California

Uncategorized

Gunpocalypse In California

May 16, 2016 by

A gunpocalypse will hit the California legislature this morning. A total of 10 bills will go to the Senate Appropriations Committee that seriously impact gun rights in California. These bills range from banning the bullet button and funding gun prohibition research at the University of California to setting up a database of ammunition buyers and confiscation of standard capacity magazines.

The California legislature obviously feels it is better to deal with these type of issues as a smokescreen to hide their inability to deal with their horrendous budget issues. Smoke and mirrors is a Hollywood tradition that the sponsors of these bills have learned well.

The Firearms Policy Coalition issued a release that lists each bill by number along with what it does. They have a page of their website that allows you to send a message on each bill. If you live in California, call your legislator. I hope you’ve already done it.

Second Amendment Advocates Fight Largest Gun Bill Hearing of the Year

SACRAMENTO – Monday, May 16th 10 anti-gun bills will be fast-tracked through the California State Senate Appropriations Committee. The hearing agenda includes four Assembly bills that were gutted and amended a week earlier in an effort by Democrats to avoid a full vetting by legislators. And even more outrageous is that three of those measures will meet their evil twins (Senate Bills containing the exact same language) and be voted on at the same time. “The only way to describe this full-on assault on gun owners’ civil rights is to call it what it is – Gunpocalypse”, stated Craig DeLuz, Legislative Advocate for the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Democrats have given up on any illusion of respect for the process or the voice of the people”, said DeLuz. “The saddest part is that they are clearly doing this as a political ploy to undermine Gavin Newsom’s initiative on the fall ballot. It’s a battle royale to prove who’s more anti-gun-owner.”

Bills to be heard include:

• SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.

• SB 894 (Jackson): Victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.

• SB 1006 (Wolk): University of California taxpayer funding for gun control research.

• SB 1235 (Deleon): Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.

• SB 1407 (Deleon): Retroactively requires serial numbers to be placed on firearms dating back to 1899.

• SB 1446 (Hancock): Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.

• AB 156 (McCarty): Formerly dealt with global warming, but is now the same as SB 1235.

• AB 857 (Cooper): Formerly addressed greenhouse gasses, but is now the same as SB 1407.

• AB 1135 (Levine): Formerly centered around groundwater but is now the same as SB 880.

• AB 1511 (Santiago): Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including sportsmen and hunters.

UPDATE: Here is an email sent out by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms which includes the phone numbers of the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Call them.


Your Urgent Action in California
Needed! 




The
gun grabbers in California are on the attack again.

On
Monday, May 16th, a critical State Senate committee will be
hearing 10 extreme gun control bills. We must stop them
dead in their tracks

If these bills pass, they’re one
step CLOSER to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.

We
can’t let that happen!

The bills up in committee
include a BAN on all “bullet button” firearms, a BAN on
ammunition sales, and CONFISCATION of your legally owned
firearms parts.

We need YOU to fight these bills
NOW!

There is no time to waste!
 

CALL
the Senate Appropriations Committee members listed below
now—ask them to vote NO on the anti-gun bills mentioned in
this e-mail.



UPDATE II: You can watch this train wreck live on The California Channel.

Uncategorized

Grading California’s Legislature On Gun Rights

May 10, 2016 by

Just as not all Republicans are pro-gun rights, neither are all Democrats anti-gun. Though, I must admit that it is easier to find a pro-gun rights Republican in California than to find a pro-gun rights Democrat.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has just released their analysis of California legislators’ voting records. Unfortunately, there are a lot more F and F- grades than A and A+ grades. Such is the hellhole that is the California Senate and Assembly when it comes to gun rights.

The FPC release and link is below:

SACRAMENTO – Just as vote-by-mail ballots are about to land in mailboxes, the Firearms Policy Coalition is releasing their legislative report card for the 2015 legislative session.

Each legislator is graded based on how they handled priority legislation. Actions such as voting record, authorship and co-authorship of bills were included in the analysis of their records.

The highest scores in the California State Legislature belong to Republican Assemblymembers James Gallagher and Melissa Melendez, as well as Republican Senator Tom Berryhill, who all scored an A+ grade—and have been labeled Defenders of Liberty; a distinction that not only demands a stellar voting record, but also requires the member to actually author or co-author a pro-gun bill.

Other notables include top scoring Democrats Senator Richard Roth who received an

“A” and Assemblymember Jim Frazier with a “B”.

In contrast, Senator Hannah Beth Jackson, and Assemblymember Nora Campos bottomed out their respective houses scoring the lowest grade of “F-” and could be considered the most committed anti-gun owner and anti-gun rights Members of the Legislature.

View all of the grades at www.firearmspolicy.org/grades/2015-california-legislative-grades/

Uncategorized

A “Mental Health” Initiative That Discourages Seeking Treatment

April 28, 2016 by 5 Comments

From my conversations with mental health professionals such as Dr. Robert Young, a psychiatrist who is a member of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, treatment is the key to allowing those suffering mental health issues to lead a full and productive life. A life that doesn’t involve seemingly random acts of unspeakable violence.

There is a bill before the California Assembly that may be voted on as early as today (AB 2607) that would greatly expand the list of people who may secretly petition a court to restrain your rights to possess a firearm. The list includes employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a high school or college. Could you imagine having the police arrive on your doorstep to confiscate your firearms due to a petition from a school janitor? Under this bill it could happen as the bill just says “employees”.

The bill is being opposed by a diverse coalition of groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition as well it should be. Their news release on the bill is below and it goes into more detail.

Sacramento,CA—Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is proud to stand with mental health professionals and other civil rights organizations in opposition to Assembly Bill 2607, and is asking its members and supporters to contact the legislature to oppose this measure.


Authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill massively expands a controversial law that has only been in place for 4 months. At present, current law permits family members and peace officers to petition a court, in secret, in order to restrain an individual from possessing firearms. AB 2607 compounds this measure by adding, to the list of qualified petitioners, employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school.


This would add thousands of people (including complete strangers) to the list of people who could petition a court to restrain a person from possessing firearms, triggering a warrant and armed law enforcement raids—without trial, conviction, or opportunity to defend oneself before a court. The secretive nature of this process, as well as the broad expansions in the measure, lead the American Civil Liberties Union to call it a
“significant threat to civil liberties” in a letter to the bill’s author.


Craig DeLuz, Director of Legislative & Public Affairs for the Firearms Policy Coalition commented, “Gun owners are being targeted for harassment in AB 2607 by virtually anyone they are connected to; disgruntled former colleagues or anti-gun college professors–but what is truly disturbing is that AB 2607 goes so far as to discourage gun-owners from seeking counseling or therapy–for fear of being raided by police and losing their gun rights. This bill causes a serious breach of trust between patients and healthcare professionals as well as students and instructors.”


Not only does this bill discourage free thought and free speech in places, such as University campuses, it actually discourages gun-owners from pursuing counseling due to fear of losing their gun rights in an unconstitutional surprise warrant service. “It’s irresponsible, it’s inexcusable, and it’s a shameless attack on the millions of responsible Californians who choose to exercise their civil rights while also being a responsible citizen and taking care of their physical and mental health,” said DeLuz.


The earliest AB 2607 can be voted on is Thursday, April 28, as it will be heard on the floor of the California State Assembly. It is opposed by mental health professionals such as the California Psychological Association, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) , National Rifle Association (NRA), and Gun Owners (GOC) of California. It is also opposed by the Public Defenders Association.


DeLuz concluded, “You know your bill is bad when FPC, NRA, ACLU and Public Defenders are all opposed. All of these organizations look out for the public good in their own way, and I’m proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposition to AB 2607.”

If you live in California and haven’t contact your Assembly member, do it now!

Uncategorized

FPC Is Building Opposition To Gavin Newsom’s Plan For More Gun Control

October 28, 2015 by

California Lt. Gov. and former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is sponsoring an initiative to bring even more gun control to the Golden State. However, he isn’t doing this without opposition. The Firearms Policy Coalition is working to build grassroots opposition to his outrageous measures which include having to have a permit to buy ammo and a total ban on all standard capacity magazines.

They released this statement last night:


SACRAMENTO – In response to the official filing
earlier today of California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mis-named “The
Safety for All Act of 2016,” civil rights advocates at Firearms Policy
Coalition (FPC) and the Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee
(FPCSADC) political action committee have begun shipping out over
25,000 grassroots activism guides to volunteers and activism hubs
throughout the state.

FPCSADC President Brandon Combs expects to ship an additional 75,000 grassroots guides within the next week.

“We
are committed to building the biggest, most-organized, and highly
informed Second Amendment grassroots army ever seen in California to
fight and oppose Gavin Newsom’s assault on our civil rights,” said
Combs. “We want 100,000 volunteers working on this by the end of the
year. This initial deployment is just the beginning of our much larger
opposition plan.”

Newsom’s ballot initiative would make numerous changes to state law, including, but not limited to:

  • Instituting
    a total, confiscatory ban on the possession of “large-capacity
    magazines” – even legally-owned “grandfathered” magazines and those that
    are possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers;
  • Adding
    severe and expensive new restrictions on ammunition purchases,
    including a mandatory DOJ ammunition purchase permit for anyone who
    wants to buy ammunition, a ban on private ammunition sales, and a gun
    owner database of ammunition purchasers;
  • A ban on the private purchase and importation of ammunition from out-of-state retailers;
  • Requiring
    all ammunition sellers to acquire a special DOJ ammunition sales permit
    and to have every employee that handles or sells ammunition to have a
    DOJ-issued Certificate of Eligibility;
  • A $25 Million theft of fees paid by gun owners to fund the new DOJ ammunition program;
  • And other gun control regulations that have already failed passage in the Legislature or were vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown.

“FPC
and the Second Amendment Defense Committee are absolutely dedicated to
stopping Gavin’s unconstitutional gun grab,” explained Combs. “The
infrastructure is in place, and we have retained counsel and specialized
experts to maximize the success of our opposition campaign.”

“These
measures will do nothing to advance public safety, but they will
further undermine the Second Amendment rights of all Californians,”
continued Combs. “The time to draw a line in the sand is right now.”

Newsom
would need to collect about 366,000 valid signatures to qualify the
proposal for the 2016 general election ballot. From there, it would be
an up or down vote by the people of California.

“All California
gun owners and civil rights organizations must stand together, dig in,
and do whatever it takes to defeat this anti-rights initiative at the
ballot box,” said Combs.


“We are committed to working
with our friends at the National Rifle Association, California Rifle
and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Citizens Committee for
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and many other civil rights groups to
defend fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights against Newsom’s
unconstitutional attack.”

Concluded Combs, “When Newsom first
announced this awful gun control scheme, we promised to bring the fight
to him. Well, here we come, Gavin. Your move.”

You can support
FPCSADC, volunteer to fight the ballot initiative, and view the official
ballot initiative language at FPCSADC’s StopNewsom.com opposition campaign website, also available at fpcsadc.org.

FPC
first informed the public about Newsom’s gun control proposal on
October 14, the day before the Lt. Gov. held a press conference to
announce his plan.

Uncategorized

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others In California

October 11, 2015 by 3 Comments

California SB 707 was signed today by Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA). The bill prohibits gun owners from carrying concealed or otherwise on school property. The bill also make it against the law to have a single round of ammunition in your possession on school grounds regardless of whether you have a firearm. Brown ignored more than 40,000 letters and petitions from gun owners requesting that the veto the law.

The law exempts law enforcement officers including retired law enforcement. This latter part treats retired law enforcement as a special class even though the 9th Circuit struck down a law giving them special treatment back in 2002.

The Firearms Policy Coalition was one of the leading groups against the law and had hoped that Brown would veto it. I expect that they will file suit in due time to overturn this law.

They put out this release today:

SACRAMENTO – Today, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 707, prohibiting gun owners issued a license by their local police chief or sheriff from carrying handguns for self-defense on California school grounds. It also subjects those with a carry permit, issued only after passing a strict, fingerprint-based background check and agency-approved training course, harsh new criminal liability for merely possessing a single round of ammunition on the grounds of any school or college campus, even if they don’t also possess a firearm.

Brandon Combs, the President of Firearms Policy Coalition, stated, “This is not just an attack on our Second Amendment rights, it is an attack on the most vulnerable in our society. Victims of domestic violence and stalking, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders who have a carry license will now have to leave their registered self-defense handguns at home when picking up their children at school, leaving them without the necessary protection from violent criminals.”

As introduced in February, SB 707 would have broadly eliminated carry on campus for virtually everyone except on-duty police or others specifically authorized to assist in an emergency. But the powerful law enforcement lobby immediately reacted to the gun control bill by offering their full support — in exchange for preservation of existing exemptions for law enforcement retirees. They later cut deals to add in even more special exemptions, including for retired police reservists. Combs believes that this is blatantly unconstitutional.

“The Ninth Circuit decided well over a decade ago that retired police officers are no different than retired plumbers for the purposes of gun laws,” explained Combs. The 2002 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a California law that gave retired law enforcement officers special exemptions from the Assault Weapons Control Act was reinforced in a 2010 legal opinion issued by then-Attorney General Jerry Brown.

In the opinion, Brown explained that “Silveira teaches that it is….a peace officer’s role as a law enforcement agent that provides a rational basis for distinguishing between a peace officer and a private citizen for purposes of possessing and using assault weapons. A retired officer is not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities.”

Additionally, Firearms Policy Coalition members and supporters submitted over 40,000 letters to the Governor’s office urging a veto of SB 707.

Combs concluded, “It is unfortunate that the Governor has ignored the will of his constituents, common sense, and his own legal opinion. We will now focus on preparing the lawsuit we promised we would file against this unconstitutional law.”


Gun owners who wish to support the SB 707 litigation can donate at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california/sb707.

Uncategorized

California Gun Shops Suing Over First Amendment Violations

November 11, 2014 by

Four gun shops in California are suing California Attorney General Kamala Harris over a state law that prevents them from advertising handguns for sale. Penal Code Section 26820 which dates back to 1923 prohibits dealers from saying they have handguns for sale on their buildings. This includes even having a picture or drawing of a handgun posted where it can be seen from the street.

The suit, Tracy Rifle and Pistol et al v. Kamala Harris et al, alleges that the California law is a violation of the First Amendment rights of the gun shops and their owners. The complaint notes that handguns are lawful items and that the “First Amendment protects the dissemination of truthful, nonmisleading commercial information about lawful products”.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs are Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group and Prof. Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law. Prof. Volokh also runs the well-known legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

The lawsuit is being supported by the California Association of FFLs, the CalGuns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The release about the case from the Firearm Policy Coalition is below:

November 10, 2014 (SACRAMENTO, CA) — Four California gun dealers are filing a federal lawsuit today against California Attorney General Kamala Harris over what they say is a violation of their First Amendment civil rights. Stephen Lindley, who heads the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms, is named as a co-defendant in the case.


Tracy Rifle and Pistol, a firearm retailer and indoor shooting range located in San Joaquin County, was recently cited by Harris’ Department of Justice for having pictures of three handguns in window signs that can be seen outside the store. California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, bans gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. An adjacent window image at Tracy Rifle, which shows a photograph of an AR-15 rifle, was not cited by the DOJ.


“I run one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,” explained Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle & Pistol. “That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.”


While California gun dealers cannot display even the word ‘handgun’ at their stores to passersby, adjacent businesses and anti-gun protesters are not prohibited from doing as much. The court filings argue that the law operates as unconstitutional speaker, content, and viewpoint-based discrimination, in addition to having other legal problems.


Similar statutes banning handgun displays can be found in places like Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington, D.C., but the California Department of Justice appears to be the only state agency enforcing provisions like the challenged ban.


The lawsuit claims that this restriction violates gun stores’ First Amendment rights, by severely restricting truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. Lead counsel Bradley Benbrook said about the lawsuit, “The First Amendment prevents the government from telling businesses it disfavors that they can’t engage in truthful advertising. This case follows a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting such disfavored businesses from that type of censorship.”


Though the case doesn’t claim a Second Amendment violation, plaintiffs do argue that commercial advertisement of constitutionally protected products and services — whether abortion, contraceptives, or guns — is especially clearly protected under the First Amendment.


The plaintiffs are also represented by Benbrook’s colleague Stephen Duvernay and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.


California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearm industry association, joined gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation in support of the case.


The lawsuit’s other plaintiffs include Sacramento Black Rifle of Rocklin, Ten Percent Firearms of Taft, and PRK Arms, a Fresno-based dealer that operates a chain of three stores in California’s Central San Joaquin Valley, as well as business owners Robert Adams, Wesley Morris, and Jeffrey Mullen, respectively.


A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/trap-v-harris.

Uncategorized

A Big Win In California

August 25, 2014 by 9 Comments

US District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii just ruled today that 10-day waiting periods to pick up your firearm after purchase were unconstitutional as applied to certain individuals. The case, Silvester v. Harris, challenged the waiting periods for those who had passed a background check and who had either a California issued license to carry or hold a Cal-DOJ issued Certificate of Eligibility and possess at least one firearm known to the state.

Here is the release on the win from the CalGuns Foundation who was one of the plaintiffs in the case:

ROSEVILLE, CA (August 25, 2014) – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

Attorneys Victor Otten of Torrance and Jason Davis of Mission Viejo were co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“This ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally delighted with the outcome.”

“California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second class rights,” noted plaintiff Brandon Combs, also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”

“This victory provides a strong foundation from which other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws will be challenged,” concluded Combs. “We look forward to doing just that.”

The court’s decision can be read or downloaded at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision.

This is great news for Californians. Brandon Combs, one of the plaintiffs, was just a guest on The Polite Society Podcast that aired yesterday.  We’ll certainly have to have him back soon!

Sebastian has more on the win here.

Uncategorized

SB 53 – Just One Of A Number Of Anti-Gun Bills In California

August 22, 2014 by 3 Comments

Gun rights supporters in California have their hands full with all the misguided, stupid, and ineffective bills coming out the California Assembly and Senate that impact them. One of these bills is SB 53 from Sen. Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles). The bill would ban on-line sales of ammo, create a registry of ammo sellers and purchasers, and require another license for gun owners.

Will it stop gangs from obtaining ammo for their guns? Of course not but that really wasn’t the point anyway.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has created a very good infographic illustrating just what the bill would do if passed. Unfortunately, it is almost out of the legislature and heading for Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

The FPC has created an easy way to state your opposition to this bill. You don’t even need to live in California to send an email. Just go here and you can tell every legislator in California what you think of this bill.

If you want to see other bad bills from California, just go here. Another of Kevin DeLeon’s bills would outlaw “ghost guns”. In other words, any firearm without a serial number such as your collectible .22 LR rifle from before 1968 like my Remington 511 Scoremaster.

Uncategorized

Preliminary Injunction Sought In Doe V. Harris

June 12, 2014 by 2 Comments

The attorneys for the plaintiffs in Doe v. Harris have filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent the California Department of Justice from enforcing its new policy regarding multiple modern handgun purchases by Curios & Relics FFL holders. This lawsuit is being backed by the CalGuns Foundation and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

The motion for the injunction looks at both the legislative and administrative history of California Penal Code Sec. 27535. This law prevents most Californians from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period of time. However, there were a number of exemptions to this restriction written into the law. Included in the exemption are those people who hold both a Curios and Relics FFL and who hold a California DOJ issued Certificate of Eligibility. The legislative and administrative history makes clear that the exemption provided for this class of people extends beyond the purchase of C&R handguns to all handguns including modern handguns.

On May 8th of this year, the longstanding policy was changed when the DOJ Bureau of Firearms sent a letter to all FFLs in California stating that the exemption for C&R FFL holders only applied to handguns deemed curios or relics under Federal law. This change is alleged to be in violation of the California Administrative Procedures Act as no notices nor hearings were held before the change was implemented.

The declarations in support of the motion are interesting reading. This is especially true of the one submitted by Dr. Ken Lunde as it includes emails back and forth in 2005 concerning the interpretation of the law with regard to the exemption. Of particular note is the attached Exhibit 3 which is an email from Deputy AG Alison Merrilees noting that it was the Bureau of Firearms long-standing policy to exempt “all firearms purchases by C&R licensees from the provisions of 12072(a)(9)(A) [the “one gun a month” limit] , even if the firearms are not curios and relics.” This exhibit proves the importance of keeping all emails so as to provide a paper trail when dealing with bureaucrats and firearms.

The hearing on the motion has been set for July 8th.

Further comments on the motion by Gene Hoffman of CalGuns and Brandon Combs of CAL-FFL can be read in the release below:

(Sacramento, CA – June 11, 2014) – Two California gun owners, Paul Gladden and “Alvin Doe”, have filed for an injunction against defendants Attorney General Kamala Harris and Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms chief Stephen Lindley seeking to prevent them from enforcing a policy that denies the sale of handguns to licensed and background-checked Californians.

On May 8, 2014, 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 a 30 day period. A COE requires a full fingerprint-based background check and state monitoring of the certificate holder’s criminal record.

According to gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the lawsuit’s backers, the new policy represents a 180-degree departure from the DOJ’s prior policy of allowing such purchases. Reinforcing the groups’ allegation that the gun policy has shifted under Attorney General Harris is a statement by former DOJ Firearms Division Deputy Attorney General Alison Merrilees. In a 2005 email, Ms. Merrilees said that “it is [DOJ’s] long-standing policy” to exempt “all firearms purchases” made by licensees such as plaintiffs from the “one gun per month” limit, “even if the firearms are not curios and relics.” Ms. Merrilees is now deputy chief of staff to Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, who most recently authored AB 1014, a bill that would allow “anyone” to ask a court for a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” and “firearm seizure warrant.”

In the latest court filing, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say that they are “likely to prevail on the merits” of the lawsuit and “seek a preliminary injunction to block the DOJ from continuing to enforce its erroneous interpretation of state law.” The brief also declares that “[i]t is this Court’s obligation to strike [the DOJ’s policy] down.”

In addition to the gun owners’ argument that the DOJ is wrongly interpreting the law, they say that the policy “is also void because the DOJ failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) before its adoption.”

The APA is “designed to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of state regulations and to ensure that regulations are clear, necessary and legally valid,” according to the California Department of Administrative Law.

Gene Hoffman, chairman of CGF, explained that “the law is clear and unambiguous: properly-licensed and background checked Californians like Paul Gladden are entitled to purchase as many handguns as they like within any 30-day period.”

“Ms. Harris is improperly substituting her own anti-gun rights policy preferences for black-letter law,” he went on to note.

CAL-FFL President Brandon Combs mirrored Hoffman’s concerns.

“Not only is her policy way off target, Attorney General Harris is setting a tremendously poor example as the state’s highest law enforcement officer,” he said. “Government officials should never act with such blatant disregard for the law and civil rights.”

The motion for preliminary injunction is expected to be heard by Sacramento Superior Court Judge David I. Brown (Department 53) on July 8 at the 800 9th Street courthouse in Sacramento. More information about the case, including all case filings, can be viewed or downloaded at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/.

Uncategorized

You Want Craven, I’ll Give You Craven

May 27, 2014 by 4 Comments

If you have listened to the news any in the last few days, you have seen an orgy of media reporting devoted to the murders in Santa Barbara. I say murders because while three of the killings by the narcissistic individual  involved a firearm, the other three involved a machete and a hammer. Nonetheless, one of the parents of the victims in his grief blamed the killings on “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA”.

This post isn’t meant to go into all the legal niceties that the killer observed in obtaining his firearms or how stringent a process the California DOJ’s DROS (Dealer’s Record of Sale) imposes on firearm sales but rather the blood dancing coming from the Brady Campaign. I would go so far as to call it “craven”.

Below is an email I received from the Brady Campaign at noon today. I don’t know why I’m supposed to call Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as I live in North Carolina and not Arizona. Nonetheless, I’m sure millions of these emails are going out today aimed at senators who voted against Manchin-Toomey last year.

Dear (redacted),

This Memorial Day weekend, while Americans across the nation were honoring our fallen soldiers, we were also overwhelmed by another tragedy – a murderous rampage by a gunman at the University of California-Santa Barbara that claimed six lives and left eight others wounded.

One of those killed was Chris Martinez, whose father Richard had this to say about his devastating loss:

“Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?”

The Brady Campaign stands firmly with Mr. Martinez. He got it exactly right. Politicians continually ignore the will and the well-being of the American public and, instead, take their marching orders and money from the corporate gun lobby.

Shamefully, these politicians do not care who is buying guns – convicted felons, domestic abusers, rapists – just as long as the corporate gun lobby is happily making the biggest possible profit.

Now more than ever, it is essential that we Americans rise up and call out the corporate gun lobby and the ‘craven’ politicians who do their bidding.

Call Senator Flake at 1-866-383-3901

Tell him that you haven’t forgotten when he voted against the amendment to expand Brady background checks and chose to stand with the corporate gun lobby instead of representing the overwhelming majority of his constituents who support background checks.

The gun lobby has millions of dollars from big gun corporations. We have the truth and the voice of every decent American who wants and deserves a nation safe from gun violence.

Thanks to Americans like Richard Martinez, that voice of truth is starting to be heard. Let’s show Mr. Martinez that we are right there beside him. Call Senator Flake today and remind him that he works for the American public and not the corporate gun lobby.

Dan Gross
President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. You can make a difference by joining Brady supporters from around the country at the 2014 Brady National Summit in D.C. from June 9 – 10.

Given that Dan Gross began his career in the advertising industry, I’m not surprised that he cherry-picks his “facts” and doesn’t let the truth get in the way of his agenda.

Does the National Rifle Association get substantial donations from firearms manufacturers? Yes but the amount is dwarfed by the amount of money that memberships and individual donations bring in. The gun lobby is you and me and not some amorphous big corporation where big-wigs sit around lighting their cigars with $100 bills.

Would the universal background checks for private sales mandated by Manchin-Toomey have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara? No. The killer purchased his firearms legally, underwent the California DOJ’s background checks, was limited to one handgun purchase within a 30 day period, had to wait 10 days (or more) before taking possession of his handgun as required by law, and only had California-compliant magazines in his possession. It should be pointed out that the DROS system is available on-line to any law enforcement officer to check on purchases and is linked to mental health reports including whether a person had been hospitalized or has been prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

And that link at the bottom of Gross’ email?  If you want to attend their so-called summit, you have to pay and they take all major credit cards including Amex and Discover.

If you want to see craven behavior, just go to any of the gun prohibitionists’ websites. Whether it is the Brady Campaign trying to raise money, the Violence Policy Center trying to push their “research”, or Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors trying to build their email list, you are going to see craven behavior – or what I’d call blood dancing – at its worst.