Second Amendment Foundation

Uncategorized

SAF On Their Win In The Ninth

May 17, 2016 by 1 Comment

Here is what the Second Amendment Foundation said about their win in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday.

BELLEVUE, WA – A three-judge panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 2-1 ruling that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined in the case by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. SAF was represented by noted California civil rights attorney Don Kilmer, and the case was supported by an important amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Gura won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment rulings before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is an important decision,” said SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It remands the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling as it pertains to the Second Amendment.”

The lawsuit was against an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain noted that, “the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review.”

“Both SAF and CCRKBA can be proud of this victory,” Gottlieb stated. “We agree with Judge O’Scannlain’s explanation that ‘the county had failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. The Second Amendment,’ as the judge wrote, ‘requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court.’”

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF’s 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

Second Amendment attorney David Kopel does a great job in breaking down the case in a post on the Volokh Conspiracy. It is well worth a read to get a great understanding of the case.

Professor Eugene Volokh also provides a summary of the case here. However, in my opinion, it is not nearly as comprehensive as that of David Kopel. If you only have time to read one, read Dave’s.

Uncategorized

What If The Palestinians Were “State Representatives” To UNSCAR

April 21, 2016 by

A post on the Volokh Conspiracy by Eugene Kontorovich from Tuesday caught my eye. He was discussing the demand of 28 US senators that funding for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change be stopped. The reason that they were demanding that US funding to this UN agency be stopped is that the Palestinian Authority has been accepted by that agency as a “state party”.

Federal law bars any funding for U.N. agencies or affiliates that “grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” In the official U.S. view, “Palestine” is not a state. Thus when the Palestinian Authority joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2011, it triggered federal defunding of that organization. Now, federal law requires a similar cessation of any funding to UNFCCC.

The purpose of Professor Kontorovich’s article to speculate what might happen if the Obama Administration ignored the clear law that prohibits the funding. However, for my purposes, the article made me speculate how this law could be used to cut funding of the UN’s gun control efforts.

The Arms Trade Treaty is administered by UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation or UNSCAR. While the United States has not ratified the treaty, it is a signatory to it. The Arms Trade Treaty seeks to control not only major weapons systems but also small arms and ammunition. As of now, the Palestinian Authority is not considered a “state representative” to UNSCAR insofar as I can tell. That said, UNSCAR has two current projects going in the Arab and Middle Eastern states.

It would be in the interest of gun rights NGOs like the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation to lobby to get the Palestinian Authority full recognition as a state and full membership in UNSCAR. While neither organization nor its members usually have much love for the Palestinian Authority given its connections to Hamas and the PLO, getting them recognized as a state representative does cut potential funding for more international gun control efforts.

In my view, that is a good thing.

Uncategorized

SAF On Garland Nomination

March 16, 2016 by

The Second Amendment Foundation has a vested interest like we all do in making sure that Justice Scalia’s replacement doesn’t undue his work. To that end, they immediately came out against President Obama’s nomination to fill the seat, Judge Merrick Garland.

From SAF:

Garland Nomination Should Be Rejected!

BELLEVUE, WA – The founder of the Second Amendment Foundation today said that the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama should be rejected.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, reacting to this morning’s announcement, was blunt: “This is not a good nomination and Judge Garland should not be confirmed.”

President Obama nominated Garland, who is the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the seat left vacant by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark 2008 Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia was considered a giant on the court and one of its finest conservative voices.

On the other hand, “Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law. The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.”

Writing a few days ago in the National Review, Carrie Severino observed, “Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

“Just as Second Amendment advocates have feared, President Obama is trying to change the court’s makeup to destroy the individual right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb stated. “This administration has done everything it can to erode the Second Amendment, and turn a right into a government-regulated privilege.

“Those of us on the front lines of the Second Amendment battle have warned for the past eight years that the right to keep and bear arms can live or die on a single vote,” he said, “and nothing makes that more clear than today’s nomination. I hope the Senate, if it takes up this nomination, promptly rejects it.”

Direct numbers for your Senators can be found here. It is time to start calling if you want to preserve your gun rights.

Uncategorized

SAF, NRA, And NSSF Move For Summary Judgment In Seattle Gun Tax Case

October 26, 2015 by 5 Comments

After the City of Seattle imposed a “gun violence tax” on sales of arms and ammunition within their city limits, the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation jointly sued the city. Under Washington State law, cities and counties are preempted from passing regulations that impact firearms. That is reserved for the state.

This suit is groundbreaking because it is the first time the three have jointly sued on a gun rights issue. Now comes word that they have moved for summary judgment in King County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs Move For Summary Judgement In Challenge To Seattle Gun Tax

BELLEVUE, WA – Plaintiffs challenging a so-called “gun violence tax” recently passed by the Seattle City Council have today filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit, citing Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.” The motion was filed in King County Superior Court.

Attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, with Corr Cronin Michelson, Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP filed the motion for the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and their co-plaintiffs. They allege that the city “is well aware of this restriction on its legislative power, in part because its most recent attempt to regulate firearms was emphatically struck down by the Court of Appeals.”

That case was Chan v. City of Seattle, brought by SAF, NRA and several other plaintiffs. Fogg also argued that case. It derailed an attempt by the city under former Mayors Greg Nickels and Mike McGinn to ban guns in city park facilities. But Washington State’s preemption statute, passed 32 years ago and used as a model by other states to adopt similar legislation, stopped that effort in its tracks.

“Seattle is trying to be too clever by half,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our motion shows that members of the city council brainstormed with members of local gun control groups to try to skirt the preemption law. This so-called ‘gun violence tax’ clearly seeks to limit access to firearms and ammunition by imposing what amounts to a regulatory fee on the sale of all firearms and ammunition within City limits. The city can’t do that, and we’re confident the court will tell them so.

“The city can’t even pass this off as a B&O tax, because it’s a flat fee, not a percentage of sales,” he continued. “In the final analysis, this is an attempt to skate around, and thus erode, our state’s model preemption law. That cannot be allowed to stand. The City of Seattle is not an entity unto itself, but still part of Washington State, and therefore the city has to abide by the same laws we all follow.”

Uncategorized

DC Is Having To Pay $75,000 In Attorneys’ Fees In Palmer Case

August 14, 2015 by 2 Comments

Thanks to the District of Columbia City Council and their anti-gun policies the taxpayers of the District are having to shell out $75,000 in legal fees to the Second Amendment Foundation. This is a result of their having lost Palmer v. District of Columbia and the award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.

From the Legal Times:

(Alan) Gura, of Gura & Possessky, represented the plaintiffs who challenged the ban. He asked the court to award $54,720 in fees and costs in August 2014, but he continued to rack up billable hours while the city contested Scullin’s ruling and the two sides fought over whether the city had complied with the judge’s decision. In June, the parties told Scullin that they were attempting to reach an agreement on fees.

Notice of the settlement was filed with the court late Thursday. Gura declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General.

In the aftermath of Scullin’s decision in the firearms case, Palmer v. District of Columbia, the city adopted regulations for residents who wished to apply for a permit to carry concealed firearms. Gura is challenging those regulations in a pending case, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

While I feel for the taxpayers of DC, I take heart in the fact that there are many gun prohibitionists like Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) who live in the District.

You can read the agreement at the link to the Legal Times above.

Uncategorized

SAF Rips Plan To Add Social Security Recipients To NICS Database

July 21, 2015 by 1 Comment

Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation didn’t mince words when they ripped into the proposal to include those who have trouble managing their Social Security checks in the NICS prohibited person database. They make an excellent point when they say that gun control supporters will see nothing wrong with this proposal.

From the SAF:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today responded to published reports that the Obama administration is pushing to prevent citizens collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if they have problems managing their own affairs as proof the president wants to strip as many people as possible of their Second Amendment rights while he remains in office.

“This could possibly disqualify millions of people from owning firearms and might prevent many others from seeking help,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, himself a U.S. Army veteran. “It’s unconscionable that someone who might have problems balancing a checkbook or managing their finances would suddenly find himself or herself stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.”

The plan, according to the Los Angeles Times, “could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.” The report says this push “is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others.”

“So, let’s see,” Gottlieb observed. “The Obama administration wants to equate some Social Security recipients who own guns with felons, drug addicts and illegal immigrants. That’s not simply insulting, it’s insidious, because who knows where this could lead?

“What’s next,” he wondered. “Will they take away someone’s right to vote, claiming they’re not competent?”

Published reports estimated about 4.2 million adults are now receiving monthly Social Security benefits that are managed by someone else, designated as “representative payees.”

“What may seem reasonable to people who reflexively support any and all gun control is really just one more effort by the Obama White House to erode Second Amendment rights any way they can,” Gottlieb stated. “Taking away someone’s Second Amendment rights because they can’t manage their finances is wrongheaded and repugnant.”

Uncategorized

SAF Files Amicus Brief In NC Gun Range Zoning Case

June 2, 2015 by 1 Comment

The NC Court of Appeals upheld Franklin County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in a split decision in 2014. Their ruling upheld a Superior Court ruling denying the plaintiffs the ability to build a shooting range.

Aaron Byrd and Eric Coombs had sought to build a shooting range on property they owned in the county. The county’s Planning Director has first told them they couldn’t do it because the UDO didn’t list it as an approved use. The Director later amended his decision to say that Byrd and Coombs could have a range if they applied for a special use permit under the Open Air Games classification. They applied to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners for this special use permit in December 2012 and were denied.

Shortly thereafter, Byrd and Coombs were issued notices that they were in violation of the zoning code and they must “cease and desist” all activities related to the shooting range. They appealed the Code Officer’s notices to the county’s Board of Adjustment. (As an aside, I served on the Town of Wayneville’s Board of Adjustment for 19 years.) The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board whose rulings can be appealed to the Superior Court. They were turned down here and made a timely appeal to Superior Court. As noted in the first paragraph, the Superior Court upheld the ruling of the Board of Adjustment.

Byrd and Coombs contend that since the UDO made no mention of regulating shooting ranges, then they don’t need approval from the county to build their range. Moreover, they said that classifying a shooting range as an Open Air Game was in error. Finally, they argued that an earlier Court of Appeals case, Land v. Village of Wesley Chapel, has set the precedent in their favor.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals stated they agreed that the classification of the shooting range as an Open Air Game was erroneous. They they went on to say this:

However, we disagree with
Petitioners that the UDO does not regulate shooting ranges at
all, but it does in fact prohibit shooting ranges anywhere in
the County by providing that “[u]ses not specifically listed in
the Table [] are prohibited.” Accordingly, we hold that the
superior court did not err in affirming the County’s order that
Petitioners cease and desist from operating a shooting range on
the Property.

Judge Robert Hunter dissented from this opinion in part saying that he thought the Land case precedent on shooting ranges ruled in this case. It should be noted that Judge Hunter wrote the opinion in the Land case. He said the Land case “cited long-standing precedent in
rejecting the notion that a zoning ordinance may prohibit uses
not explicitly allowed.”

Byrd and Coombs have now appealed this decision to the NC Supreme Court. On Friday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief on behalf on the plaintiffs. The SAF’s amicus brief was submitted by Raleigh attorney Camden Webb of Williams Mullin.

The Second Amendment Foundation amicus brief notes that this case does not only involve a judicial interpretation of the county’s UDO but “implicates an important Constitutional question.” The Court of Appeals by saying that the UDO prohibits shooting ranges in Franklin County is allowing “the impermissable infringement of the Second Amendment rights of the people of Franklin County, North Carolina.”

After discussing Heller, McDonald, and the appropriate level of scrutiny, the brief goes on to discuss the 7th Circuit’s ruling in the Ezell case. There the court said the the City of Chicago’s banning of all shooting ranges within the city limits was unconstitutional saying, in part, “the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice to make it effective.” The brief argues that the 7th Circuit’s reasoning should apply in this case. The brief further argues that the county did not establish a close fit between the banning of a range and the public good or interest that it serves. Given the county is primarily rural, they say the “complete prohibition of a shooting ranges in such a county simply cannot pass constitutional muster.”

I’m glad the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case. The precedent set by the Ezell case must be strongly defended and this brief does that. Alan Gottlieb noted that the SAF had to sue Chicago over this same issue.

Uncategorized

SAF Helps A Navy Vet Get His Guns Back

May 12, 2015 by 2 Comments

At the beginning of April, retired Navy vet Rick Bailey of Glendale, AZ had his $25,000 firearms collection seized by the courts. His next door neighbor had filed an Injunction of Harassment against him. And what did Mr. Bailey do to cause this? He complained to the neighbor about the smell of horse manure wafting from two dump trucks owned by the neighbor’s landscaping business.

var p = new anv_pl_def(); p.config = {}; p.config.width = 640; p.config.height = 360; p.loadVideoExpressV3(‘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|1000011|SPS’);

Fortunately, thanks to the help of the Second Amendment Foundation he got them back. The SAF continues the rest of the story below:

BELLEVUE, WA – A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today.

SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Marc J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.

Bailey was generous in his praise of SAF’s intervention, noting, “I want to thank Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation for all the help in getting my firearms returned.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said he was honored to have been able to step in with support for what he called a “worthy effort on behalf of a deserving veteran.”

Bailey had complained to the City of Glendale about a neighbor’s habit of parking dump trucks used in his landscaping company. The dispute unfolded over several months until Bailey called police over concerns of toxic chemical odors apparently coming from the neighbor’s property. The neighbor apparently alleged that Bailey had threatened him, and the following day, he obtained a harassment order against Bailey.

“Mr. Bailey had been devastated by incident,” Gottlieb explained. “This all started because of a dispute with a neighbor that got way out of hand. Nobody should have their life turned upside down, and their property seized, because of an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated.

“I want to credit attorney Marc Victor for his work in this legal action,” he added. “He was on top of this case, and SAF was delighted to help out with funding.”

“Now that Rick Bailey has his firearms back,” Gottlieb observed, “perhaps his dignity can also be restored. This kind of silly season story should never happen in real life.”

Uncategorized

Defense Distributed, SAF Sue John Kerry And The State Department

May 7, 2015 by 1 Comment

Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have joined forces to sue the State Department on First, Second, and Fifth Amendment grounds. They contend the the State Department through its Directorate of Defense Trade Controls misused ITAR regulations to force Defense Distributed to take down its files for the Liberator pistol among other items. The State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel as far back as 1978 had said that the use of ITAR to impose prior restraint on “privately generated unclassified information in the public domain” violated the First Amendment.

The big guns are being brought to bear on this fight. Lead counsel is Alan Gura. The legal team also includes Prof. Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law who has published on this topic in the Tennessee Law Review and attorneys from the global intellectual property firm of Fish & Richardson (no relation!). Fish & Richardson just happens to be the top intellectual property firm in the United States by all rankings.

The complaint can be  found here.

The Second Amendment Foundation has more on the lawsuit below:

SAF Sues Feds Over Censorship Of 3-D Firearms Printing Information

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined Defense Distributed of Austin, Texas, in filing a federal lawsuit against Secretary of State John Kerry, the Department of State and other federal officials, seeking to stop the Government’s unconstitutional censorship of information related to the three-dimensional printing of arms.

The Government’s restraint against the publication of this critical information, under the guise of controlling arms exports, violates the First Amendment right to free speech, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process, the lawsuit alleges.

SAF and Defense Distributed seek to publish 3-D printing information at no cost to the public. Constitutional attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky leads the litigation team, which also includes William “Tommy” Jacks, Bill Mateja, and David Morris of Fish & Richardson; export control counsel Matthew Goldstein, and constitutional law Professor Josh Blackman.

“Americans have always been free to exchange information about firearms and manufacture their own arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We also have an expectation that any speech regulations be spelled out clearly, and that individuals be provided basic procedural protections if their government claims a power to silence them.”

The lawsuit asserts the defendants are unlawfully applying International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to prevent the plaintiffs from exercising in free speech on the Internet and other forums. ITAR “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” the complaint asserts. There are criminal and civil penalties for violations, ranging up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million per violation.

Defense Distributed generated technical information on various gun-related items, which it published on the Internet. But it removed all the files from its servers upon being warned that it “may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.” In June 2013, Defense Distributed submitted various published files to DDTC for review of a machine called the “Ghost Gunner.” In April, DDTC said the machine does not fall under ITAR, but that software and files are subject to State Department jurisdiction.

“Defense Distributed appears to be caught in what seems to be a bureaucratic game of merry-go-round,” Gottlieb said. “The right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to acquire or create arms. The government is engaging in behavior that denies the company due process under the Fifth Amendment. We’re compelled to file this action because the bureaucracy is evidently playing games and it’s time for these agencies to behave.”

Just think, if Hillary Clinton had hung around a little longer at the State Department, the suit could have been titled Defense Distributed et al v. Hillary Clinton et al!

UPDATE: This case has caught the attention of the New York Times and Wired. I’m not surprised by Wired but the Times is a bit surprising. They note that Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have a “high-powered legal team” and quote another First Amendment expert as saying this lawsuit is “not frivolous”. Hmm.

Sebastian also has some more on the case here.

Uncategorized

Two Gun Rights Alienage Wins In North Carolina

April 27, 2015 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation brought suit on behalf of Felicity Veasey, an Australian citizen, for being denied the right to apply for a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit. She is a permanent legal resident married to a US citizen living in Granville County. The suit sought to enjoin the enforcement of the state requirement that one must be a US citizen to obtain a CHP. The case was started in June 2014.

The ACLU and the Second Amendment Foundation have won a number of lawsuits challenging the denial of gun rights based on alienage. Between the two, they have won cases in Kentucky, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Massachusetts on behalf of permanent legal residents. Discrimination based upon alienage is considered constitutionally suspect and an regulation or law must be examined under strict scrutiny.

Another case was filed in March 2015 on behalf of Kristen Messmer of Wake County, a German citizen who is a permanent legal resident and who also sought a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit. Her attorney was Camden Webb who also served as co-counsel in the Veasey case.

The cases, though not officially joined, were both heard by US District Court Judge Terrence Boyle of the Eastern District of NC. He granted a preliminary injunction in both cases on Thursday and the opinions were released on Friday afternoon. With the exception of the background of the plaintiffs, the wording in the opinions is virtually word for word the same.

After noting that permanent residents have many of the same constitutional rights as US citizens including their Second Amendment rights, Judge Boyle wrote:

No defendant has proffered a strong argument in support of limiting the concealed carry
statute to citizens. No defendant objected to plaintiffs’ characterization in court that resident
aliens are allowed to possess firearms on their premises and are even allowed to carry firearms
openly in North Carolina. In fact, the Sheriff stated in court that he agreed with plaintiffs that the
law at issue in this case was unconstitutional. In light of other court rulings, the law in North
Carolina, and defendants’ postures in this case, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely
to succeed on the merits.


The Court further finds that in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiffs will
suffer irreparable harm. The deprivation of a constitutional right, even if only briefly, constitutes
irreparable harm.

Professor Eugene Volokh has also covered the Messmer case at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The North Carolina General Assembly, if it were smart, would save the state some money and make the necessary corrections to state law. Judge Boyle issued a preliminary injunction and further hearings and filings would be needed for the permanent injunction.