Firearms Policy Coalition Seeks Improvements In HR 38

The Firearms Policy Coalition is headquartered in Sacramento, California. Being as they are in one of the bluest states with some of the worst gun laws, they are hoping for passage of HR 38. However, they want to make it better for those who live in states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc. They also want the bill to include those living in Federal districts like DC, commonwealths like Puerto Rico, and other territories like the Northern Mariana Islands.

Many legal scholars agree with the FPC that the bill would be on stronger Constitutional grounds if it was based not on the commerce clause. The FPC would like to see the right to carry nationally be based upon the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. They hold that this would reinforce the rulings in Heller and McDonald.

Their full release with embedded links to their proposed changes is below:

SACRAMENTO,
CA (November 28, 2017) — Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)
sent a second letter regarding H.R.38 (the Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Act of 2017) to bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and House
co-sponsors. The letter says the pro-gun bill could potentially “leave
law-abiding people exposed” because of “a byzantine patchwork of state
and local prohibitions” and suggested solutions to 6 individual legal
problems in the bill’s text.
The
group’s concerns also include “vague and undefined terms,” an exemption
to the federal Gun Free School Zone Act they say is “of limited
utility,” and the bill’s total reliance on
“constitutionally-antagonistic Commerce Clause doctrine.” FPC also
suggests that the measure’s scope be extended to include protections for
people in places that are not a “State or political subdivision
thereof,” like Washington, D.C. (a federal district), as well as
commonwealths, republics, and territories “administered or controlled by
the United States (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).”
FPC’s
letter says that, if H.R38 is passed without some important changes, it
“may very well indirectly cause people to be prosecuted and lose their
Second Amendment rights over harmless mistakes.” And, if “H.R.38 is not
amended to address our concerns,” they “predict that this
well-intentioned measure would leave millions of peaceful and
law-abiding people exposed to serious criminal liability.”
“As
we said in March, H.R.38 is a significant piece of legislation
that—properly amended to address the issues discussed above—would
establish one of the greatest, if not the greatest, legislative
advancements of Second Amendment rights so far in the history of our
federal government,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in the letter.
“And with just a few simple but important changes, H.R.38 could unlock
and protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms for all law-abiding
people—especially where it is denied today.”
Explained
FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz, “Any bill that seeks to expand the right
to keep and bear arms must be carefully crafted to ensure protection for
all law-abiding people, but especially for those in ‘battleground
states’ and cities hostile to Second Amendment rights.”
“If
a bill doesn’t protect people in places like California, New York, New
Jersey, and Maryland, then it doesn’t really get the job done,” DeLuz
concluded. “Our reasonable suggested amendments would help ensure that
people in anti-gun jurisdictions can exercise their fundamental,
individual right to bear arms.” 
A copy of FPC’s letters supporting H.R.38 can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38. Gun owners who wish to send letters supporting H.R.38 may use FPC’s free Grassroots Action Tools at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38.
FPC has also established #OurGunVote, a grassroots campaign to urge pro-gun bill passage in the House and Senate, available at http://www.ourgunvote.com/.
H.R.38 is scheduled to be next heard by the House Judiciary Committee at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 29.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org)
is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the
fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Pre-Thanksgiving Present For California Gun Owners

When politicians want to announce news or launch a new policy and they don’t want it to get a lot of attention they release it without fanfare on either a Friday afternoon or the afternoon before the beginning of a long holiday weekend. Such is the case with the California Department of Justice and their newly announced “assault weapons” regulations. The 52 pages of the new regulations can be found here.

The Firearms Policy Coalition challenged their rulemaking in the past and won based upon how they sought to implement them without public comment. According to their release below, I think it is reasonable to expect more challenges to these regulations and the implementation of them by the California Department of Justice.

From FPC:

SACRAMENTO,
CA (November 22, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the
following statement regarding the latest California Department of
Justice (DOJ) proposed regulations on so-called “assault weapons”:
Once again, the California DOJ and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have used 11th-hour
tactics to push its anti-gun agenda, this time by releasing new
proposed “assault weapons” regulations right before a major holiday.
FPC has published the new proposed regulations at BulletButtonBan.com
a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California
assault weapon laws and regulations — where members of the public can
use FPC’s grassroots action tools to submit written comments to DOJ
regarding the 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.
Last
December, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault
weapons” regulations under the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) “File
& Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations
were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC
members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret
process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment,
the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.
Then,
in May, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File &
Print” process. Those regulations were summarily 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, which OAL approved in July.
Now,
the Department is attempting to promulgate a new regulation to apply
the July regulations to all aspects of the State’s “assault weapons”
laws, including for purposes of criminal prosecutions.
FPC’s
attorneys are hard at work reviewing the regulations and have been
instructed to take every appropriate legal action to defend California
gun owners and individual liberties.
Earlier
this year, FPC was forced to sue the DOJ over the Department’s actions
to block access to public records and a previous version of the
regulations.

Firearm Policy Coalition On The Demands For More Gun Control

The Firearms Policy Coalition released a statement regarding the demand for more gun control following the horrific church shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas. They know that these tragedies are used as a pretext for more gun control.

It should be noted that the killer was convicted at a General Court Martial of a crime of domestic violence and had escaped from a mental institution. Both of these made the killer a prohibited person forbidden to own or purchase firearms. However, neither were reported to the FBI NICS database and he went on to buy firearms at retail and “pass” the NICS check.

From the FPC:

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 7, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning demands for new gun control following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas:

We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and grieve for all those affected by the hand of an evil man in Sutherland Springs, Texas; indeed, we mourn for every man, woman, and child lost to unjust violence and unconscionable circumstance wherever and however they may fall.

In the aftermath of the horrific and illegal premeditated killing at the First Baptist Church we see once more, and quite clearly, that only virtuous people bearing arms can effectively respond to those evil or insane people who, devoid of a moral core, take deliberate actions to kill and injure others when they are at their most vulnerable. And, too, such virtuous people are not limited to those in government service; rather, they are found in abundance throughout our great nation, standing as sheepdogs, vigilant for the cause of peace but prepared to defend life if needed, perhaps even at the cost of their own.

In response to tragedy, some predatory politicians and others like them in the billionaire-backed gun control lobby have demanded, disingenuously, that those who advocate for individual freedoms must participate in some “conversation,” as if they are empowered to unilaterally compel their fellow citizens to do as they wish. But as the observant among us know all too well, their latent—and sometimes patent—desire is for no more dialogue to be had at all, simply that the Second Amendment’s core guarantees against government infringement be reduced unto a dead letter.

We believe the only “conversation” that is genuinely pertinent to their efforts is set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the process for lawfully changing the supreme document of our social contract. All other proposals turn on legislation wrought from the tyranny of the majority; administrative rules and regulations to expand their preferred bureaucracy; and lawless rule by now-fashionable ‘pen-and-phone’ executive fiat. As a reminder to all who promote such dangerous instruments to achieve their gun control goals: Any rule crafted to impinge on Second Amendment rights can just as easily be reframed to limit the rights you hold dear; any offense you might employ against individual freedom today will, at some point, become someone else’s incursion on another liberty tomorrow.

If gun control proponents were honest—and they are by no means honest—they would admit what they really want when they demand a dialogue: for freedom advocacy organizations like FPC, and our law-abiding supporters, to concede ground to them on their terms, and with no reciprocation, so that they may more easily red-line fundamental, individual constitutional rights they do not like. We refuse to participate in their squalid process. We have no moral obligation to aid and abet our opposition, whether physical or philosophical, and we will not do so here.

Law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for evil or insane killers who use firearms, just as peaceable Muslims are not responsible for radical Islamic terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands, slaying hundreds in bomb blasts, or even running over dozens with vehicles. As we have said before, we reject the notion that good people and our basic rights must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.

We know that modern theories of gun control rely on the existence of three essential components to achieve, through force and attrition, the ultimate goal of a disarmed society: registration of people and property in persistent databases (through background checks and sale or transfer records); ever-expanding categories of prohibited people and items; and responsive confiscation of arms through law enforcement efforts. See, for example, California’s firearm regulatory scheme and associated APPS confiscation program or the New York SAFE Act.

In the final analysis, all roads lead to confiscatory laws with criminal consequences. And those who advocate for gun control would see other peoples’ sons and daughters carry the personal risk of their unchained desire to re-create America into the authoritarian utopia they seek.

To be sure, all constitutional rights have social costs, and the Second Amendment is not unique from other fundamental rights in that respect. But those considerations were weighed and the social interests balanced when we ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 and, perhaps more importantly, upon re-affirming our commitment to those principles for all people in 1868 when we enshrined the Fourteenth Amendment and ensured their application to states and local governments.

Because of inalienable human rights like the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, the news media is free to report on uncomfortable or embarrassing matters of national security; editorialists are free to discuss, even encourage, the removal of a sitting president; and those who promote gun control, even in opposition to the ruling party, have the freedom to advocate for those views.

The right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech and the right to due process, is a bright line rule that separates the people from servitude. Our nation’s founders wisely took great pains to protect fundamental rights like those contained in the First and Second Amendments in the very textual threads of our social fabric—not because they are benign, but because they are inherently dangerous and necessary to an enduring free Republic.

We recognize that gun control is one growing front of a still-cold but increasingly bitter war between those who desire a powerful government that has the ability to control its people and those who value freedom and individual liberty. But an armed and prepared citizenry—indeed, the unorganized militia—is the first, and perhaps last, line of defense against the deranged, evil, and tyrannical.

Accordingly, FPC believes that Congress should immediately work to remedy or repeal previously-enacted unconstitutional laws and expand statutory protections for those who would safely and responsibly exercise their right to keep and bear arms inside and outside their homes. Dozens of such bills exist today, and they should be passed and signed into law without further delay.

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

Late Friday News No. 2 – From Firearms Policy Coalition

A coalition of firearms and civil rights groups filed an amicus brief supporting the writ of certiorari by the petitioners in Silvester et al v. Becerra. The lead organization in the brief is the Firearms Policy Coalition which was joined in the brief by the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Madison Foundation, and Gunowners of California.

From FPC:

WASHINGTON,
D.C. (October 26, 2017) — Today, counsel for civil rights advocacy
organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy
Foundation (FPF), Madison Society Foundation (MSF) and Gun Owners of
California (GOC) filed a “friends of the court” brief with the U.S.
Supreme Court encouraging their grant of review of a 9th Circuit ruling
that upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period. 
Attorney
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general,
authored the brief which argues, among other things, that Supreme Court
review is necessary “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.
“Too
many times we have seen courts like the Ninth Circuit treat the Second
Amendment is if it was an unfortunate afterthought rather than a core
part of the Bill of Rights,” noted Jonathan Jensen, FPF’s vice-chairman.
“This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with Second Amendment
jurisprudence today.”
Said
FPC Vice President Alan Normandy, “The State did not prove its case,
but the 9th Circuit jumped through hoops to give them the win anyway.
That kind of a foul ball undermines the integrity of the court system
itself.”
“As
the Supreme Court has held, the Second Amendment is not a second-class
right,” DiGuiseppe explained. “Unfortunately, some lower courts have
used their relative inaction as a signal for defining it however they
prefer, even in contravention to the Court’s precedents. That must not
be allowed to continue.”
A copy of the brief can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal 

FPC Repudiates Proposed Bans Semi-Auto Firearms And Accessories

The Firearms Policy Coalition, unlike the NRA, is refusing the cave to those who call for a ban on bump fire stocks. The FPC is a coalition of state level gun rights groups that is a 501(c)4 grassroots, non-partisan, public benefit organization. Being as they are based in California, they have seen first hand the various incremental attacks by the gun prohibitionists.

From the FPC:

Firearms Policy Coalition Statement Repudiating Proposed Bans on Semi-Automatic Firearms and Accessories, Including “Bump Fire” Stocks

SACRAMENTO, CA (October 6, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning calls for new bans and regulations on firearms and firearm accessories:

In depraved acts of self-centered posturing, politicians who do not respect our Constitution are leveraging the recent tragedy in Las Vegas to push for more unconstitutional bans and restrictions on common, semi-automatic firearms and their accessories. These important Second Amendment-protected instruments are purchased, possessed, and responsibly used for lawful purposes by millions of Americans across our great nation.

Just as blogs and websites are protected by the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment’s shield against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to advanced devices like an iPhone, so too are modern semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s and their appurtenances protected by the Second Amendment.

History shows that gun control is a one-way ratchet, with so-called “compromises” resulting only in more laws that affect law-abiding people and fewer ways to exercise Second Amendment rights. And there is no textual, circumstantial, or emotional exception to the Constitution’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Law-abiding gun owners will not be bullied by killers or politicians, nor will we give up fundamental individual liberties at the shrill cries of Marxist Democrats or unprincipled Republicans, wealthy Hollywood elitists, the alt-left news media, or billionaire-backed Astroturf groups.

All unconstitutional laws are unjust, illegitimate, and offensive to the rule of law—even if they are enacted in response to a very real tragedy. FPC opposes all restrictions on the acquisition, possession, carry, and use of common, semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, and accessories by law-abiding people.

Whatever the conversation our country might wish to have about the evils found in human nature, and whatever questions we as a society might have about how to better address those moral and cultural deficiencies, no legitimate answers will be found in additional emotion-driven gun control laws that undermine our American system of ordered liberty.

FPC calls on House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and every member of Congress to pass important legislation to protect and advance the Second Amendment rights of law abiding people without further obstruction or delay. That is the job they were elected to do.
/i>

Firearms Policy Coalition Statement On Las Vegas Shooting

The Firearms Policy Coalition released the statement below yesterday. I think it makes some very pertinent points about civil liberties, civic virtue, trust in government, and opportunistic politicians.

It is not a short statement meant to be a sound bite. It is a serious response that needs to be read and digested and then read again.

FPC-Logo-black-OL.png

Our hearts break for the
victims of the heinous mass murder in Las Vegas and our prayers are
with them, their families, and everyone affected by this
incomprehensible act of evil. While it is impossible to measure the
loss suffered in Sunday’s tragedy, the sting from this senseless
violence will doubtless be felt for years to come. 

We are deeply grateful for the law enforcement officers,
firefighters, paramedics, nurses, doctors, blood donors, and countless
volunteers who stood tall and delivered aid to the innocent in a time
of great need, as Americans do. 

Sadly, opportunistic politicians who prey on tragedies like this
one have already begun to suggest that our response should be to
abandon our constitutional principles in favor of policies that would
ban more guns, disarm more victims, and further expand “gun free
zones” — spaces shielded by nothing more than invisible lines and
wishful thinking. 

Such policies are not only irrational, but outright dangerous. As
every attack in what was purported to be a ‘gun-free’, ‘bomb-free’, or
‘vehicle-free’ zone proves, there is no set of laws that will prevent
evil people from monstrously plotting an effective means to harm
others. 

In a cruel and potentially dangerous irony, many—if not most—of the
same people who assert that we cannot possibly trust the government
under someone like President Donald Trump also claim that it
is only the government that we should trust to safely and
responsibly possess weapons like the most common semi-automatic rifle
in America, the AR-15. 

We know that the privileged and wealthy elite will purchase
paramilitary protective teams armed with the very firearms they so
desperately wish to put out of the reach of the common man, but the
rest of us would be left to hope and pray. 

That is why the Second Amendment’s guarantees are not a matter of
convenience, nor of need, nor even of want. The basic
human
 right to armed self-defense against unjust force
is precisely why our Founders enshrined it into our Constitution—to
protect it against the capricious nature of popular opinion, the
momentum of the mob, and those who would seek to limit it to a
watered-down, second-class privilege for some. 

Thankfully, as the Supreme Court correctly noted in the
landmark Heller decision, the “very enumeration of the right
takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the
right is really worthinsisting upon.” 

Nearly 15 years ago, the Ninth Circuit’s then-Chief Judge Alex
Kozinski aptly wrote that the “prospect of tyranny may not grab the
headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is
a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare
circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the
government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who
protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no
one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies
may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get
to make only once.” 

Every day, evil people and governments around the world employ
tools ranging from clenched fists to combat aircraft to perpetrate
unspeakable and unjustified crimes upon others. But objectivity and
reason compels us to recognize that those instruments are but the
means to the end, and not the end itself. Indeed, the span of human
history shows that such arms are also used to liberate the oppressed,
establish order and justice from anarchy, and defend innocent life
from cruel despots. 

The American people will not be bullied by killers or politicians
and neither will we cower against attacks on our most important civil
rights. We reject the notion that good, peaceable people and our basic
rights must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.
There is no more pure a victory for evil than for our society to
assault or eliminate the rights of good people in response to things
we did not do. And so a just world must hold accountable the writers
of history for their deeds, not the mere quills through which it is
written. 

We law-abiding people of America do not accept responsibility for
the evil, cowardly acts of the deranged and hateful among us, nor do
we accept blame for their unconscionable and cowardly uses of
instruments that can and do serve as instruments of self-defense and
justice. 

A great champion of individual liberties once said that if civic
virtue does not reside in the people, no constitution, no bill of
rights, no legislative body, and no court will be able to preserve our
liberties. 

That is why, in troubled and troubling times like these, we are
honor-bound to stand united in defense of fundamental, individual
liberties, in all cases, and in spite of the incalculable grief we
feel for the victims of Las Vegas as fellow human beings. 

Firearms Policy Coalition takes seriously our chartered duty to
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially
the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms 

FPC and our allies will continue fighting to defend and advance our
Constitution’s protection of fundamental human
rights.


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

Restricting Public Data To Ideological Allies In California

To put things into perspective, imagine if Congress or any state legislature passed a bill stating that all the key research data on abortions would, by law, be given to researchers with the National Right-To-Life Committee and that any other requests for this same public health data would be approved only at the discretion of the White House. Do you think the media would jump on the issue with both feet? Moreover, how quickly would lawsuits be filed seeking injunctions by groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Rights Action League?

That is essentially the case in California with a bill (SB 536) sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk concerning the data about gun violence restraining orders. It automatically is available to well-known anti-gun researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute and his Gun Violence Research Center. All other requests for this same research data would be at the discretion of the California Department of Justice. This is the same DOJ that was headed by virulently anti-gun rights Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-CA) and is now headed by equally anti-gun rights Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA).

Does anyone think this DOJ would allow the data to go to Dr. John Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center?

Gun rights activists in California are rightly upset and wary of this bill. They are asking Gov. Brown to veto the bill. The release from the Firearms Policy Coalition on the bill is below:

Bill Promoting Unequal Access to Public Data is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s Desk

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 20, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking Governor Jerry Brown to veto Senate Bill 536, a measure which provides unequal access to data for the
purpose of researching Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO).

SB 536, by Senator Richard Pan (D – Sacramento), requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make information relating to GVROs that is maintained in the California Restraining and
Protective Order System or any similar database available to researchers affiliated with the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center. It does not, however, require DOJ to make the same data available to other organizations for the purpose
of research.

“While we do appreciate a passing thought given to others whose research may benefit from this data, to state that such access is ‘…at the discretion of the department…’ places all
other requestors at a significant disadvantage,” said Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“This allows the DOJ to pick favorites with sensitive data that is needed to hold the research center accountable.”

The Gun Violence Research Center at UC Davis was created in 2016 by legislation that amounted to a sole source contract with Dr. Garen Wintemute, a gun control advocate who has been
producing anti-gun research for decades. Under SB 536 that same biased researcher will have unfettered access to key research data, while others will be required to get special approval from DOJ.

“This measure ensures that only those that are ideological similar are going to have access to the data that supports this publicly funded research,” notes DeLuz. “If public data,
collected by public employees, using public tax dollars to study a public policy is to be made available to anyone, it should be public.”

SB 536 is now on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, awaiting his signature or veto.

Resolution Against Civil Rights In California

First, it was about guns for Native Americans. Then, it was to prevent Latinos and Chinese from obtaining firearms. Now, it is about carry for the rest of us. I won’t begin to even mention the Berkeley police standing down and letting domestic terrorists (Antifa) beat free speech advocates.

That’s a nice record you got going there California.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition on a new Assembly resolution that would oppose national carry reciprocity:

SACRAMENTO, CA (August 28, 2017) — Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) is asking the California State Legislature once again express their contempt for civil rights with the introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 24.

AJR 24 voices the Legislature’s opposition to current efforts in congress to pass “concealed carry reciprocity” legislation (S. 446 and H.R. 38) and any other similar legislation because it would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses of other states, creating equity for all when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to bear arms.

“This is not the first time the California Legislature has expressed their complete and utter disregard civil rights” stated Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “California has a long and tortured history with using gun laws to pick winners and losers instead of supporting equality and civil rights for all.”

The first gun control law passed in California, AB 80 was enacted in 1854. It was, “An Act to prevent the sale of firearms and ammunition to the Indians in this State.” In 1924 the Hawes Act was enacted to prevent Hispanics and Chinese from obtaining firearms. It also modified California’s concealed carry permit program to allow local law enforcement to subjectively discriminate in the issuance of permits under the guise of “discretion”, a practice that continues to this day.

Under California law, even if a law abiding resident passes thorough federal, state and local background checks, successfully completes specified training, which includes the law relating to use of force, and demonstrates competency with their firearm, they can still be turned down by the local sheriff or police chief for absolutely no objective reason at all.

Then there was the Mulford Act of 1967, which banned the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. This measure was meant to disarm civil rights activists groups like the Black Panthers.

“Gun control in California has always seemed to be about keeping unfavored groups of people from owning, possessing or bearing firearms”, said DeLuz. “ In AJR 24, the unfavored group of people are those who visit here from states that actually respect the second amendment rights of their residents.”

AJR 24 has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where FPC plans to vigorously oppose it. “California is not an island and needs to respect the rights of all Americans.” said DeLuz, “We understand that they don’t respect the rights of their own residents. But now they want to export their discriminatory policies to all 50 states.”

No hearing date has been set for either the Congressional bills or AJR 24.

While I Was Away – No. 2

Continuing on with the things I missed while at the beach are these two announcement from the Firearms Policy Coalition regarding bullet buttons and proposed ammo regulations in California. The FPC is a multi-state coalition of gun rights groups headquartered in California. They have been keeping a close eye on the regulations being developed for the enforcement of recently enacted firearms laws and propositions.

When you are headquartered in a state where the progressives have a monopoly on virtually everything, you have to fight back anyway you can. Showing that they have learned Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and especially Rule No. 4, the Firearms Policy Coalition is making the California Department of Justice live up to all those progressive laws dealing with public notice and freedom of information.

On bullet buttons:

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 21, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has obtained a copy of the newest version of the California Department of Justice (DOJ) “assault weapons” regulations. FPC has published the regulations at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations.

“FPC’s Regulatory Watch program has once again proved its value in ensuring that the State of California does not advance its gun control agenda behind closed doors,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Without this program, countless gun-owning Californians would be in the dark about their future.”

Last December, the DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the California Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.

In May (a quarter of a year later), the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. It took numerous legal demands to DOJ and OAL to finally get OAL to provide FPC with a copy of the proposed regulations. Following DOJ’s numerous attempts at hiding firearm regulations from the public, Craig DeLuz, FPC’s Legislative Advocate, and FPC filed a legal action against DOJ (DeLuz, et al. v California Department of Justice) in order to ensure that in the future DOJ complies with the California Constitution and Public Records Act.

In the end, these proposed regulations were summarily rejected by OAL a little more than a month later. And now DOJ has submitted almost the same exact regulations, appearing only to have changed the implementation date from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018. This new date was established by AB 103, a recently approved budget trailer bill.

“At first glance, the DOJ’s latest package of ‘assault weapons’ regulations are as awful as their first two attempts,” noted DeLuz. “It appears that DOJ keeps submitting the same proposed regulations, over and over again, expecting different results. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

The second announcement has to do with California’s proposed ammunition regulations and the hearings seeking feedback.

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 20, 2017) — Adding to the growing list of its legal woes, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was forced to issue a new regulatory notice and postpone a hearing regarding their recently-submitted regulations concerning new ammunition vendors and licenses. Many new ammunition laws were passed last year in Gavin Newsom’s so-called “Safety for All Act” (Proposition 63) and in Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León’s Senate Bill 1235 (SB 1235).

As part of its California regulatory watch program, which holds the State accountable for the improper implementation of various gun control laws, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) recently discovered the new DOJ ammunition sales regulations. That new regulation was officially published in the State’s Friday, July 14 Notice Register, but wasn’t clearly accessible to the public until the morning of Monday, July 17.

“In order for citizens and interested groups to be given an opportunity to advocate for their rights and policy preferences, the DOJ must follow the law,” said Craig DeLuz, a lobbyist and spokesperson for the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We are here to make sure they do.”

On July 17, FPC delivered a letter to DOJ advising them that they had not sent any notification about this proposed rulemaking using the DOJ’s e-mail based notification system it established and solicited participation in for that express purpose. The FPC letter also noted that none of the regulation documents that were discussed in the DOJ’s notice could be found on the Attorney General’s Web page listed in the Notice Register. FPC concluded that the public did not receive proper notice and demanded that DOJ remedy the defects.

Just two days later, on July 19, DOJ e-mailed their entire regulatory notice list — which they had initially failed to do — and said that the hearing for public comment, which was originally scheduled to take place August 28, had been pushed back to September 12 — allowing more time for the public and advocacy organizations like FPC to analyze them and weigh in. Additionally, DOJ updated the public notice to reflect a different Web page that contained a working link to the proposed new regulations and forms.

“When law-abiding citizens and small businesses risk fines and jail time for not following the law, the least the DOJ can do is follow the law themselves,” commented DeLuz. “While their latest move is a step in the right direction, they still have a long way to go. We’ll be keeping an eye on them.”

At www.DOJregwatch.com and its companion page, www.bulletbuttonban.com, FPC tracks DOJ firearm-related rulemakings and provides the public with links to the documents and updates. FPC’s goal is to ensure that the regulations proposed are legal, available to the public, and follow all public notice and comment requirements in the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and applicable laws.

So far, FPC has so far been successful in repeatedly thwarting DOJ’s attempts to create law by executive fiat under the guise of the regulatory process. Previously, DOJ was forced to withdraw its proposed “large capacity magazine” and “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations. More recently, the Office of Administrative Law rejected DOJ’s second attempt at issuing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations.

Another One Down Thanks To The Firearms Policy Coalition

The City of Tacoma, Washington repealed their ban on the sale, use, and possession of “electronic arms”. This means that stun guns and, presumably, Tasers will now be legal to possess and use for self defense in that city. As legal scholar Eugene Volokh notes, this is just one of many repeals in recent months. The legal reason can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found that stun guns were indeed covered by the Second Amendment.

Most of these cities would not have dropped their bans were it not for the Firearms Policy Coalition and their attorney Stephen Stamboulieh. They have been working their way through a list of municipalities with these sort of restrictions and have threatened lawsuits if the bans were not dropped. Mr. Stamboulieh, you may remember, was (unfortunately) an unsuccessful candidate for the NRA Board of Directors this year.

The FPC released the following on their win yesterday:

SACRAMENTO, CA (June 27, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today applauded the unanimous repeal of Tacoma Washington’s ban on the sale, use, and possession of electronic arms.

Attorneys for FPC sent a letter to the Tacoma City Council on April 10, which warned that the group was ready and willing to sue based on solid case law if the city refused to repeal the ban.

Said FPC attorney Stephen Stambouleih, “As the Supreme Court noted in Caetano v. Massachusetts it “has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”

As the latest municipality to repeal a ban, Tacoma was one of only a handful of municipalities nation-wide which still had an outright ban on possession and defensive use of electronic stun guns.

“The City of Tacoma did the right thing here,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our staff and attorneys are already reviewing regulations in other cities and states for legal violations. By no means is our work done yet.”

“I think it’s obvious the city knew they would lose any court challenge and they wisely chose to repeal this law,” said Philip Watson, FPC’s Northwest region lobbyist and spokesperson. “We’re not done taking on bans on arms protected by the Second Amendment.”