulations that the California Court of Appeals had enjoined AG Xavier Becerra (D-CA) from enforcing.

You can read the release along with the link to the petition below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (May 23, 2018) — Today, civil rights
advocates at Firearms Policy Coalition have
issued the following statement:
 
Recently, Attorney General Becerra said, “Here in
California, we respect the Constitution and follow the law.”
But neither is true. 
 
This morning, our Legislative Advocate, Craig DeLuz, served
on California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his
Department of Justice a petition challenging their illegal
underground regulation. This petition was also sent to
the Office of Administrative Law, the state’s regulatory
watchdog agency.
 
In spite of an unanimously-decided Court of Appeal
published opinion issued in February, and a permanent
injunction issued weeks ago, Becerra’s DOJ continues to
promulgate and enforce that same illegal underground
regulation. Their stunning and troubling disregard for lawful
court orders is contrary to the rule of law. 
 
Becerra’s weaponized Department of Justice regularly
attacks the fundamental rights and property of law-abiding gun
owners in law enforcement actions, their lobbying of the
Legislature, and litigation. 
 
Indeed, Becerra and his army of anti-gun DOJ lawyers and
special agents ignore the text of the Constitution and
California’s statutes, forcing their anti-gun agenda on
millions of people—the law and civil rights be damned.
 
Becerra also recently said that, “in California, we believe
our communities are safest when we have trust between our law
enforcement & the communities they serve.” But such trust
is impossible, and undeserved, when the state’s top law
enforcement officer shows a total lack of regard for the
People, their rights, and the laws he has a duty to follow and
enforce fairly. 
 
If Attorney General Becerra and the Department of Justice
want to build trust and be respected, they should start by
being trust-worthy and giving respect to law-abiding gun
owners and their fundamental, individual right to keep and
bear arms.
Uncategorized

The Supreme Court Continues To Be A Doormat

February 21, 2018 by 2 Comments

In the usual course of events, when the Supreme Court issues definitive rulings on an area of constitutional law, it fully expects lower courts to abide by their ruling. If these lower courts don’t, they get slapped down for their impertinence. However, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court in the post-McDonald era has allowed lower courts to treat it like a doormat. Their submissive posture in the face of decisions coming out of especially the 4th and 9th Circuits that ignore Heller and McDonald is, to be blunt, nauseating. The only justice that seems to have a spine and recognizes the danger to the powers of the court is Justice Clarence Thomas.

I write this as a prelude to the announcement today that the Supreme Court decided to deny certiorari in Silvester et al v. Becerra et al. It was on appeal from the 9th Circuit which found the 10-day waiting period for those with a California CCW, a California Certificate of Eligibility, or already had firearms registered to them had a valid government purpose. While supposedly deciding it on intermediate scrutiny, it was in fact decided on a rational basis. The problem with that is that rational basis cannot be used when it comes to an enumerated right. This case was originally a win in the District Court but reversed by 9th Circuit.

Justice Thomas noted in his 14 page dissent that:

This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-
basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’
general failure to afford the Second Amendment the re-
spect due an enumerated constitutional right.

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I
have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as
evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the
Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of
choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth
insisting upon,” Heller, supra, at 634, I would have granted
certiorari in this case.

He concluded his dissent by saying:

Nearly eight years ago, this Court declared that the
Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to
an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of

Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). By refusing to review decisions like the one

below, we undermine that declaration. Because I still
believe that the Second Amendment cannot be “singled out
for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,” id., at
778–779 (majority opinion), I respectfully dissent from the
denial of certiorari.

I don’t know if any other justices voted to grant certiori but I do know that there weren’t the required four votes. Decisions like that go to illustrate just how much we miss the late Justice Scalia and his leadership.

The Calguns Foundation which supported this lawsuit along with the Second Amendment Foundation issued the following statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 20, 2017)­­­­­­ — The Calguns Foundation has issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to not review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for existing gun owners who pass a background check:

We are disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that the Court has once again decided against taking up a Second Amendment challenge to plainly unconstitutional laws.

In his important 14-page dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas detailed why the Ninth Circuit applied an improper “deferential analysis” that was “indistinguishable from rational-basis review,” showing “the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”

We agree with Justice Thomas that the Ninth Circuit’s “double standard is apparent from other cases,” like one where it invalidated an Arizona law partly because it “delayed” women seeking an abortion, and another where it struck down a Washington county’s 5-day waiting period for adult dancing licenses because it “unreasonably prevent[ed] a dancer from exercising first amendment rights while an application [was] pending.”

As Justice Thomas explained, the “Ninth Circuit would not have done this for any other constitutional right, and it could not have done this unless it was applying rational-basis review.” He is, of course, correct—just as we have maintained throughout the course of this appeal and in our briefing to the Supreme Court. But in the Ninth Circuit, it appears, “rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text.”

From the bottom of our hearts, we wish to thank every single supporter who generously helped us litigate this long-running case through trial and up to the Supreme Court. We also want to thank amici Cato Institute, Crime Prevention Research Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, Madison Society Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Firearms Policy Foundation for their excellent briefs in support of our case and the cause of individual liberty.

The Calguns Foundation will continue to challenge unconstitutional gun control laws until the Second Amendment takes its place as a peer among fundamental rights, like those in the First Amendment, rather than the “constitutional orphan” and “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” that it is in the Ninth Circuit today.

Uncategorized

A Nice Win For Gun Rights In A California Appeals Court

February 9, 2018 by 1 Comment

Prior to a letter sent out by the California Department of Justice in 2014, holders of Curios and Relics Federal Firearm Licenses who also had a certificate of eligibility were exempt from the one handgun a month rule. That changed when the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms issued a letter to all dealers in California that said, in effect, that C&R FFLs would not exempt holders from the one handgun a month rule with regards to modern handguns. The Calguns Foundation and Cal-FFL brought suit in 2014 challenging this as a violation of the state’s Adminstrative Procedures Act, contradicted the plain language of Sec. 27535, and ignored the legislative history of the one handgun a month law. The case sought a preliminary injunction in California Superior Court.

The trial court found that the Bureau of Firearm’s interpretation of the law was “the only legally tenable interpretation of Sec. 27535” and granted the DOJ’s motion of summary judgement. The case was appealed to the California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District which today overturned the trial court.

From the court’s opinion:

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the interpretation DOJ announced in 2014 is void
because (1) it is inconsistent with section 27535 and (2) it was not adopted in compliance
with the APA. We agree with plaintiffs and address their arguments in reverse order.
Regarding their second argument, we conclude DOJ’s policy is not exempt from being
promulgated under the APA because it does not embody “the only legally tenable
interpretation” of the statute. (Gov. Code, § 11340.9, subd. (f).) Having decided that
DOJ’s 2014 interpretation of section 27535 is void for failure to comply with the APA,
we resolve any ambiguity regarding the proper construction of the statute and construe it

as allowing individuals with the designated federal license, and certificate of eligibility,
to purchase more than one handgun within 30 days regardless of the type of handgun
being purchased. In doing so, we agree with plaintiffs’ first argument as well. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Calguns and Cal-FFL released this statement on their win today:

SACRAMENTO, CA (February 8, 2018)­­­­­­ – In a published decision issued today, California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal has issued an important new ruling striking down an illegal California Department of Justice (DOJ) gun control enforcement policy on multiple grounds. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision can be viewed at www.calgunsfoundation.org/doe.

The lawsuit, filed in 2014, was brought by two individuals after the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms sent a letter notifying firearms dealers in the state of a new enforcement policy that prevents Californians who hold both a federal firearms license and a state Certificate of Eligibility, or “COE”, from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period. After nearly two years of litigation, and in spite of both the requirements of the State’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and legal precedents on how to interpret statutes, the Sacramento Superior Court upheld the DOJ’s policy. But the Court of Appeal ultimately found that the policy was illegal, agreeing with the plaintiffs on both counts.

“This decision stands for the proposition that Attorney General Becerra and his Department of Justice are not above the law,” explained Brandon Combs, executive director for The Calguns Foundation. “They can’t simply make up the law as they go, without following the rules or having a legal basis in the statutes. The DOJ fabricated and enforced an illegal policy and we put an end to it with this case.”

Combs added that the decision is important for other issues as well, especially because it is citable as precedent. “Today’s decision is perhaps even more important because of the state’s new ammunition and assault weapon laws. Attorney General Becerra has been doing similar things in other areas of state law, and we are eager to show that, like their illegal policy here, those also must be enjoined and struck down.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Benbrook of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group hailed the decision. “We are gratified that the court affirmed the important principle that the State can’t take shortcuts when it tries to regulate citizens,” commented Benbrook. “It has to follow the rules.”

Doe, et al. v. Attorney Genera Xavier Becerra, et al. was supported by two California-based civil rights advocacy organizations: The Calguns Foundation, which focuses on legal efforts to protect individuals’ gun rights, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearms industry group.

The Calguns Foundation is participating in a lawsuit challenging the DOJ’s “bullet button assault weapons” regulations on similar grounds. More information about that case can be found at http://bit.ly/cgf-holt.

While the golden age of cheap surplus weapons may be over, the Curios and Relics FFL is still valuable. The rule of the Court of Appeals today in California affirms that.

Uncategorized

SHOT Show 2018: Weatherby Says Goodbye California, Hello Wyoming

January 25, 2018 by 4 Comments

Weatherby, the epitome of the SoCal style of hunting rifles, announced on Tuesday that they will be relocating their operations from Paso Robles, California to Sheridan, Wyoming. The announcement was made by Adam Weatherby, the grandson of founder Roy Weatherby, who was accompanied in the event by his father Ed and Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming. Gov. Mead was presented with a 70th Anniversary Mark V rifle by the Weatherbys in recognition of his efforts to bring their company to Wyoming.

Photo by John Richardson

The new headquarters and plant is expected to open in 2019. However, a quick glance at Weatherby’s website shows that they are hiring some critical staff as of Summer 2018. These positions include VP of Sales and Marketing, Sales Manager, Marketing Manager, Director of Production Management, and Controller.

The Firearm Blog reports Adam Weatherby as saying the move was based on the incentives from the State of Wyoming and the desire for “more freedom to develop new products without onerous legal restrictions.”

The Wyoming Business Council released this statement about the move:

Firearms manufacturer Weatherby, Inc., is relocating its manufacturing operations and corporate headquarters from California to Sheridan, Wyoming, company officials announced today from SHOT Show in Las Vegas, the world’s largest annual shooting, hunting and firearms industry trade show.

The move is expected to create 70 to 90 jobs and more than $5 million annually in payroll in the next five years.

Outdoor recreation is an economic driver in Wyoming, and manufacturing plays a vital role in any economy, according to Shawn Reese, chief executive officer of the Wyoming Business Council.

“So, to bring those two things together – an internationally-known manufacturer of outdoor equipment headquartered in Wyoming – it will pay dividends, not only to Sheridan and northeast Wyoming, but this is a project of which the entire state should be proud,” Reese said.

Wyoming wooed the renowned gunmaker with its expansive access to unrivaled big game hunting, low taxes, industry-friendly environment, Sheridan College’s workforce training program and a comprehensive incentives package.

“We wanted a place where we could retain a great workforce, and where our employees could live an outdoor lifestyle,” said Adam Weatherby, chief executive officer. “We wanted to move to a state where we can grow into our brand. Wyoming means new opportunities. We are not interested in maintaining; we are growing.”

Governor Matt Mead and the Wyoming Business Council, the state’s economic development agency, began recruiting Weatherby a year ago.

“Wyoming is a great place to do business and is excited to welcome Weatherby to Sheridan,” Mead said. “For over 70 years, Weatherby has been an innovator in firearms design and manufacturing. The company will add to our manufacturing base and fit well with our diversification objectives.

“I thank the Wyoming Business Council, the Sheridan Economic and Education Development Authority, and all who helped bring Weatherby, Inc. to Wyoming.”

Weatherby called Mead’s enthusiastic support and accessibility a major asset for a company operating in a highly-regulated industry.

“From the get go, when we met the governor, he said, ‘Here’s my number, shoot me a text any time,’” Weatherby said. “He responds to our needs quickly, and it shows a business like ours is important to Wyoming and that it’s a big deal here.”

Business Council staff took Weatherby officials on tours of potential sites for their facility around the state following the initial conversations.

Sheridan stood out to Weatherby executives because of its access to both the outdoors and a skilled workforce.

“There are a lot of great places in Wyoming, but Sheridan stood out as a New West community that’s progressive and growing, with a vibrant downtown in the shadow of the Bighorns and a mild climate,” Weatherby said. “Sheridan College, which is growing its manufacturing and machine tool program, was also a deciding factor.”

Sheridan College President Dr. Paul Young called Weatherby’s recruitment an example of the work it will take to diversify Wyoming’s economy.

“This is the direct result of years and years of visioning, planning and strategically investing in the things that matter for the future of our region,” Young said. “With the help of Whitney Benefits and others, we have been strengthening and growing our technical programs for this very reason, and we will continue to provide opportunities for students to learn valuable skills to secure a solid future.”

The Business Council worked with the Sheridan Economic and Education Development Authority (SEEDA) Joint Powers board to develop a $12.6 million grant package. SEEDA committed $2,283,074 in local match funds, of which $322,874 is cash. The other $1,960,200 is in-kind match for Lot 1 in the Sheridan High-Tech Business Park. The joint powers board will use the money to build a 100,000 square-foot building in the Sheridan High-Tech Business Park. SEEDA will own the facility and lease it to Weatherby.

Weatherby will invest an estimated $2 million in relocation expenses and cover all capital investment in the building and lot over the life of the 20-year lease, which is expected to be well over $4 million.

“We’re extremely excited to have this internationally recognized company choose Sheridan as their new corporate headquarters,” Sheridan Mayor Roger Miller said. “This relocation will translate to more skilled manufacturing jobs, an increased tax base and important economic diversification for our community and the region.”

Founded in 1945 by Adam Weatherby’s grandfather, Roy Weatherby, the family-owned and operated business has built a brand synonymous with quality craftmanship, a superior fit and finish and ballistic superiority.

The importance of family underlies much of Weatherby’s ethos.

“Our product is the main tool hunters use out in field. They may spend a lifetime trying to draw a tag or save for the hunt of their dreams, and we keep that foremost in our minds when we are building our guns,” Weatherby said. “This is an aspiration product; these are guns that are passed down from generation to generation.”

In my opinion the business climate in California for all businesses, not just those in the firearms industry, is getting more and more onerous. Currently, there is a proposal before the California Assembly to increase corporate taxes for all companies with more than $1 million in revenues. This is a move by California Democrats to capture the monies from the reduction in Federal corporate taxes passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. If you intend to encourage businesses to leave your state, this is how you do it.

Uncategorized

Injunction Sought Against California Assault Weapons Law

January 4, 2018 by

The attorneys for five individual plaintiffs and four institutional plaintiffs (SAF, Calguns, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Firearms Policy Foundation) filed for an injunction today in the case of Holt et al v. Becerra. The case is filed in California Superior Court for Riverside County. The filings today also added another individual plaintiff – Craig Stevens. SFC Stevens is an active duty member of the California Army National Guard and is currently deployed to the Middle East.

The joint press release on the filing is below:

RIVERSIDE, CA (January 3, 2018) — Attorneys for 5 California gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.”

In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.”

Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.”

Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm. “The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says.

About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others – and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.”

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF).

A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra.

CASE BACKGROUND:

In July 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The bills were universally opposed by civil rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and others.

“The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time.

Following that, in December 2016, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

However, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period, after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters.

Then, in May of last year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to the public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later.

Next, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. Inexplicably, this time the OAL approved the regulations, shuttling them along for publication through the Secretary of State in July 2017 and thus allowing the DOJ to proceed with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process.

Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving 2017 holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of attempting to retroactively bootstrap its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions.

FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations.

A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, Rick Russell, and Craig Stevens are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Uncategorized

California Sued Over New AWB Regulations

December 1, 2017 by

A coalition of gun rights organizations plus three individual plaintiffs have sued California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the California Department of Justice over newly adopted regulations concerning the assault weapons ban on bullet buttons. The suit was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.

The CalGuns Foundation has this summary of the case:

Summary: Holt, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is a constitutional, statutory, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the DOJ’s “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations. The DOJ’s regulations expose people to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.
Individual Plaintiffs/Petitioners: George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, and Rick Russell are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. 
Institutional Plaintiffs/Petitioners: Firearms Policy Coalition; Firearms Policy Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; Second Amendment Foundation
Defendants: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California; Stephen J. Lindley, Chief of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms; the California Department of Justice; Debra N. Cornez, Director of the Office of Administrative Law; Betty T. Yee, California State Controller; Does 1-50,
Litigation Counsel: George M. Lee; Douglas A. Applegate; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe

The complaint can be found here.

The institutional plaintiffs – SAF, CalGuns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Firearms Policy Foundation – released a joint statement on the lawsuit.

Gun Owners & Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge to California’s “Assault Weapon” Regulations

The lawsuit argues that the State’s “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations are largely unlawful, should have been subject to the Administrative Procedure Act process, waste taxpayer dollars, and should not be allowed to stand.

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 30, 2017) — Today, attorneys for four individual gun owners as well as advocacy organizations The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed a new lawsuit and petition for writ of mandate that challenges more than a dozen new “assault weapon” regulations ramrodded into effect by the State of California’s Department of Justice (DOJ).

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

Plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee said that the lawsuit was focused on protecting law-abiding people from illegal regulatory and enforcement actions.

“By making and enforcing unlawful rules, and going around the rules to do it, the DOJ is putting tens if not hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people at risk of serious criminal liability,” said Lee. “This case seeks to make the DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

“The DOJ is acting like an out-of-control bullet train that’s running off the rails,” said plaintiffs’ attorney and former Deputy Attorney General Raymond DiGuiseppe. “Our plaintiffs want to get the State’s agencies back on the tracks and following the law.”

CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman notes, “The DOJ has used every trick in the book to avoid good faith rulemaking action, and we cannot allow that to go unchallenged. California laws are bad enough without piling on unlawful and harmful regulations, so we seek here to restore the rule of law—and some sanity.”

“The government agencies responsible for enforcing the law must also follow the law,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “This case is an important step in protecting law-abiding gun owners from an out-of-control regulatory state.”

“The DOJ is playing a dangerous game with the law, and it needs to stop,” observed FPF Vice President Jonathan Jensen. “Tens of thousands of people could face potential felonies in just a handful of months, and meanwhile the DOJ has moved the goalposts with the registration clock ticking.”

“The State of California is nothing short of bipolar with its gun control policies,” commented FPC President Brandon Combs. “On one hand, the State is requiring people to register virtually all of their guns. On the other hand, the DOJ is doing everything it can to suppress compliance and prevent people from registering their guns.”

A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra.

CASE BACKGROUND:

Last July, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time.

Following that, last December, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

However, DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters.

Then, in May of this year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later.

Following that, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. The OAL approved those regulations in July, allowing the DOJ to go forward with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process.

Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of bootstrapping its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions.

FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations.

A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, and Rick Russell are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Uncategorized

Restricting Public Data To Ideological Allies In California

September 21, 2017 by

To put things into perspective, imagine if Congress or any state legislature passed a bill stating that all the key research data on abortions would, by law, be given to researchers with the National Right-To-Life Committee and that any other requests for this same public health data would be approved only at the discretion of the White House. Do you think the media would jump on the issue with both feet? Moreover, how quickly would lawsuits be filed seeking injunctions by groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Rights Action League?

That is essentially the case in California with a bill (SB 536) sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk concerning the data about gun violence restraining orders. It automatically is available to well-known anti-gun researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute and his Gun Violence Research Center. All other requests for this same research data would be at the discretion of the California Department of Justice. This is the same DOJ that was headed by virulently anti-gun rights Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-CA) and is now headed by equally anti-gun rights Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA).

Does anyone think this DOJ would allow the data to go to Dr. John Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center?

Gun rights activists in California are rightly upset and wary of this bill. They are asking Gov. Brown to veto the bill. The release from the Firearms Policy Coalition on the bill is below:

Bill Promoting Unequal Access to Public Data is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s Desk

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 20, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking Governor Jerry Brown to veto Senate Bill 536, a measure which provides unequal access to data for the
purpose of researching Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO).

SB 536, by Senator Richard Pan (D – Sacramento), requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make information relating to GVROs that is maintained in the California Restraining and
Protective Order System or any similar database available to researchers affiliated with the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center. It does not, however, require DOJ to make the same data available to other organizations for the purpose
of research.

“While we do appreciate a passing thought given to others whose research may benefit from this data, to state that such access is ‘…at the discretion of the department…’ places all
other requestors at a significant disadvantage,” said Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“This allows the DOJ to pick favorites with sensitive data that is needed to hold the research center accountable.”

The Gun Violence Research Center at UC Davis was created in 2016 by legislation that amounted to a sole source contract with Dr. Garen Wintemute, a gun control advocate who has been
producing anti-gun research for decades. Under SB 536 that same biased researcher will have unfettered access to key research data, while others will be required to get special approval from DOJ.

“This measure ensures that only those that are ideological similar are going to have access to the data that supports this publicly funded research,” notes DeLuz. “If public data,
collected by public employees, using public tax dollars to study a public policy is to be made available to anyone, it should be public.”

SB 536 is now on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, awaiting his signature or veto.

Uncategorized

Resolution Against Civil Rights In California

August 31, 2017 by 1 Comment

First, it was about guns for Native Americans. Then, it was to prevent Latinos and Chinese from obtaining firearms. Now, it is about carry for the rest of us. I won’t begin to even mention the Berkeley police standing down and letting domestic terrorists (Antifa) beat free speech advocates.

That’s a nice record you got going there California.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition on a new Assembly resolution that would oppose national carry reciprocity:

SACRAMENTO, CA (August 28, 2017) — Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) is asking the California State Legislature once again express their contempt for civil rights with the introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 24.

AJR 24 voices the Legislature’s opposition to current efforts in congress to pass “concealed carry reciprocity” legislation (S. 446 and H.R. 38) and any other similar legislation because it would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses of other states, creating equity for all when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to bear arms.

“This is not the first time the California Legislature has expressed their complete and utter disregard civil rights” stated Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “California has a long and tortured history with using gun laws to pick winners and losers instead of supporting equality and civil rights for all.”

The first gun control law passed in California, AB 80 was enacted in 1854. It was, “An Act to prevent the sale of firearms and ammunition to the Indians in this State.” In 1924 the Hawes Act was enacted to prevent Hispanics and Chinese from obtaining firearms. It also modified California’s concealed carry permit program to allow local law enforcement to subjectively discriminate in the issuance of permits under the guise of “discretion”, a practice that continues to this day.

Under California law, even if a law abiding resident passes thorough federal, state and local background checks, successfully completes specified training, which includes the law relating to use of force, and demonstrates competency with their firearm, they can still be turned down by the local sheriff or police chief for absolutely no objective reason at all.

Then there was the Mulford Act of 1967, which banned the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. This measure was meant to disarm civil rights activists groups like the Black Panthers.

“Gun control in California has always seemed to be about keeping unfavored groups of people from owning, possessing or bearing firearms”, said DeLuz. “ In AJR 24, the unfavored group of people are those who visit here from states that actually respect the second amendment rights of their residents.”

AJR 24 has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where FPC plans to vigorously oppose it. “California is not an island and needs to respect the rights of all Americans.” said DeLuz, “We understand that they don’t respect the rights of their own residents. But now they want to export their discriminatory policies to all 50 states.”

No hearing date has been set for either the Congressional bills or AJR 24.