Second Amendment Foundation

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.

Uncategorized

Swiss Army Dirk?

April 15, 2015 by 4 Comments

A Swiss Army knife should be considered a dirk (or dagger) under the law so sayeth California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is appealing a California Court of Appeals ruling that a Swiss Army knife, even if carried with the blade open, cannot be considered a dirk or dagger. The case is California v. Castillolopez.

I first heard about the case from Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition over lunch at the NRA Annual Firearms Law Seminar. He was telling those of us at the table about the case and that the Second Amendment Foundation was joining with Knife Rights on an amicus brief.

As to Kamala Harris and the state of California, it is as if they have something against the Scots-Swiss carrying a Swiss Army knife in their sporran.

The joint release from SAF and Knife Rights on their amicus brief is below.

A legal brief urging the California Supreme Court to rule that common, non-locking Swiss Army Knives and similar pocketknives are not illegal ‘dirks’ or ‘daggers’ was filed on Monday.


George M. Lee, a partner at the San Francisco law firm of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, wrote the “friend of the court” brief in the criminal matter of State of California v. Emmanuel Castillolopez on behalf of the civil rights organizations Knife Rights Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.


Knife Rights would like to thank our good friends at the Second Amendment Foundation, Cal Guns and the Firearms Policy Coalition for their support of this brief.


The case stems from a dispute over section 16470 of the California Penal Code, which defines a dirk or dagger as “a knife or other instrument….that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” But, for everyday pocketknives like the one at issue in Castillolopez, the definition applies only “if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.”


Castillolopez was convicted in 2012 by a San Diego County jury for illegally carrying a concealed dirk or dagger after law enforcement found a Swiss Army Knife with the blade open in his pocket following a traffic stop. The Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal later overturned his conviction, holding that Castillolopez’ pocketknife didn’t meet the statutory definition of an illegally-carried ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ because it didn’t have a locking mechanism.


“For simply having a common, everyday Swiss Army multi-tool with the blade open in his pocket, Mr. Castillolopez was charged, prosecuted, and convicted of a very serious crime,” explained Lee. “We strongly believe that the Court of Appeal correctly held that the State’s arguments are wrong on the law and hope the Supreme Court similarly disposes of the matter in its forthcoming decision.”


Doug Ritter, founder and Chairman of the Knife Rights Foundation, said, “Ultimately, our important brief is about protecting knife owners from prosecutorial overreach by maintaining the historical definition of a ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ in California. If the State wins this case with their expansive theory on how a ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ is defined, every Boy Scout and slipjoint folding knife owner in California might one day be guilty of a felony. With millions of Californians at risk, and a potential bad state precedent to be set, we were compelled to stand up for their rights as we have elsewhere in this country when the government attempts to overreach in cases against knife owners.”


Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb agreed, saying that he hoped the high court would keep owners of regular, non-locking pocket knives from being subjected to felony criminal liability. However, he was quick to clarify that, “in order to secure the rights of law-abiding people, sometimes we have to take a strong position on a law’s application, even when the person at issue in a given case isn’t ideal.”


The Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition contributed assistance to the brief’s preparation.


A copy of the filed Amicus Brief can be viewed at:
http://www.kniferights.org/KRF-SAF_Amicus_Brief.pdf


The Opening Brief from California Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed at: http://www.kniferights.org/S218861_OBM_People.pdf


The Appellant’s Answer Brief can be viewed at:

http://www.kniferights.org/S218861_ABM_Castillolopez.pdf


The State’s Reply Brief can be viewed at: http://www.kniferights.org/S218861_RBM_People.pdf

Uncategorized

SAF Reaction To DC’s Decision On It’s Appeal Palmer Case

April 3, 2015 by 2 Comments

On Wednesday, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that his office would ask the US Court of Appeals to dismiss their appeal of Palmer v. DC. That decision in that case forced the District of Columbia to start issuing carry permits.

“We need to focus our energies not on litigating old laws, but defending new ones that our leaders enacted
in good faith to comply with court rulings while still protecting public safety,” Attorney General Racine said.
“The Council enacted a law that sets a process by which individuals may apply for gun licenses, which has
superseded the law at issue in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Going forward, our energies are best spent
focusing on defending the current law. We are vigorously defending it in the district court, and we are
confident that it will be upheld.”

The new carry laws that the DC Council “enacted in good faith” (sic) are so onerous and so draconian that the Second Amendment Foundation filed a second lawsuit. DC took as their model Maryland who has a “good cause” requirement.

The Second Amendment Foundation is pleased with their victory but note that it isn’t over yet. They still have pending motions before US District Court Judge Frederick Scullin over the enforcement of his decision in addition to Wrenn et al v. DC.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation will continue fighting the District of Columbia’s new concealed carry law, while notching a small victory with today’s decision by the city to drop its appeal of SAF’s victory in the Palmer case that forced the city to adopt a carry permitting structure.

“While we’re happy to see the city drop their appeal of our earlier victory,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we were eager to face them in court, as there was no possible way they could have successfully argued in favor of continuing an outright ban on carry in the District.

“This is one more critical Second Amendment Foundation victory for gun rights,” he added. “But we will continue to keep suing the city of Washington, D.C. over their new carry law that is still an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment rights.”

Under the District’s newly-adopted law, permit applicants must still provide a good reason for carrying a protective firearm outside the home, and the police chief gets to decide whether that reason is valid. So far, only a handful of applicants have been approved, and Gottlieb said that shows a fundamental flaw in such a discretionary permitting scheme.

“No public official should enjoy that kind of sway over a citizen’s right to bear arms,” Gottlieb stated. “It creates a manifestly unfair system that is wide open to abuse and favoritism, as we’ve seen in New York, California and elsewhere that insiders and elitists can get permits, but average citizens are routinely given second-class consideration, or no consideration at all.”

This is not the end of the Palmer case, however. SAF still has outstanding enforcement motions pending before U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who handed down the initial Palmer ruling. His rulings on those motions could produce further appeals, SAF attorney Alan Gura explained. SAF has already filed a lawsuit challenging the District’s current highly-restrictive “good reason” requirement.

“Our intent is to continue our battle for the right to bear arms on behalf of all the citizens, not just a privileged few,” Gottlieb concluded.

One thing I did notice in DC Attorney General’s release was the Congress has until May to disapprove the Council’s permanent legislation concerning concealed carry. I’m not sure where that stands but Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) have introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 which would remove the power of the DC Council to enact gun control legislation. The bill also includes shall-issue carry permits, the ability of DC residents to purchase firearms in Maryland and Virginia, and repeal the firearms registration system.

One way or another the District is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing the Second Amendment just like the South was over civil rights and integration. And just like the South, the District will attempt to do it with all due deliberate speed if their new mayor is any indication.

Uncategorized

A Roundup Of Other Gun Right Organizations Reactions To BATFE Announcement

March 11, 2015 by 2 Comments

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.

Uncategorized

DC Sued Again Over Concealed Carry

February 4, 2015 by 1 Comment

The District of Columbia was sued today by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of two DC residents and one Florida resident who resides in Virginia. The suit challenges DC’s “good reason” requirement to be issued a concealed carry permit. Currently, only eight permits have been issued out of 69 applications.

Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs in the suit entitled Wrenn et al v. District of Columbia

From SAF’s release:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the District of Columbia’s highly restrictive concealed carry permit requirement that applicants provide a “good reason” before such a permit is issued, which violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF is joined by three private citizens, Brian Wrenn and Joshua Akery, both of Washington, D.C., and Tyler Whidby, a Florida resident who also maintains a residence in Virginia. The city and Police Chief Cathy Lanier are named as defendants.

The lawsuit asserts that “individuals cannot be required to prove a ‘good reason’ or ‘other proper reason’ for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.” All three individual plaintiffs in the case have applied for District carry permits and have been turned down by Lanier because they could not “Demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property.”

“The city’s requirements to obtain a carry permit are so restrictive in nature as to be prohibitive to virtually all applicants,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s rather like a ‘Catch 22,’ in which you can apply all day long, but no reason is sufficiently good enough for Chief Lanier to issue a permit.

“Because of that,” he added, “the city has set the bar so high that it relegates a fundamental civil right to the status of a heavily-regulated government privilege. That is not only wrong, it also does not live up to previous court rulings. Law-abiding citizens who clear background checks and are allowed to have handguns in their homes are being unnecessarily burdened with the additional requirement of proving some special need.

“The last time we checked,” Gottlieb concluded, “we had a Bill of Rights that applied to the entire nation, including the District. It’s not, and never has been, a ‘Bill of Needs’.”

The city is still appealing its earlier loss in Palmer v. D.C., the SAF-sponsored case that struck down the city’s total ban on carrying handguns. The courts have not yet ruled on SAF’s claim that the city’s “may issue” law violates the Palmer injunction.

“We will give the courts every chance to bring Washington, D.C. into constitutional compliance,” said attorney Alan Gura, who represents SAF and the other plaintiffs in both cases.

The complaint can be found here.

Uncategorized

JPFO’s Official Statement On Merger With SAF

September 5, 2014 by 1 Comment

The official statement from the board of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is below. I covered some of the controversy on the decision to merge in my earlier post announcing the merger. As I said there, I hope it works out so that both organizations can keep up the good fight for the Second Amendment and our rights.


From JPFO:


Dear JPFO Members and Supporters,


Even before the passing of founder, Aaron Zelman, there was serious
doubt as to whether or not JPFO could survive. For years Aaron struggled
heroically with chronic health problems.


The results were rapidly expanding problems in administrative, database
and member support and new product operations, along with no systematic
fundraising program — to name just a few. Aaron delegated painfully
little? But considering it all, what he accomplished goes well beyond
the heroic to near miracles.


The regular staff was reduced to a devoted office manager of some
15-years, LaVonne, an equally devoted webmaster, Chris and Aaron’s two
Board members, Bruce and Bob serving with him since the mid-1990s. The
effort to rebuild JPFO began in earnest, facing the ominous headwinds of
a diminished database and largely empty coffers.


After some months, Charles Heller stepped-in to provide Executive
Director services; including media contacts.


One bright spot was the wise counsel of the JPFO advisor on spiritual
matters, Rabbi Dovid Bendory, known affectionately as the “Gun Rabbi.”


The task was truly immense. It seemed to grow in difficulty as each step
forward unearthed more challenges. Tragedy struck again a year later
when our office manager, LaVonne passed away unexpectedly. She had
loyally worked with Aaron for over 15-years. Her husband, Doug resigned
his regular employment as her fulltime replacement. Without his
commitment it is a virtual certainty JPFO would have collapsed more than
a year ago.


Adding to these losses was the death of another key writer, Kirby
Ferris. More recently a board member was blindsided with two major heart
surgeries and is still in rehabilitation.


Then just weeks ago another key writer, the prolific 2A and science
fiction author, L. Neil Smith, who worked with Aaron on various books
and other major editorial projects, suffered a stroke, right in the
middle of our Fall educational and fundraising product developments.


In spite of all this seemingly endless ?damage control? we were able to
increase the membership; and thanks to the contract writers and the
webmaster, who maintain a flow of quality editorial material; while
organizing first-rate office operations; including tight inventory
controls with a quick turnaround of member requests.


From day one, due to the highly specialized Jewish orientation, the
primary target constituency was extremely small. Fortunately, non-Jews,
so taken with the powerful JPFO message, have also consistently been a
vital source of revenue; while donating impressive amounts of time and
talent to various projects, from 1989 to this very day.


However, all along was the paradox that as a skeletal crew of fiercely
devoted workers salvaged and refined after Aaron’s passing, the Stalking
Horse of poor cash flow was always there. We came to realize that JPFO
needed one or more major supporters to break through to the next level.


Many inquiries yielded nil, it became clear that the most logical and
efficient solution was to ally with another 2A organization, while
preserving our identity.


That’s not all. We realized we must have an organization with longevity,
solid management, financial depth and marketing powers to insure JPFO
carried on.


The urgency of this search accelerated as the monthly revenue streams,
from all sources, began a steadily decline early this year. Recent
fundraising efforts have yielded little. The headquarters was reduced to
being run by the managing director, with part-time secretarial help.


To solve these problems, the JPFO Board of Directors sought out and
elected to merge with the Second Amendment Foundation
(SAF).

Founded in 1974, now with over 650,000 members, SAF is the oldest and
largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action
group focusing on the right to keep and bear arms.

JPFO will be operated independently by SAF and current JPFO private and
industry members and contributors will continue to receive all benefits
promised. It will maintain a separate board of directors.

The JPFO website will continue to run independently as a stand-alone
entity but will now include links to it from TheGunMag.com,
KeepandBearArms.com, plus SAF.org. JPFO will also become a member
organization of the International Association for the Protection of
Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) to expand its reach internationally.

Certain JPFO editorial and administrative staff are likely to remain or
be available for the transition. Later, headquarters will move from
Wisconsin to SAF headquarters in Bellevue, Washington.

The decision to merge with SAF has generated powerful disagreements and
no small amount of vitriol… But before making final decisions on this
action, please visit this page
 to discover
what firearms industry icon, Massad Ayoob, has to say about this
controversy.

Adulation of Aaron Zelman is spot on; nevertheless, it would be
profoundly unfair to not tip the hat of deep gratitude to all members,
donors, plus those deeply devoted volunteers that have committed well
into the thousands of hours of free services since 1989, so making many
of Aaron’s landmark projects possible even with the Stalking Horse of
financial distress continually behind his back, as it was for us until
the merger.

Sincerely,

JPFO Board of Directors

Uncategorized

SAF, JPFO Merge

September 5, 2014 by

It appears that the merger of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership with the Second Amendment Foundation is an actuality. It is a move that will please some and disappoint others. David Codrea, the National Gun Rights Examiner, has been following the whole process. His article last night announcing the merger pointed out some of the controversy over the merger and that only time will tell if the merger will strengthen JPFO.

Writer Claire Wolfe has spoken out strongly against this merger. She had been a writer for JPFO and resigned her position with them to go public with her opposition to the merger. She terms the merger as a sell-out of the ideals of JPFO founder Aaron Zelman. The whole series of her posts on her Living Freedom blog at Backwoods Home magazine can be found here.

Speaking out in favor of the merger has been Second Amendment stalwarts such as Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and Massad Ayoob. Both men agree that the financial strength of SAF will be essential to keeping JPFO from going down the drain.

Frankly, it is hard to keep any organization going when its charismatic founder and leader suddenly dies. While the message is ultimately the most important aspect of the organization, it and the founder are so intimately intertwined that it is hard to have one without the other. I don’t know the whole history of JPFO nor do I know the details of any animosity that Aaron Zelman might have had for Alan Gottlieb. I do know that both organizations support the Second Amendment and that anything that helps both survive to keep on fighting for it can’t be all bad.

The announcement from Alan Gottlieb and SAF on the merger is below:


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has become part of the SAF family, bringing together two stalwart gun rights organizations under one banner.

“We’re both delighted and proud to announce this merger,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “JPFO was founded 25 years ago by the late Aaron Zelman, and it has become a strong voice in defense of the Second Amendment. I’m personally confident that bringing JPFO into the SAF extended family will benefit firearms owners at many levels.”

Zelman passed away in 2010, and for the past four years, the JPFO has worked hard to maintain its position in the gun rights community.

“We see this as a tremendous opportunity,” said Gottlieb. “With SAF’s resources, we expect JPFO to continue its important work and grow to meet new challenges, educating people about the pitfalls of gun control, and the benefits of gun ownership and personal protection.”

Gottlieb said JPFO operations will be transferred from Wisconsin, where it was founded by Zelman in 1989, to the SAF offices at Liberty Park in Bellevue, Wash. JPFO editorial support staff will stay on and help maintain organizational continuity, he added.

“A few years ago,” Gottlieb noted, “Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership also merged into the SAF family and it has proven to be a great benefit to the gun rights community.”

By joining with the foundation, JPFO will also become a member organization of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) and expand its reach internationally.

JPFO will be operated independently as a project of SAF and current members and contributors to the organization will continue to receive all benefits promised, Gottlieb added. JPFO’s website will continue to run independently as a stand-alone entity but will now include links to it from TheGunMag.com, KeepandBearArms.com, as well as SAF.org.

Uncategorized

If You Want To Donate, Here Are Some Better Groups

August 25, 2014 by 1 Comment

Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center recently sent out the e-mail seen below crowing about going three for three in court cases involving certain semi-automatic rifles whose cosmetics horrify the gun prohibitionists. He is referring to cases that challenged new state laws that created a magazine ban, an “assault weapons” (sic) ban, or both. The states involved were Connecticut, Maryland, and New York.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy where a gunman fatally shot 20 children and 6 adults, state lawmakers finally said ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’ and took action.


New York, Connecticut, and Maryland made it more difficult to buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, so these weapons of war would never again threaten lives in our homes, schools and communities.


Unfortunately, the corporate gun lobby saw a threat to their profits and went to court to challenge these laws.


At the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, we didn’t let these attacks on our public safety go unchallenged. We filed amicus briefs and worked closely with state officials to help them defend these life-saving laws. Law firms with our national pro bono alliance, Lawyers for a Safer America, were critical to these efforts.


WE ARE 3-for-3 SO FAR. Federal trial judges in ALL 3 STATES have upheld the new laws. Your support helped us win these victories.


But our work continues — the gun lobby is appealing the rulings, which means we’re still working hard with states and filing amicus briefs to meet the challenge. On August 5, we filed a brief in the New York case. Next week we’re filing in Connecticut.


These federal appeals cases are critically important – the rulings will set far-reaching precedents on the power of states to protect their communities from gun violence.


We need your support to preserve the victories we’ve won so far and make sure the corporate gun lobby isn’t allowed to put profits over people’s lives.


Please support the Brady Center today to help us keep our winning streak going, and protect lives in our nation’s homes, schools and communities.


With gratitude,


Jonathan Lowy
Director, Brady Center Legal Action Project

I’m surprised that Mr. Lowy didn’t include the nonsensical ruling out of Colorado which upheld the Hickenlooper mag ban.

The recent decision out of Maryland does show that certain judges who are ignorant about firearms and who have a bias against them will listen to what the Brady Center puts into their amicus briefs. Even though those of us in the gun culture consider their arguments to be “authentic frontier gibberish” we still need to counter them. Thus I donate to groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund who will present the counter arguments to the Jonathan Lowy’s of the world.

I would encourage you to do the same if you can.