CalGuns Foundation

Uncategorized

Linton V. Becerra – Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Against California

December 23, 2018 by 4 Comments

Chad Linton and Paul McKinley Stewart had screwed up in their younger days, paid their debt to society, and went on to lead lives in California as good, productive citizens. More importantly to our discussion here, the relevant courts in both Washington State and Arizona had explicitly expunged their non-violent felony convictions and explicitly restored their rights to own, possess, and purchase firearms. They further underwent multiple background and fingerprint checks and Linton actually had purchased firearms in California in the past. However, that is not good enough for California now. When they each went to purchase firearms starting in 2015, they were turned down the California Department of Justice and its Bureau of Firearm based upon Cal. Pen. Code §§ 29800 and §§ 30305.

Messrs. Linton and Stewart along with institutional plaintiffs the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Society, the Calguns Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation filed suit in US District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday, December 20th. The parties are represented by attorney George M. Lee of Seiler, Epstein, Ziegler & Applegate of San Francisco. They named California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Acting Chief of the Bureau of Firearms Martin Horan, and Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson as defendants.

Mr. Linton was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island when he was stopped for a DUI and trying to elude police. He pled guilty and was sentenced to time served (7 days) and probation with the promise that his felony conviction would be downgraded to a misdemeanor if he completed his probation successfully which he did. He received a certificate of discharge stating that all of his civil rights were restored. Fast forward from 1987 to 2015. Mr. Linton attempted to buy a handgun but was denied by the State of California due to the prior felony. He hired an attorney in Washington State to reopen the proceedings, withdraw his guilty plea, and enter a not-guilty plea. The Superior Court in Washington State vacated his prior conviction, set aside his guilty plea, and restored his rights.

On April 18, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Island County,
further issued, upon Plaintiff’s petition, an Order Restoring Right to Possess Firearms pursuant
to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.41.040(4). A copy of this order is attached as Exhibit
B. As part of that petition, and order, the court found that Plaintiff Linton was qualified,
pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(4), to have the right to possess firearms restored to him, and
accordingly, ordered “that Petitioner Chad Linton’s civil rights and right to possess firearms are
FULLY RESTORED pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(4).” (Id.) The court further ordered the
Washington State Patrol to transmit a copy of its Order to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

When later in 2016 Linton attempted to purchase a rifle the California DOJ denied it and sent him a letter stating that he was ineligible due to being a felon. His California attorney made multiple requests to the California DOJ to clear up the matter and provided them with the Washington State court orders. Linton assumed the matter had been cleared up when he went to purchase a revolver and was again denied. Soon thereafter he was visited by agents of the California DOJ’s Armed Prohibited Persons System enforcement project who seized all of his firearms including a family heirloom. Bear again in mind that he was not a prohibited person under either Washington State or Federal law. Indeed Deputy AG Robert Wilson went so far as to say that they would not honor the Washington State court’s findings and that Mr. Linton try to get a presidential pardon as that is the only thing they would accept.

Mr. Stewart made similar successful efforts to get his record expunged by the State of Arizona. In 2016 the Yuma County Superior Court specifically sent aside his conviction and restored his firearm rights. The Arizona Department of Public Safety sent Stewart more documentation indicating the felony conviction had been set aside and his records had been corrected. Notwithstanding this, like Mr. Linton, he was denied when he sought to purchase a firearm.

Count One alleges the state has violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Second Amendment by denying them the right to possess firearms in their home for self-defense.

Notwithstanding the non-violent nature of those
convictions, and the subsequent restoration of plaintiffs’ rights, the laws and Defendants’
policies, practices, and customs described herein, as applied to Individual Plaintiffs, amount to a
total and permanent deprivation of their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and
ammunition, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and are therefore an infringement upon
those rights. The circumstances surrounding the Individual Plaintiffs’ convictions are therefore
and should be distinguishable from those persons that have been historically excluded from the right to keep and bear arms.

Count Two states that the defendants’ actions violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. Both the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions require each state to honor the valid judgments of courts in other states. The Supreme Court said in 1998 in Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp, that “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the
subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the
land.”

The third and final count states that California is violating both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment, Section 1. California law provides a process whereby someone convicted of a “wobbler” felony can get his or her firearms rights restored. A wobbler felony is one where the person could have been charged with either a felony or misdemeanor for the offense. If the person gets the felony downgraded to a misdemeanor under Pen. Code § 17(b), they would also be eligible to get their record expunged in its entirety under Pen. Code § 1203.4. Both would allow the person in question to have their firearms rights restored.

However, the State of California will only honor the reduction of these qualifying
felony convictions utilizing the statutes and the process described above. As shown throughout
this complaint, California refuses to honor the comparable process utilized by other states,
including the States of Washington and Arizona, shown above, even where the courts of those
jurisdictions expressly have set aside the felony convictions and have restored firearms rights to
such persons who have successfully completed their terms of probation. Accordingly, Defendants’ refusal to honor the set-aside or vacation of those felony convictions, and/or
restoration of firearm rights, by courts of those other states, amounts to unlawful discrimination,
favoring California’s citizens, since persons convicted of felonies in other states, in essence, have
no actual means to seek judicial restoration of their firearms rights here, or otherwise comparable
to the process of reduction under those mechanisms (including Pen. Code § 17(b)) described
above.

In essence, what you have is California saying that they will treat their restoration of rights as legitimate while that of other states as illegitimate for the purposes of firearms rights.

The plaintiffs are seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief under all counts as as applied to themselves and to others similarly situated. Of course, they are also seeking attorneys’ fees.

I’m not a judge nor a lawyer but if I had to hazzard a guess this will case will be decided on the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. While it is obviously a denial of Second Amendment rights, the courts will go for the low-hanging fruit of Counts Two and Three.

Uncategorized

Sharp V. Becerra – Assault Weapon Registration Lawsuit – Moved To Federal Court

September 25, 2018 by 4 Comments

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

In late August, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA)  moved to have the lawsuit against him and the California DOJ over their ineptness implementing the new registration of bullet button weapons moved to Federal court. One would have thought that he’d want to keep a suit against the California Department of Justice in state court.
The case was moved to US District Court for the Eastern District of California and assigned to Judge Morrison England, Jr. 
Today, the plaintiffs which include a number of individuals and a number of civil rights organizations filed an amended complaint. Joining the plaintiffs is the Madison Society Foundation.  The amended complaint also adds a Section 183 claim for deprivation of due process rights.

While I might have been tempted to just say “screw it”, all the individual plaintiffs spent hours trying to comply with the law requiring registration of their firearms. Some of the plaintiffs are IT professionals and tech savvy. Nonetheless, the database system was so screwed up, most of them were not able to do so. The response of Cal DOJ was “you procrastinated, so tough”. From the complaint:

The following Monday, July 2, 2018,
Plaintiff (Terry) Jahraus contacted the DOJ for assistance, but the DOJ official told him, essentially, “it
was [his] responsibility to comply with the law [and] that he had all year to do so.” In other
words, DOJ blamed him for failing to register, even though its own statutorily-mandated
registration system was inaccessible and defective throughout the entire period he had attempted
to register it well before the deadline.

The joint release of the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation is below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 24, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and five advocacy organizations announced a new court filing in a now-federal constitutional rights lawsuit over the State of California’s “assault weapon” registration debacle. The case, Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was originally filed in the County of Shasta Superior Court. But in late August it was removed to federal district court in Sacramento at the request of Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the DOJ defendants. The new court filing is online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp.

On August 24, the California Attorney General moved the case to federal court on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims present a federal constitutional question, in addition to their state-based claims. That same day, the lawsuit was assigned to District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Two years ago, Judge England issued a bench ruling to enjoin a California statute that criminalized the use of Assembly video footage in political advertisements in a case brought by Firearms Policy Coalition and its Proposition 63 ballot initiative political committee, FPC Second Amendment Defense Committee.

“While it’s interesting that Attorney General Becerra doesn’t want his own state’s courts to hear how badly he mis-administered the mandated firearm registration program, we welcome the opportunity to show Judge England how the DOJ violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and others like them,” said George M. Lee, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “General Becerra’s actions and failures affected many gun owners from San Diego to Eureka. These law-abiding gun owners tried to register their weapons as required by law but could not do so because DOJ’s registration system was wholly inadequate to do the job. We are simply asking that those injuries be reasonably remedied so that those citizens are not subject to criminal liability for possessing illegal, unregistered weapons – solely as a result of DOJ’s failures.”

In the latest complaint, submitted last Friday, the plaintiffs added a claim for deprivation of their due process rights under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code. The complaint also adds as an institutional plaintiff the Madison Society Foundation, a nonprofit organization that fights to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs say that Becerra and the DOJ had a legal and constitutional duty to provide a functional registration system during the registration period, but that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s CFARS-based registration system.” The plaintiffs alleged that the DOJ’s ‘botched’ “assault weapon” registration scheme – including the error-prone Internet application for registration that often crashed completely – violated both the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution’s guarantees of due process. They also allege that the failed DOJ system violated the plaintiffs’ and other similar gun owners’ statutory rights.

“Even though the lawsuit is now in a federal district court, it’s still just a straight-forward case about how Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ didn’t do the job they were mandated to do,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Their actions and failures violated the rights of thousands of California gun owners. It’s just that simple.”

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

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

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

The plaintiffs said that they would soon be asking Judge England for a preliminary injunction to protect affected gun owners’ rights and property while the case goes forward to summary judgement or trial.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and prosecutor. Attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group, who earlier this month secured a major First Amendment victory in a case that challenged a different California gun control statute that banned truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns, have been added to the legal team.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

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

Uncategorized

“You Can’t Stop The Signal, Mal”

August 1, 2018 by 2 Comments

As I noted earlier this evening, Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order preventing Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Conn Williamson from posting code files for 3-D printing and CNC machining of certain firearms. However, once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s out. Or in this case, once the code “escaped” to the Internet, it’s out and there is not a damn thing the gun control lobby, the gun prohibitionists, ideologue state attorney generals, or Constitution-ignoring judges can do about it.

Tonight, a new website was established by a coalition of civil and firearms rights groups has been set up and it has a number of files pertaining to 3-D printing and CNC machining on it. The site is called CodeIsFreeSpeech.com. I would encourage everyone to go to that website and download each and every file on it. You may never use the file nor even have a desire to engage in making your own firearm. Nonetheless, the more copies of each and every one of these files that out in the ether of the Internet, the less likely any attempt to stop it will be successful. Think of them as Freedom Files.

The coalition of groups behind this new website issued this release announcing the website – which by the way is up and running – and their intent behind doing so. None of these groups were parties to any of the lawsuits concerning the files of Defense Distributed.



SACRAMENTO, CA (July 31, 2018) — Tonight, the organizations and individuals behind CodeIsFreeSpeech.com,
a new Web site for the publication and sharing of firearm-related
speech, including machine code, have issued the following statement:
Our
Constitution’s First Amendment secures the right of all people to
engage in truthful speech, including by sharing information contained in
books, paintings, and files. Indeed, freedom of speech is a bedrock
principle of our United States and a cornerstone of our democratic
Republic. Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com,
we intend to encourage people to consider new and different aspects of
our nation’s marketplace of ideas – even if some government officials
disagree with our views or dislike our content – because information is
code, code is free speech, and free speech is freedom.
Should
any tyrants wish to chill or infringe the rights of the People, we
would welcome the opportunity to defend freedom whenever, wherever, and
however necessary. Hand-waving and hyperbole are not compelling
government interests and censorship is not proper tailoring under the
law.
There
is no doubt that Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have inspired
countless Americans to exercise their fundamental, individual rights,
including through home gunsmithing. Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com,
we hope to promote the collection and dissemination of truthful,
non-misleading speech, new and evolving ideas, and the advancement of
the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
CodeIsFreeSpeech.com
is a publicly-available Web site for truthful, non-misleading speech
and information that is protected under the United States Constitution.
The purpose of this project is to allow people to share knowledge and
empower them to exercise their fundamental, individual rights. CodeIsFreeSpeech.com
is a project of Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation,
The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms
Licensees, and a number of individuals who are passionate about the
Constitution and individual liberties.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org)
is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to
defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the
fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,
through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to
defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights,
privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right
to keep and bear arms.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members,
supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial
efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (www.calffl.org)
is a 501(c)6 nonprofit organization serving its members and the public
through direct and grassroots issue advocacy, regulatory input, legal
efforts, and education. CAL-FFL’s membership includes firearm dealers,
training professionals, shooting ranges, licensed collectors, others who
participate in the firearms ecosystem.
Uncategorized

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

July 12, 2018 by 2 Comments

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

From their joint release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

The Supreme Court Continues To Be A Doormat

February 21, 2018 by 2 Comments

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

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

Justice Thomas noted in his 14 page dissent that:

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

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

He concluded his dissent by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

A Nice Win For Gun Rights In A California Appeals Court

February 9, 2018 by 1 Comment

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

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

From the court’s opinion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

Gun Store Zoning Case Appealed To The Supreme Court

January 10, 2018 by

Alameda County, California includes cities such as Oakland, Pleasanton, and Berkeley. It also plays fast and loose with its zoning laws and how they interpret distances. John Teixeira and some associates wanted to open a gun store in an unincorporated area of Alameda County back in 2012. The zoning law there forbids gun stores within 500 feet of a residence, school, or liquor store. Teixeira met those requirements and was given a conditional use permit and variance from his local zoning board of adjustment. Then the Alameda County Board of Supervisors decided to change how distance was measured for zoning purposes. Thus, a survey of all empty lots showed that Teixeira could not meet the “new and improved” standards anywhere in the unincorporated areas of the county.

What the county did was institute a variant of “redlining”. In this case it was used to ban gun stores. In the past it was used to make sure that blacks and other minorities were restricted to living in certain areas. Both are a violation of civil rights.

Given this, Mr. Teixeira sued and was joined in his suit by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees, and the Calguns Foundation along with two other individual plaintiffs. The case was lost in US District Court but was initially a win before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m sure you can guess the rest of the story. The anti-gun judges of the 9th Circuit forced it into an en banc hearing in which they agreed with the District Court and negated the win.

Yesterday the plaintiffs in the case filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court asking for a writ of certiorari. The attorneys on the case are Don Kilmer and Alan Gura. The brief can be found here.

The plaintiffs issued the following statement of the appeal:

Supreme Court Asked to Review Alameda County Gun Store Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 9, 2018)­­­­­­ – Attorneys for three civil rights advocacy organizations and three individuals have filed a petition seeking United State Supreme Court review of a controversial 2017 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld an Alameda County, California law effectively banning gun stores within the unincorporated area of the county. A copy of the petition (and other case documents) can be viewed at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/teixeira.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2012, challenged a county ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of places that include residentially zoned districts. But, according to a scientific study conducted by the plaintiffs that included a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) evaluation of all parcels in Alameda County, there are no lots within the unincorporated county that meet the ordinance’s 500-foot-rule requirements.

On appeal, the plaintiffs won before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. But that opinion was vacated and reversed following an en banc rehearing before the full appeals court. Now the case is being appealed to the nation’s highest court.

“You simply cannot allow local governments to ignore the Second Amendment because they don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled on the amendment twice in the past ten years,” noted Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You shouldn’t be able to zone the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.”

“Local neighbors who live eight lanes across an interstate and the anti-rights politicians that cater to them can’t redline gun stores and the right to buy arms out of existence,” noted The Calguns Foundation’s Chairman, Gene Hoffman. “Since this case was filed multiple local city and county governments have used unconstitutional zoning laws to stop new gun stores from opening and close down existing gun stores. If this was a book store or an abortion clinic, the Ninth Circuit would not have hesitated in striking this zoning regulation unanimously.”

“The Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment was not a second-class right, but lower courts are ignoring that and holding otherwise—and so far, they’ve been getting away with it. We hope this case gets individual liberty back on track,” added California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees’ founder and Executive Vice President Brandon Combs.

“The federal courts exist, in part, to protect fundamental rights that might not be popular in certain jurisdictions,” noted California attorney Don Kilmer, who represents the plaintiffs. “Today, in the Ninth Circuit, those are gun rights. Tomorrow, who knows? One question presented by this case is whether our rights are subject to only one Constitution, or do those rights change from state to state?”

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joined in the case by California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), The Calguns Foundation (CGF), and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza. They are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and California attorney Don Kilmer.

Uncategorized

California Sued Over New AWB Regulations

December 1, 2017 by

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

The CalGuns Foundation has this summary of the case:

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

The complaint can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

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

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

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

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

Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

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

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

Uncategorized

Late Friday News No. 1 – From Calguns Foundation

October 28, 2017 by

The Calguns Foundation sent out an update on their appeal for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding California’s 10-day waiting period on Friday. Silvester et al v. Becerra challenges the 10-day waiting period for those individual who either holds a California issued carry permit or is an existing gun owner who holds a California certificate of eligibility. This case was a win at the District Court level but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. They bizarrely held that even existing firearms owners need a 10-day cooling off period.

From Calguns:

Gun
Rights Lawsuit Heating Up: California Ordered to Respond, Multiple
Briefs Filed in Support of 10-Day Waiting Period Petitioners
WASHINGTON,
D.C. (October 27, 2017) – A Second Amendment lawsuit out of California
is drawing attention at the Supreme Court and support from multiple
groups, said gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, which joined
Second Amendment Foundation and two individuals on a petition in
September seeking the Court’s review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that
upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period laws when they are enforced
against law-abiding gun owners after they pass a rigorous background
check.
Last
month, the respondent California Attorney General Xavier Becerra waived
his right to reply to the petition. But on September 29 the Supreme
Court ordered the State to reply; on October 24, the Court granted the
State of California an extension of time to file that reply, making the
new deadline December 1. Adding support for the case, multiple briefs
have been filed in support of the petitioners, encouraging the Supreme
Court to grant review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
In
a brief authored by preeminent constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and
Trevor Burrus, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Cato Institute
presented a strong case for the Court to grant certiorari.  The brief
argues, among other things, that intermediate scrutiny “means something
different in almost every circuit [court of appeal] when applied to the
Second Amendment” and that the Ninth Circuit “abused petitioners’
fundamental rights by misapplying intermediate scrutiny.”
And
in another brief, former California Deputy Attorney General Raymond M.
DiGuiseppe argued on behalf of a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy
groups—including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation,
Gun Owners of California, and Madison Society Foundation—that Supreme
Court review is necessary in this case “to reestablish the rule of law
and halt the trend of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing”
the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. “This is not the
first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’ with the
Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims
– nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,” the brief
said.
Attorneys
Douglas A. Applegate and George M. Lee of the San Francisco-based law
firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP filed a brief for the
Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization
led by the renowned economist Dr. John Lott, arguing that “the standards
applied by the lower courts vary widely” and that “the Ninth Circuit
reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the
evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own
non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable.”
“We
are pleased that other groups have recognized the serious flaws in the
Ninth Circuit’s approach,” explained Erik S. Jaffe, the petitioners’
Supreme Court counsel. “The results-driven analysis in the opinion below
not only does violence to the Second Amendment, but does violence to
the rule of law and respect for the courts. We are hopeful that the
Justices, whatever their views on the scope of the Second Amendment,
will recognize that the decision below is well out of bounds of any
reasonable reading of Supreme Court precedent or standards for
intermediate scrutiny and will take the necessary steps to ensure the
fair administration of justice in Second Amendment cases.”
In
2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii—nominated to the
bench by then-President Clinton—held that California’s waiting period
laws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun
purchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a
three-day bench trial.
But
in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun
as he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background
check, needs to be “cooled off” for another 10 days before exercising
his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a
constitutionally-protected firearm.
Brandon
Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive
director of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, said that
the briefs made excellent arguments and further supported the petition
for review. “The Supreme Court has everything that it needs in a case
with an excellent trial record teed up here to save the Second Amendment
from hostile lower courts.”
“We are grateful to these amici
organizations and their counsel for their support of this case and
standing up for constitutional principles,” concluded Combs. 
A copy of the Silvester petition to the Supreme Court and the amicus briefs can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.
Uncategorized

Appeal To The Supreme Court Filed In The Silvester Case

September 5, 2017 by 1 Comment

Silvester et al v. Becerra (formerly v. Harris) is a California case that involves a challenge to the 10-day waiting period for those individuals in classes where a waiting or cooling off period makes no rational sense. It was a win at the US District Court level. However, the 9th Circuit bizarrely ruled – but I repeat myself – that even those who owned a firearm and who held a concealed carry permit from California needed that cooling off period.

The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, Jeff Silvester, and Brandon Combs are the plaintiffs in this case. This past Friday, they have appealed to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Their petition can be found here.

More on the case in the Calguns Foundation’s release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 1, 2017)­­­­­­ – Today, two individuals and two Second Amendment civil rights advocacy groups filed a petition for certiorari in the case of Silvester, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asking the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn a wrongly-decided Ninth Circuit decision about the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws, noted The Calguns Foundation, one of the petitioners.

A copy of the petition to the Supreme Court and other relevant case documents can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.

In 2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii—nominated to the bench by then-President Clinton—held that the waiting period laws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial.

But in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun as he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background check, needs to be “cooled off” for another 10 days before exercising his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a constitutionally-protected firearm.

“I passed a rigorous state and federal background check and have a license to carry a handgun in public throughout the State of California,” explained individual plaintiff Jeffrey Silvester, an insurance broker in Hanford, California. “The DOJ knows that I am a law-abiding person, and I’m even in their Rap Back system. What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check?”

The petition, authored by Supreme Court and appellate attorney Erik. S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C., noted that it “is no secret that various lower courts, and the Ninth Circuit especially, are engaged in systematic resistance to” the Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions. In doing so, the petitioners argue, the Ninth Circuit ignored important legal rules that govern how infringements on constitutional rights are to be scrutinized and that govern review of a trial court determinations of the facts in a case. Petitioners maintain that the Ninth Circuit’s decision represents one of the clearest example yet of open circumvention of Second Amendment rights, when even the results of a trial cannot survive the hostile appellate review often applied in Second Amendment cases.

The petition notes that the lax legal standard applied by the Ninth Circuit in this case conflicts with the more protective legal standard applied by the Supreme Court, “poses a threat not merely to Second Amendment rights, but to First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well, and that review should be granted “to correct that conflict” and enforce the proper standard of constitutional scrutiny of laws that burden Second Amendment rights.

Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive director of organizational plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, believes that fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights are being treated like second-class rights.

“In its decision to ignore the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review,” said Combs, “the Ninth Circuit has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court’s precedents no matter how unconstitutional, arbitrary, or irrational the law. This case and the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of fundamental rights are beyond ripe for review.”

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will use t

he extensive record here to further develop its Second Amendment precedent and place the right to keep and bear arms on an equal footing with First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech.”

Silvester, Combs, and The Calguns Foundation are joined in the petition by Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, WA, which also partially funded the case.