Because Civil Rights Don’t Have Borders

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to ride gun control to the governor’s mansion in Sacramento. His opponents in the gun rights community, while underfunded compared to Newsom, are determined that he isn’t going to win without a fight.

The Firearms Policy Coalition recently released this 30 second spot noting that civil rights don’t have borders and that Newsom’s proposals could spread to the rest of the nation. If you can spare a few bucks, you might want to donate to the fight. Even better donate the equivalent of the price of a box of ammunition. That would appropriate since Newsom wants to have you to have to buy a $50 ammo purchase permit.

First Amendment Lawsuit With Second Amendment Implications In California

Two Second Amendment groups and three individual plaintiffs including a Congressional candidate have filed suit against California Attorney General Kamala Harris. The suit filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California seeks an injunction against a California law that makes it illegal to use video footage from the California State Assembly in a political campaign or ballot initiative. The suit is brought on First Amendment grounds as the law restricts political speech. The plaintiffs would have used video footage from the State Assembly to produce ads opposing Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative and the gun control bills being rammed through the legislature.

One of the individual plaintiffs is filmmaker Kris Koenig who produced the Second Amendment documentary Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire.

An interesting note about the lawsuit is that UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh who blogs at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy is one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

A release with more details on the case and the plaintiffs is below.

SACRAMENTO­­­­­­ – Today, two civil rights groups opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative were joined by two Emmy Award-winning filmmakers, a San Diego-based civil rights activist, and a candidate for Congress in filing a new First Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on using Assembly video footage for political speech.

The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of California federal court, states that California Government Code section 9026.5 prohibits the use of the public video feed from the California State Assembly “for any political or commercial purpose, including . . . any campaign for elective public office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors.”

Tim Donnelly, a plaintiff in the case who is currently running for Congress, was previously threatened by the Assembly Rules Committee for using a clip of a hearing in which he participated as an elected Assembly member.

Violating the statute is a misdemeanor crime that can lead to imprisonment in a county jail for up to six months, a fine of up to one thousand dollars, or both imprisonment and fine. Because of the importance of political speech and the criminal liability under the statute, the plaintiffs say they’ll be asking the court to issue a restraining order against the law.

“Millions of good, law-abiding people are at risk of becoming criminals through dozens of new gun control bills and the most dangerous, anti-civil rights ballot initiative we’ve seen in decades,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee Chairman Brandon Combs. “Yet Section 9026.5 says it would be a crime for us to use video of the people’s Assembly hearings and votes in political speech. It is shocking that this law was ever passed in a state that claims to value diversity, tolerance, free speech, and open government.

“This blatantly unconstitutional statute should be opposed by people across the political spectrum.”

“Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Kevin de León are playing fast and loose with legislative rules, but California law says that it’s a crime for us to use Assembly video to oppose their extreme agenda. We filed this lawsuit because we’re not going to stand by and watch while Senator de León and Gavin Newsom compete to burn the Bill of Rights to the ground first,” concluded Combs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty, 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.

A copy of the complaint for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at www.fpcsadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-26-Complaint-filed.pdf.

Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee (FPCSADC) is the official pro-gun grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative. FPCSADC was formed days after Newsom announced his intention to put his gun control scheme on the November 2016 ballot and has been fighting against the initiative since its inception. More information about FPCSADC can be found at www.StopNewsom.com.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a grassroots, nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. More information about FPC can be found at www.firearmspolicy.org.

Gunpocalypse Hits California While NRA Annual Meeting Starts

I’m listening the NRA Leadership Forum as I write. There have been some good zingers against Hillary from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. In the meantime,  Democrats in California are pushing more and more gun laws.

This release from the Firearms Policy Coalition gives more details on this “gunpocalypse”.

Firearms Policy Coalition Condemns “Fast-Tracked” California


Senate Votes it Calls ‘Gunpocalypse’


Civil rights group says gun-owners are being used as pawns in a turf war between Lt. Gov. Newsom, Sen. de
León.



SACRAMENTO – Ten anti-gun rights bills were fast-tracked through the California State Senate today on a
party-line vote of Senate Democrats led by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León.



The slate of proposals attacking California gun owners included four Assembly bills that were “gutted and
amended” in the Senate just two weeks earlier in an effort by Democrats to avoid a full legislative vetting process
and public scrutiny.



On the floor, debate about the need for the bills centered on a political turf war between Lt. Governor Gavin
Newsom, sponsor of a gun control ballot initiative opposed by my California legislators, and de León, who,
ironically, views the ballot initiative process as a “last resort” rather than a way to short-cut the legislative cycle.
“It is nothing short of unconscionable that millions of law-abiding Californians are being used as chess pieces in a
twisted political game to see who can race to the bottom first,” said Craig DeLuz, legislative advocate for the gun
rights group Firearms Policy Coalition.



Senator de Leon hopes that by fast-tracking gun control through the legislature, he can take the wind out
Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative’s sails—and his 2018 campaign to be the Golden State’s next governor.
“The political class needs to know that law-abiding gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second
Amendment does not protect a second-class right,” noted DeLuz. “Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals acknowledges that.”



The ten gun control bills that were passed out of the Senate today are:


  • • 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 be placed on firearms dating back over 50 years.
  • • SB 1446: 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, family member and competitors.

Grading California’s Legislature On Gun Rights

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/

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

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.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others In California

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.

Dinner And Education Event On The Racist Roots Of Gun Control

Historian and blogger Clayton Cramer will be the featured speaker at an event co-sponsored by the CalGuns Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition on March 29th in Sacramento, California. He will be speaking on the racist roots of gun control. Other speakers include Second Amendment attorneys Don Kilmer, Bradley Benbrook, and Stephen Duvernay, CalGuns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman, and Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs.

More info on the event is below. If you are in the Sacramento area on the 29th, this sounds like an interesting event. On a personal note, it is great to see Clayton doing a public event like this given his stroke about a year and a half ago. If you can’t make the event, Clayton has put together a YouTube video on the topic including PowerPoint slides.

Sacramento, CA – Firearms Policy Coalition and The Calguns Foundation have announced a special dinner and education event featuring noted Second Amendment historian Clayton E. Cramer, who will give his talk The Racist Roots of Gun Control.
Cramer will be joined at the March 29 event by firearms law and policy experts including noted civil rights attorneys Donald Kilmer and Bradley Benbrook, Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman, and Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. Speakers will be taking questions from the audience following the talks.
Tickets for the event, which can be purchased at FPC’s website, are $60 per person and include a filet of beef, chicken, or salmon dinner. College, university, and law school students can purchase tickets at a reduced rate of $30 per person.
Event: The Past, Present, and Future of Second Amendment Policy and Litigation — A Special Evening with Historian Clayton E. Cramer and Friends
Date: March 29, 2015
Time: 5:30 p.m. guest check-in & mixer; dinner 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. (or until Q&A concluded)
Location: Embassy Suites Sacramento – Riverfront Promenade (link to hotel website) (link to Google map)
Speakers and topics will include:
  • Historian Clayton E. Cramer: The Racist Roots of Gun Control
  • Attorney Donald Kilmer: Gun Violence Restraining Orders and the Growing Problem of Constitutional Conflicts in Public Policy
  • Attorney Bradley Benbrook: Firearms-area Litigation and Emerging Second Amendment Jurisprudence
  • Attorney Stephen Duvernay: Active litigation case updates
  • The Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman: The Minimum Necessary Right to Keep and Bear Arms – What, Why, and How We’re Doing So Far
  • FPC President Brandon Combs: What to Expect In and From Firearms Policy and Litigation Going Forward

A Roundup Of Other Gun Right Organizations Reactions To BATFE Announcement

It should be noted that it was not just the NRA that opposed the BATFE proposed framework and the ban on M855 5.56 bullets. There were a lot of gun rights organizations involved. I will say what I think really got BATFE’s attention were the letters from the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees signed by a majority of the members of both houses of Congress. For that, I do give the NRA-ILA a lot of credit because I’m sure they had a lot to do with it.

From the NSSF:

ATF announced today that it will not move forward with its proposed framework to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 “green tip” ammunition at this time while it reviews the record number (more than 80,000) comments it has received so far. ATF will continue to accept comments through March 16. NSSF, as the trade association for the firearms industry, looks forward to engaging in a dialogue with ATF to address this issue that led to the now withdrawn proposal. Our industry members hope to meet consumer demand in bringing alternative ammunition products to the market and to continue to sell the popular M855 rifle target ammunition. NSSF continues to strongly urge ATF to grant 32 long-pending petitions to exempt alternative rifle ammunition designed and intended for the hunting market.

From Gun Owners of America:

In
a stunning new development, the ATF has announced today that it will
“formally delay” the implementation of its ammo ban, in the face of
80,000 comments which were overwhelmingly negative.
Last month, Obama’s ATF had proposed a rule to effectively ban AR-15’s by banning the common AR-15 “green tip” ammunition.Supposedly,
gun owners had until March 16 to send comments to ATF. But then, lo and
behold, the AR-15 ammunition in question turned up (last week) on an
ATF list of ammunition indicating that it had ALREADY BEEN BANNED. Oops!
The ATF
claimed this was a “publishing error.”  But the only “error” the lying
agency made was to telegraph its firm intention before the comment
period was closed.  It was like the bizarre world of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:  First the sentence; then the trial.
ATF cries “uncle” after getting hammered from the publicThe agency
is now crying “uncle,” in the face of thousands upon thousands of
negative comments from gun owners all around the country — including
more than 200 congressmen.
The agency said today:Although
ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith
interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement,
industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to
date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve
further study.
A “good faith interpretation”?  Well, that’s laughable.  But realize the agency says the issue deserves “further study.”So now the
question becomes:  Is this a genuine retreat, or just a “tactical
retreat,” as we saw with Operation Choke Point?  In that case, the
federal government removed gun dealers from its “risky business list,”
but continue to persecute them under that program on a case-by-case
basis.
And, finally, what about the ban on Russian-made 7N6 ammo, which is not reversed by ATF’s reversal?Our answer
to both of these questions is that we need to keep up the pressure —
and not trust ATF’s purported “change of heart.”
GOA will keep watching the ATF and alert you to any future attempts to slip a ban by the American people. Your grassroots efforts have been phenomenal!!!

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

BELLEVUE, WA – While overwhelming public pressure has suddenly caused the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to postpone action on a proposed ban on M855 ammunition for modern sport-utility rifles, the Second Amendment Foundation said the battle is not over in defense of firearms rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, who launched a television and radio campaign Monday to derail the proposal, was gratified to learn from an ATF statement that more than 80,000 comments had been received from the public.

“We are delighted to have been a part of the effort to stop this proposal in its tracks,” Gottlieb said. “The grassroots responded to a serious threat, and the negative reaction on Capitol Hill from both the House and Senate – no doubt spurred by constituent calls and letters – have, at least for now, put the brakes on a bad idea.

“However,” he continued, “we are encouraging the nation’s gun owners to remain vigilant. Our initial radio and television advertisements will run through this week, reminding grassroots activists that the Obama administration is not likely to abandon its gun control efforts. Frankly, this may just be the end of Round One.”

SAF general counsel Miko Tempski sent a letter threatening legal action, which for sure had an impact, to ATF Director B. Todd Jones.

“This is a great victory but the battle is not over,” Gottlieb cautioned. “The Obama administration will try to rework this ban proposal and we will see it back sooner than later. Now is the time to double our efforts and drive a permanent stake through the heart of any ammo ban.”

From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

March 10, 2015 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) — In the face of overwhelming public opposition, the Obama Administration is running away from yet another gun control scheme. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had proposed regulations that would have banned M855 5.56×45 ammunition as “armor piercing.”

But the Bureau published a tweet this morning saying, “You spoke, we listened.”

Second Amendment gun rights advocates are hailing the move, calling it a victory for common sense and the Constitution.

“Millions of law-abiding American gun owners won today,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Freedom ultimately prevailed in our fight with the ATF because the Constitution, the truth, and the law are on our side.”

In a public notice also published on its website today, the federal agency said that it had already received “more than 80,000 comments” opposing the framework that would ban the ammunition commonly used by shooters in AR-15 platform modern sporting rifles, and that “ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework.”

However, gun rights leaders are careful to note that the ATF can easily reverse course again, prompting calls for gun owners across the nation to continue sending ATF comments in opposition to the ammunition regulations.

The ATF’s notice indicated that the Obama Administration might look to propose other, similar ammunition regulations, possibly “through additional proposals and opportunities for comment.”

“While we’re pleased to see that the Obama Administration and ATF listened to the American people for once, it’s clear to us that this fight isn’t over,” Combs warned. “Gun owners must continue to be vigilant in their defense of the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”

“As the M855 ammo ban debacle proved, the federal government will run over Second Amendment rights any chance it gets. We can’t take our eye off the ball for one second.”

Firearms Policy Coalition noted the strong coalition effort to stop the M855 ammunition regulations, especially through other gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

“Today’s positive outcome shows what we as a culture can do when we combine forces and work together,” explained Combs. “I look forward to many more opportunities to show the gun prohibitionists what real grassroots looks like.”

Over 32,000 letters were sent to the ATF through Firearms Policy Coalition’s Take Action activism platform at ammoban.org and stopATF.org, which will continue to allow people to submit public comment letters to the agency.

UPDATE: While not a gun rights organization, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is on our side. Here is his response to the BATFE announcement.

WASHINGTON – ‎One day after Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led 52 Republican colleagues in condemning a proposal limiting access to rifle ammunition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) today announced it would not finalize the plan. All senators were invited to join the letter.

“I’m pleased to see that the ATF has now decided to abide by congressional intent of the law, and its exemption protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. ATF’s original proposal to short-circuit the exemption and limit access to rifle ammunition was an affront to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it was met with stiff rebuke. I will continue to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Americans and the constitutional protections they are guaranteed,” Grassley said.

The ATF proposal was inconsistent with a 1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act exemption protecting the ammunition primarily used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting.

I thank the senator and those senators that signed his letter to BATFE Dir. B. Todd Jones. My question is why supposed Second Amendment supporters such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) did not sign the letter. There were Democrats in the House that signed Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s letter.

The Firearms Policy Coalition Adds Alan Normandy To Its Board

The Firearms Policy Coalition added Alan Normandy to it Board of Directors yesterday. Mr. Normandy is the CEO of Battle Comp Enterprises and is, in addition, a retired law enforcement officer.

From the release:

Firearms Policy Coalition announced today that E. Alan Normandy has been elected to its board of directors.

In addition to being the founder and CEO of Battle Comp Enterprises, a company that designs and produces firearm components for military, law enforcement, and civilian shooters, Normandy is a retired police lieutenant and 29-year police force veteran. He also serves as a firearms instructor, gunsmith, court-certified firearms expert, and a consultant for firearms industry manufacturers and the entertainment industry.

“As Firearms Policy Coalition sharpens its focus on improving the methods and outcomes of Second Amendment civil rights advocacy, we welcome Alan Normandy and his leadership to our board,” said Brandon Combs, the group’s chairman and CEO.

Combs continued, “Alan’s vision for the future and deeply-held convictions will have an immediate impact on our organization and our fight to advance the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. We are simply delighted that Alan is joining our leadership team.”

“I am humbled and honored to have been elected to serve the members and supporters of Firearms Policy Coalition, the public, and our Constitution,” commented Normandy. “It is exciting to join such a committed group of Second Amendment advocates and I look forward to helping FPC defeat gun control wherever it may surface. I’m ready to get to work.”

Battle Comp makes a full line of muzzle breaks and recoil compensators at their plant in Prescott, Arizona.

Another Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS To Take Up Jackson v. San Francisco

More weight was added today to the effort to get the US Supreme Court to take up the case of Jackson v. San Francisco with an amicus brief from the Firearms Policy Coalition and 12 other civil rights organizations. This brief comes on the heels of another amicus brief filed by 26 state attorneys general also requesting the Court take up the issue

The case involves a challenge to San Francisco’s gun control ordinance requiring either a trigger lock or a storage safe for firearms. The case was brought in 2009 by six San Francisco residents, the NRA, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found for San Francisco using an interest-balancing approach. The plaintiffs appealed the case on December 12, 2014 by filing a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The facts in this case are very similar to the original Heller case where the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s requirement to keep firearms inoperable.

From the release by the Firearms Policy Coalition:

ROSEVILLE, CA / January 15, 2015 – The Firearms Policy Coalition and 12 other state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.

According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual–rather than a collective–right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.”

While some Second Amendment lawsuits have been decided based on the “text, history, and tradition” standard used in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that applied the Second Amendment to states and local governments, many lower courts have since applied weaker standards that lets most gun control laws stand.

“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”

“The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”

Parties to the amicus brief (in order of appearance) are:

  • Firearms Policy Coalition
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • The Calguns Foundation
  • Firearms Policy Foundation
  • California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
  • The Madison Society
  • Florida Carry
  • Hawaii Defense Foundation
  • Illinois Carry
  • Maryland Shall Issue
  • Commonwealth Second Amendment
  • Virginia Citizens Defense League
  • West Virginia Citizens Defense League

The brief can be viewed at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-704-Jackson-v-SF-amicus-2015-1-15.pdf.

Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., was filed in 2009 by lawyers for 6 San Francisco residents, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association.