CalGuns Foundation

Uncategorized

SAF, CalGuns, Firearms Policy Coalition, And Others Sue California Over Mag Ban

April 29, 2017 by 1 Comment

News of this was released this afternoon while I was in the Annual National Firearms Law Seminar and didn’t have my computer handy. A coalition of groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Firearms Policy Foundation plus seven individuals filed suit challenging the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines. The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

From the news release sent out by the CalGuns Foundation:

FRESNO, CA (April 28, 2017) — Today, attorneys for 7 individual gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “on their own behalves, and as representatives on behalf of the class of individuals who are or would be affected by the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban.”
The civil rights case, captioned as William Wiese, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF)
A copy of the lawsuit’s complaint and its exhibits can be viewed or downloaded here.
Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1446 (SB 1446), which changed state statutes to completely ban law-abiding people from possessing all “large-capacity” firearm magazines as of July 1, 2017. Following that, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 (Prop 63) “Safety For All Act” gun control initiative—which also contained language banning “large-capacity” magazines—was passed by voters in the November general election.
Prior to Proposition 63 and SB 1446, thousands of law-abiding Californians could possess legally-owned (“grandfathered”) large-capacity magazines, but now must remove them from their possession or ownership in the State by July 1 at their own expense or face criminal liability and fines.
The plaintiffs believe that the State’s ban violates their constitutional rights, including their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment, because magazines are “an intrinsic part of all semi-automatic firearms” and “are not merely individual pieces of personal property, but rather, are intrinsic and inherent constitutionally-protected parts of constitutionally-protected firearms.”
In a “Finding of Emergency” for related firearm magazine regulations it had sought to issue in December (attached to the complaint as Exhibit A), the California Department of Justice admitted that “[t]here are likely hundreds of thousands of large-capacity magazines in California at this time” and that the “Department therefore expects many gun owners to be affected by the new ban.”
In addition to its Second Amendment claims, the lawsuit “further challenges the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban statutory scheme which would…. subject thousands of law-abiding gun owners to criminal liability and sanctions, and subjecting their lawfully-possessed personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, without due process or compensation.”
The case also includes vagueness challenges, one of which centers on the confusion surrounding the State’s two active—but very different—chaptered versions of Penal Code § 32406. A number of exemptions to the ban are found in the active Section 32406 that was enacted under SB 1446, but the active version of Section 32406 enacted by California voters under Prop 63 contains far fewer exemptions.
“California’s magazine ban laws violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding people in many ways,” said attorney George M. Lee, a partner of the plaintiffs’ San Francisco law firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP. “Not only does the ban infringe on Second Amendment rights, but it is clearly now a taking of private property. In fact, as we contend in the complaint, it amounts to a de facto confiscation.”
Lee also takes issue with the way the new magazine ban affects people who have lawfully possessed “grandfathered” magazines since before the original ban on importation in 2000. “As a part of the legislative compromise associated with that original ban, owners of those grandfathered magazines were specifically exempt from the law,” he said. “The Legislature is basically reneging on that deal made many years ago.”
“The State of California’s ban scheme stands for the proposition that most any personal property can simply be taken away from you or forced out of your possession without due process or just compensation by legislative fiat,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “Today it’s firearm magazines, but tomorrow it will most certainly be some other constitutionally-protected private property.”
“Enforcement of this ban,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “would immediately place thousands of law-abiding California gun owners in jeopardy of criminal liability and subjects their personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, which is government taking, without due process or compensation. We cannot allow that to go unchallenged.”
“California’s magazine laws will turn many thousands of good, law-abiding people into criminals,” said Brandon Combs, president of FPC and chairman of FPF, “but do nothing to advance public safety.
“While California’s political leadership might prefer some kind of police state without any Second Amendment or property rights, we believe that the Constitution takes their policy preferences off the table. This lawsuit is one of many that we hope will help restore fundamental freedoms in the Golden State and across the nation.”
Douglas A. Applegate, also of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, joins Lee on the case as co-counsel.

This plus the NRA lawsuit is a good start.

Uncategorized

CalGuns, SAF Seek En Banc Hearing In Waiting Period Case

February 14, 2017 by 2 Comments

The CalGuns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the other individual plaintiffs in Silvester v. Harris – now Silvester v. Becerra – have filed for an en banc hearing in the 9th Circuit. The original suit sought to overturn the 10-day waiting period California imposes on firearms purchasers who hold either a California carry license or a Certificate of Eligibility.

Judge Anthony Ishii of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California had found that the waiting period violated the Second Amendment. His ruling was reversed by a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit in mid December 2016. That opinion in that ruling caused me and others to just shake our heads at some of its assertions.

More on the decision to seek an en banc hearing in this release from CalGuns:

CGF, Others Seek Review by Full 9th Circuit Court in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California Gun Waiting Period Laws

SAN FRANCISCO (February 13, 2017)¬¬¬¬¬¬ – Today, attorneys for The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking en banc (full-court) review of a wrongly-decided opinion that overturned the trial court’s judgment that California’s Waiting Period Laws violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs, who is also an individual plaintiff in the case, issued the following statement:

In December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun as he buys another gun at retail needs to be ‘cooled off’ for another 10 days before exercising his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a constitutionally-protected firearm.

We believe that the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion was wrong as a matter of law. Not only did the panel incorrectly decide the Second Amendment issues in favor of the State of California, but in doing so it ignored important legal rules that govern the review of a lower court’s judgment after a trial.

After undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which held the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws to be irrational and unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers.

As our attorneys noted in the petition they filed for us today, “maintaining the proper standard of review for fact-finding in constitutional litigation is a matter of exceptional importance that is worthy of en banc review.”

We hope that the full Ninth Circuit will correct the panel opinion’s numerous injustices and affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we are prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court should that extraordinary action be necessary to restore the fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people.

The petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc can be viewed or downloaded at www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.

Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (formerly titled Silvester v. Kamala Harris) is supported by civil rights organizations The Calguns Foundation (Sacramento, CA) and Second Amendment Foundation (Bellevue, WA).

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.

Uncategorized

Win In The 9th Circuit

May 17, 2016 by

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda to a lower court with the instructions to use the correct level of scrutiny. The court found that the “right to buy and sell guns is part and parcel of the Second Amendment.”

As I am racing to get ready to leave in the morning for the NRA Annual Meeting, I don’t have time to do a full blog post on the decision. Thus, I will just post the releases from the winning plaintiffs.

From CalGuns:

Victory!

It is something that gun owners in California can’t often claim.

But CGF, alongside California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees and the Second Amendment Foundation, scored an important victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier today!

The opinion, issued this morning in the case of Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, held that the Second Amendment right of gun purchasers extends to protect gun retailers from being shut out of an area.

Under the challenged Alameda County ordinance, a new gun store must be located at least 500 feet away from any residentially zoned district, elementary, middle or high school, pre-school or day care center, another firearms sales business, or places where liquor is sold or served.

But, according to a scientific study conducted by the plaintiff, which included a geographic study of the entirety of Alameda County, there are no parcels within the county that meet the ordinance’s requirements.

Writing for the majority, Judge O’Scannlain held that the “right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees…”

“If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear. Indeed, where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well….Alameda County has offered nothing to undermine our conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.”

This is such an integral case to our fundamental rights, and we are winning!

Uncategorized

Dinner And Education Event On The Racist Roots Of Gun Control

March 19, 2015 by

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

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

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

A Big Win In California

August 25, 2014 by 9 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sebastian has more on the win here.

Uncategorized

CalGuns And Cal-FFL Have To Take AG Kamala Harris To Court – Again

May 21, 2014 by 1 Comment

In a release sent out on Tuesday, the CalGuns Foundation and Cal-FFL have announced that they are or will be suing California Attorney General Kamala Harris over a new policy she has implemented for the California Department of Justice. The new policy limits those who have a California issued certificate of eligibility and a federal firearms license to the purchase of one handgun per month. They assert that Harris’ reinterpretation of an existing statute is contrary to the meaning of the law itself.

From their joint release announcing the lawsuit:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris Sued Over New Handgun Purchase Ban

Gun rights groups back lawsuit to restore the right to buy handguns in the Golden State.

(Sacramento, CA – May 20, 2014) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris continues to substitute anti-gun policies for black letter law, say California gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

In a new lawsuit filed today against the state’s highest law enforcement officer and Department of Justice firearms bureau chief Stephen Lindley, plaintiffs Alvin Doe–who is using a fictitious name to protect their privacy due to a fear of criminal prosecution and retaliation–and Paul Gladden say that “the DOJ’s new [handgun] enforcement policy is contrary to the plain language” of the law.

The case challenges a recently enacted DOJ policy that denies people who have both a DOJ-issued “Certificate of Eligibility” to purchase firearms and a federal firearms license the ability to purchase more than one handgun in a thirty-day period. Holders of these licenses and certificates, such as the plaintiffs, have successfully completed rigorous fingerprint-based background checks that include full investigations of all state and federal criminal and mental health databases. The policy, say the plaintiffs, is simply not consistent with the law and does nothing to enhance public safety.

“The Attorney General’s new policy blocks individuals from exercising rights that the Legislature granted them,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Bradley Benbrook of Sacramento-based law firm Benbrook Law Group. The firm, which recently filed a brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 33 members of Congress in support of the Second Amendment right to carry handguns for self-defense, is asking the court for an injunction against the DOJ policy.

“Ms. Harris’ attempt to restrict lawful handgun sales by reinterpreting a 15 year old statute is entirely inconsistent with the democratic process and separation of powers,” said CAL-FFL President Brandon Combs.

Continued Combs, “Her latest ban is nothing short of an attempt to choke off handgun purchases and shutter California gun dealers. We cannot stand by and let her hostility towards the gun rights culture go unchallenged.”

“The Attorney General is there to be the chief law enforcement officer, not to make up laws to fit her policy preferences,” explained Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We look forward to the courts rejecting her extralegal interpretation.”

The plaintiffs expect to file their motion for preliminary injunction on Friday and are cautiously optimistic that the case will be heard within the next month.

Uncategorized

California Carry Licenses Could Reach 1.4 Million In First Year

February 17, 2014 by 6 Comments

The CalGuns Foundation has calculated that the number of carry licenses in California could reach as high as 1.4 million if the Peruta decision stands and California goes “shall issue”.

Following the Ninth Circuit decision holding “good cause” requirements unconstitutional, The Calguns Foundation projects that the number of California carry licensees will skyrocket during the first year of effective “shall-issue” licensing.

According to data sent to The Calguns Foundation by the California Department of Justice, the number of California CCW licensees in 2013 totaled about 56,000. However, in applying projections to state and county population figures from the state’s Department of Finance, Calguns believes that the number of licensees in California might reach as high as 1.4 million in the Golden State during the first year of a “shall issue” system.

 They have calculated the growth of carry licenses on a county-by-county basis which can be seen here.  Their table provides estimates for a range from one to five percent of a county’s population with the expectation that two percent will be the most likely. CalGuns has used available census statistics, California Department of Justice statistics on both carry licenses and firearms purchases, and the experience of other states to make this projections.

Looking this over, it is is interesting to look at the table to see what might transpire in some of the more anti-gun counties. For instance, San Franciso County might grow from two carry permits to an estimated 12,707 at the 2% level. While San Francisco is the most extreme example, many other counties could see multiple 1,000% increases such as LA which could see an 88,000% increase in carry permits at the 2% level.

You have to wonder if the state’s anti-gun politicians might moderate their extremism if they suddenly found a good number of their constituents had carry licenses. It is easy to demonize a group of people when you only have a few examples like the two who have carry licenses in San Francisco County. It is much harder to do if you have substantial numbers and everyone knows someone with a carry license.

Uncategorized

CalGuns Foundation On Peruta Decision

February 15, 2014 by 4 Comments

The CalGuns Foundation released a statement yesterday evening on the win in the 9th Circuit yesterday. They congratulated the NRA, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, attorney Paul Clement, and California gun law firm Michel & Associates for their work that led to this win for Ed Peruta and the other plaintiffs. If the NRA hadn’t stepped in when they did, this could have turned into a terrible loss for the Second Amendment in California.  The CalGuns statement does give a little bit of the back story on this case.

From CalGuns Foundation:

California takes a step towards “shall-issue” handgun carry licensing

In a major decision today, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s “good cause” requirement for handgun carry licenses violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In May 2009, during a short period when the federal Second Amendment legally applied to California through the Ninth Circuit’s Nordyke v. King decision, civil rights attorneys Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer filed a federal right-to-carry lawsuit against Sacramento County’s then-sheriff John McGinness and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation (CGF), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and a number of individual plaintiffs. That lawsuit, then named Sykes v. McGinness, challenged the California statutes requiring “good cause” and “good moral character” as facially unconstitutional. The Sykes case also challenged the two sheriffs’ local policies as unconstitutional “as-applied” to the individual plaintiffs’ facts. Sacramento County eventually settled out of the lawsuit by agreeing to implement a “shall-issue” policy; the case continued against Yolo County and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto as Richards v. Prieto.

Months after the Sykes case was filed, a lawsuit that replicated the CGF/SAF lawsuit was filed in San Diego County by Mr. Edward Peruta. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association intervened in the Peruta matter, adding new plaintiffs and significant resources to the case’s legal team including noted civil rights law firm Michel & Associates as well as former Solicitor General Paul Clement. The Peruta case result today is due in large part to the strength of the arguments mirrored from the Sykes lawsuit as well as the excellent legal work by Michel & Associates and Mr. Clement.

Though the Richards and Peruta cases were heard by the same three judge Ninth Circuit panel on the same day, the Court has only released its opinion on the Peruta matter so far. We look forward to the Court’s Richards decision and continuing our efforts to ensure that all law-abiding Californians have an accessible way to fully exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense.

The Calguns Foundation thanks the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Michel & Associates, and Mr. Paul Clement for their fantastic work to advance the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and congratulates them on their very important victory for all law-abiding Californians.

For more on these cases and the legal status of the right to bear arms (carry) in California, please visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry.

Uncategorized

An Infographic That Illustrates The Anti’s Endgame In California

January 17, 2014 by 1 Comment

The CalGuns Foundation has released the infographic below that show the end result of the Handgun Roster and the microstamping requirement in California. The end result is no handguns available which would please the gun prohibitionists no end. Moreover, they will say they didn’t outlaw these guns but merely demanded that they be safe. It is the “fault” they will say of a firearms industry that didn’t care about either their customer’s safety or of being able to “assist” police supposedly solve crimes through microstamps.

CalGuns has put together an abbreviated history of the Handgun Roster as well as the microstamping requirement. For even more info on the Roster, go here.

1/1/2001: CA laws (SB 15 – 2000) creating a Roster of “not unsafe” handguns certified for sale are enforced.


1/1/2006: CA law (SB 489 – 2003) requiring loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect for all new semi-automatic centerfire handguns added to Roster is enforced; CA law (SB 489 – 2003) requiring magazine disconnect for all new rimfire semi-handguns added to Roster enforced.


1/1/2007: CA law (SB 489 – 2003) requiring both loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect for all new semi-automatic centerfire handguns added to Roster enforced.


4/30/2009: During a short period of time in which the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment applied to states and local governments within the federal Ninth Circuit through a case called Nordyke v. King, The Calguns Foundation and 5 other plaintiffs — including the Second Amendment Foundation — filed a federal civil rights lawsuit called Peña v. Cid (now Peña v. Lindley) against the California Department of Justice that challenged the constitutionality of the state’s “Handgun Roster” laws. The Peña case, helmed by civil rights attorneys Alan Gura, Donald Kilmer, and Jason Davis, was argued at the trial court on December 17, 2013, on cross motions for summary judgment and is currently pending decision.


5/17/2013: CA law (AB 1471 – 2008) requiring “microstamping” for all semi-automatic handguns to be added to Roster enforced by CA Attorney General Kamala Harris (CA DOJ).

It also appears that Ruger is sick and tired of kowtowing to the California rules and will let their semi-auto pistols drop off the California Handgun Roster. Given that a significant portion of Ruger’s sales growth comes from new introductions and given that new pistols must be microstamped under California law, I frankly don’t blame Ruger. I see it as a reasonable business decision on their part.

From C. D. Michel’s CalGunLaws.Com:

In perhaps one of the more shocking discoveries at the 2014 SHOT Show, Ruger spokesperson Kevin Reid revealed that Ruger was going to let it’s entire California Semiautomatic pistol roster “…drop off…” the CA Department of Justice Approved Handgun List.

It seems that in Ruger’s slavish dedication to the concept of “continuous improvement”, and that California is milking some $ 200 per pistol per year to stay on the list AND that microstamping is now the rule, Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster with the rest shortly to follow. (Note to the legal beagles out there: NSSF Governmental Relations/State Affairs Director Jake McGuigan did announce at an early morning seminar that NSSF had filed suit on or around January 9 regarding the microstamping issue in California.).

How this effects Ruger Sales of revolvers and rifles in the Fool’s Paradise of Kalifornia remains to be seen. While Ruger continues to produce excellent revolvers, California gun owners are notorious for voting with their feet against businesses that desert them when the chips are down. Hopefully this won’t too badly effect the roll-out of the latest GP-100.

Uncategorized

CalGuns Wins On Carry Licensing In LA County

January 15, 2014 by

The CalGuns Foundation had sued Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County for his policy of forcing carry applicants to first be approved by their local town or city police chief. This acted as a de facto ban on carry licenses in LA County. On Tuesday, this policy was overturned in a decision by Judge Deirdre Hill.

From the CalGuns release on their win:

ROSEVILLE, CA — In a decision released today that forces the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to begin accepting and processing handgun carry license applications, Judge Deirdre Hill said that LASD must “consider the applications of all persons seeking a CCW permit in the first instance without requiring any applicant to first seek a CCW permit with his/her local police chief or city.”

The case, titled Lu v. Baca, was filed in 2012 by California-based gun rights organization The Calguns Foundation and a number of individual plaintiffs seeking to overturn an unlawful LASD policy that functioned as a de facto ban on handgun carry licenses for Los Angeles County residents.

“This decision means that all Californians need not jump through more hoops than those required under state law in order to apply for a handgun carry license and exercise their Second Amendment rights,” explained Gene Hoffman, the group’s Chairman.

According to the Foundation’s executive director, Brandon Combs, the victory represents an affirmation of its legal strategy and presents new opportunities to advance gun rights in the Golden State.

“It’s long past time for sheriffs and police chiefs to adhere to the same laws they swore an oath to enforce, starting with the Constitution,” said Combs. “Hopefully they’re getting the message that our fundamental rights are not open to debate. We’ll keep filing lawsuits if that’s what it takes to restore Second Amendment freedoms in California.”

“I’m very pleased by the outcome,” said Charles Hokanson, the plaintiffs’ Long Beach-based attorney. “It is always positive to see the rights of law-abiding people vindicated as they were today in this decision.”

The CalGuns Foundation will be filing more lawsuits as part of their Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative to force state and local officials to comply with state law, legal precedents, and the US Constitution. Since they started their legal campaign in 2009, the number of carry permits in California has grown by almost 30,000. This may not seem like a lot but it is tremendous when you consider that there are California counties whose carry permits number in the single and double digits.