Firearms Policy Coalition

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

Fruit Pickin’

April 4, 2017 by

Smart gardeners know that when they see low hanging fruit, it’s time to be picking the fruit. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation have found that low hanging fruit in cities like Philadelphia, Tacoma, and Wilmington (Delaware). The low hanging fruit is those cities’ ban on stun guns and other electronic self-defense weapons.

It is low hanging fruit due to the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found such weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Alito’s concurring decision in the case decimated the argument of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that stun guns were outside the Second Amendment. Among the many excellent points he made was this one regarding the argument that stun guns are dangerous:

If
Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be
categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s
own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr.
27, cannot be banned on that basis.

 So far, the Firearm Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation has filed suit against the state of New York and has successfully persuaded the City of Annapolis, MD to change their ordinance banning stun guns. In this latest round of action, they have sent demand letters to Philadelphia, Tacoma, Wilmington, and Westminster (MD) saying their bans have to go and legal action would commence.

More on their “fruit pickin'” below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (April 3, 2017) — Today, attorneys for civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) sent legal letters to the cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tacoma, Washington; and Wilmington, Delaware demanding that they repeal their respective bans on electronic arms or face federal Second Amendment litigation. Last week, a demand was sent to the City of Westminster, Maryland, regarding its ban.

The Philadelphia Code § 10-825 states that no “person shall own, use, possess, sell or otherwise transfer any ‘stun gun’,” making a violation of the law subject to a fine of up to $300 “and/or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days.”

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not only the right to keep and bear firearms,” explained attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh in the letters.

“We hope that these cities will simply choose to comply with the Second Amendment and respect the people’s fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Coalition and chairman of the Foundation, “but if they don’t repeal their unconstitutional bans, we won’t hesitate to sue them in federal court if that’s what it takes to protect the rights of law-abiding people.”

In its March 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Massachusetts high court, which had upheld the State’s ban on electronic arms and stun guns. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say that if “the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.” After Caetano was remanded back to the state court system, a trial judge found her not guilty and sealed her record, quickly ending the case before it could proceed.

On February 28, the City Council of Annapolis, Maryland, responded to a Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit brought by FPC, FPC, and a local resident by passing an ordinance repealing its total ban on the possession and carry of electronic arms, like Tasers and ‘stun guns’, in a special meeting.

FPC and FPF filed a Second Amendment challenge to the State of New York’s ban on electronic self-defense weapons in federal district court last December. That case is currently pending the trial court’s decision on two motions that were argued on March 24. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction in that case and the State has indicated that it would defend its total ban on electronic arms and Tasers up to the Supreme Court.

Uncategorized

Gov. Cuomo Sued Over NY Ban On Tasers And Stun Guns

December 7, 2016 by

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the State of New York were sued yesterday in US District Court for the Northern District of New York over the state’s ban on tasers and stun guns. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation sued the state in conjunction with Middleburgh, NY Mayor  Matthew Avitabile.

The suit is brought on Second Amendment grounds and follows the Supreme Court’s decision on a similar Massachusetts case in which they found that a stun gun is covered by the Second Amendment.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

FPC, FPF, and Mayor of Middleburgh Sue Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York Over Ban on Tasers and Nonlethal Weapons in New Second Amendment Legal Challenge
ALBANY, NY and SACRAMENTO, CA (December 6, 2016) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and New York resident Matthew Avitabile have filed a federal Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in an effort to strike down the state’s ban on the acquisition and possession of Tasers and other nonlethal (sometimes called “less-than-lethal”) weapons.
Individual plaintiff Matthew Avitabile is the mayor of Middleburgh, New York and would like to buy and keep a Taser for self-defense. But New York Penal Law § 265.01 states that “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon” if “He or she possesses any….electronic dart gun” or “electronic stun gun,” making the crime punishable as a misdemeanor.
The complaint states that, “Given the [United States Supreme Court] decision in Heller, Defendants may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense” or “impose regulations on the right to keep and carry arms that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to a similar Massachusetts law, but that case was resolved before a final decision was reached.
Said lead counsel Stephen Stamboulieh about the case, “We are pleased to be working to vindicate Mr. Avitabile’s Second Amendment civil rights and hope to expand the right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding New York residents through this lawsuit.”
“The Second Amendment absolutely protects the right of law-abiding people to buy and possess all arms in common use for self-defense, like Tasers,” stated Brandon Combs, president of the Coalition and chairman of the Foundation.
“We are more than happy to remind New York that the right to keep and bear arms prevails over paternalistic and unconstitutional statutes like theirs.”
Governor Cuomo and Superintendent of the New York State Police Lt. Col. George Beach are named as defendants in the case.
Stamboulieh is joined on the case by attorney Alan Beck of San Diego. Attorney Stephen Duvernay of Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments, are consulting on the case. Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.
A copy of the lawsuit’s complaint can be viewed or downloaded at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal/avitabile-v-cuomo.
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.
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to protect and 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

Firearms Policy Coalition Sues California on First Amendment Grounds – Again

August 8, 2016 by

The Firearms Policy Coalition has sued the Legislative Counsel of California, Diane Boyer-Vine, for her attempts to suppress free speech. The suit centers around a blog post that posted publicly available addresses and phone numbers of Assembly members who voted for gun control. The post by FPC member “Publius” on his or her blog, The Real Write Winger, was removed by WordPress.com after the Legislative Counsel said it violated California law. The suit, as described in the press release below, seeks to have California Government
Code section 6254.21(c) declared unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement.

This is the second lawsuit this year that the Firearms Policy Coalition has brought this year on First Amendment grounds. In the first lawsuit which they won, they challenged the California Legislature’s ban on the use of video footage from floor debates in political ads. This is an interesting tactic as it forces judges to apply, in most cases, strict scrutiny.

More on the lawsuit and the whole back story is below:

SACRAMENTO (August 5, 2016) A just-filed First Amendment lawsuit challenges the State of California’s attempt to censor a political blog using an unusual and unconstitutional “takedown” process authorized by a state statute. The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition, and filed on behalf of one of the Coalition’s members.


“Publius” (a pseudonym, since the challenged law carries a criminal penalty) runs a political blog under the alias “The Real Write Wringer” and writes extensively about California politics, civil liberties, and the Second Amendment.


The case, Doe Publius v. Diane Boyer-Vine, Legislative Counsel of California, seeks a restraining order against and challenges California Government Code section 6254.21(c), which broadly restricts the publication of the home address or telephone number of any “elected or appointed official” on the Internet.


Following California Governor Jerry Brown’s July 1 signing of six new gun control laws, the FPC member (pseudonymized as “Publius” in the lawsuit due to potential criminal liability) published a post on July 5 saying, in part, “… below is the names, home addresses, and home phone numbers of all the legislators who decided to make you a criminal if you don’t abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry. These are the people who voted to send you to prison if you exercise your rights and liberties. This will be a constantly updated list depending on future votes ….”


Soon after, the political blog’s hosting site, WordPress.com, received a censorious takedown letter from the California Legislative Counsel threatening litigation if the “tyrant registry” wasn’t removed due to the “grave risk” that it supposedly posed to the safety of elected officials.


In her letter, Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg told WordPress.com that “My office represents the California State Legislature” and that it had “come to [their] attention that the home addresses of 14 Senators and 26 Assembly Members have been publically [sic] posted on an Internet Web site hosted by you without the permission of these elected officials.” She went on to say that if the content was not taken down within 48 hours, “we reserve the right to file an action seeking injunctive relief, as well as associated court costs and attorney’s fees.”


WordPress.com, which sees about 83 million unique monthly visits, and Automattic capitulated immediately, removing Publius’ “tyrant registry” content and subsequently barring them from publishing any similar content.


“Our Publius lawsuit argues that a State of California statute and the Legislative Counsel’s demand letter threatening legal action and penalties unconstitutionally forced WordPress into taking down the material,” explained Brandon Combs, president of Firearms Policy Coalition.


“Our member’s truthful, non-threatening speech was attacked mere days after the elected subjects of their speech carpet-bombed the Bill of Rights in the largest legislative attack on Second Amendment rights in decades.”


“FPC will not tolerate it or its members voices being censored by any government.”


“The First Amendment protects the publication of facts about government officials, especially facts drawn from the public record,” explained Eugene Volokh, an attorney and UCLA law professor working on the Publius case.


“Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats of violence, but the statute and the California government’s demand letter forbid all publication of these facts, whether or not accompanied by threats.”


The publication of legislators’ addresses and phone numbers can serve a variety of lawful purposes. For example, residential picketing is allowed in many places, and concerned citizens can hardly engage in such picketing to demand action from their legislators without knowing where they live.


And even where a local government has a valid content-neutral restriction on residential picketing, marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses, is likely constitutionally protected conduct.


In Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Fla. 2010), the ACLU of Florida challenged a similar statute and got it struck down in an order by United States District Court Judge Richard Smoak, who held that the Florida law was facially “invalid as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”


Following the victory, Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida Legal Director, said that it “cannot be a crime to publish truthful information. With very rare exceptions, courts protect the publication of truthful information that is already available to the public.”


Publius is represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group as well as Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.


Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.


A copy of the complaint, which includes exhibits containing the censored content, can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-08-05-Complaint-with-Exhibits-filed.pdf.

Uncategorized

Because Civil Rights Don’t Have Borders

June 24, 2016 by 1 Comment

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to ride gun control to the governor’s mansion in Sacramento. His opponents in the gun rights community, while underfunded compared to Newsom, are determined that he isn’t going to win without a fight.

The Firearms Policy Coalition recently released this 30 second spot noting that civil rights don’t have borders and that Newsom’s proposals could spread to the rest of the nation. If you can spare a few bucks, you might want to donate to the fight. Even better donate the equivalent of the price of a box of ammunition. That would appropriate since Newsom wants to have you to have to buy a $50 ammo purchase permit.

Uncategorized

First Amendment Lawsuit With Second Amendment Implications In California

May 27, 2016 by 1 Comment

Two Second Amendment groups and three individual plaintiffs including a Congressional candidate have filed suit against California Attorney General Kamala Harris. The suit filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California seeks an injunction against a California law that makes it illegal to use video footage from the California State Assembly in a political campaign or ballot initiative. The suit is brought on First Amendment grounds as the law restricts political speech. The plaintiffs would have used video footage from the State Assembly to produce ads opposing Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative and the gun control bills being rammed through the legislature.

One of the individual plaintiffs is filmmaker Kris Koenig who produced the Second Amendment documentary Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire.

An interesting note about the lawsuit is that UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh who blogs at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy is one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

A release with more details on the case and the plaintiffs is below.

SACRAMENTO­­­­­­ – Today, two civil rights groups opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative were joined by two Emmy Award-winning filmmakers, a San Diego-based civil rights activist, and a candidate for Congress in filing a new First Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on using Assembly video footage for political speech.

The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of California federal court, states that California Government Code section 9026.5 prohibits the use of the public video feed from the California State Assembly “for any political or commercial purpose, including . . . any campaign for elective public office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors.”

Tim Donnelly, a plaintiff in the case who is currently running for Congress, was previously threatened by the Assembly Rules Committee for using a clip of a hearing in which he participated as an elected Assembly member.

Violating the statute is a misdemeanor crime that can lead to imprisonment in a county jail for up to six months, a fine of up to one thousand dollars, or both imprisonment and fine. Because of the importance of political speech and the criminal liability under the statute, the plaintiffs say they’ll be asking the court to issue a restraining order against the law.

“Millions of good, law-abiding people are at risk of becoming criminals through dozens of new gun control bills and the most dangerous, anti-civil rights ballot initiative we’ve seen in decades,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee Chairman Brandon Combs. “Yet Section 9026.5 says it would be a crime for us to use video of the people’s Assembly hearings and votes in political speech. It is shocking that this law was ever passed in a state that claims to value diversity, tolerance, free speech, and open government.

“This blatantly unconstitutional statute should be opposed by people across the political spectrum.”

“Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Kevin de León are playing fast and loose with legislative rules, but California law says that it’s a crime for us to use Assembly video to oppose their extreme agenda. We filed this lawsuit because we’re not going to stand by and watch while Senator de León and Gavin Newsom compete to burn the Bill of Rights to the ground first,” concluded Combs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.

A copy of the complaint for Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris can be viewed or downloaded at www.fpcsadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-26-Complaint-filed.pdf.

Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee (FPCSADC) is the official pro-gun grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to opposing Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative. FPCSADC was formed days after Newsom announced his intention to put his gun control scheme on the November 2016 ballot and has been fighting against the initiative since its inception. More information about FPCSADC can be found at www.StopNewsom.com.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a grassroots, nonprofit public benefit 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. More information about FPC can be found at www.firearmspolicy.org.

Uncategorized

Gunpocalypse Hits California While NRA Annual Meeting Starts

May 20, 2016 by 1 Comment

I’m listening the NRA Leadership Forum as I write. There have been some good zingers against Hillary from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. In the meantime,  Democrats in California are pushing more and more gun laws.

This release from the Firearms Policy Coalition gives more details on this “gunpocalypse”.

Firearms Policy Coalition Condemns “Fast-Tracked” California


Senate Votes it Calls ‘Gunpocalypse’


Civil rights group says gun-owners are being used as pawns in a turf war between Lt. Gov. Newsom, Sen. de
León.


SACRAMENTO – Ten anti-gun rights bills were fast-tracked through the California State Senate today on a
party-line vote of Senate Democrats led by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León.


The slate of proposals attacking California gun owners included four Assembly bills that were “gutted and
amended” in the Senate just two weeks earlier in an effort by Democrats to avoid a full legislative vetting process
and public scrutiny.


On the floor, debate about the need for the bills centered on a political turf war between Lt. Governor Gavin
Newsom, sponsor of a gun control ballot initiative opposed by my California legislators, and de León, who,
ironically, views the ballot initiative process as a “last resort” rather than a way to short-cut the legislative cycle.
“It is nothing short of unconscionable that millions of law-abiding Californians are being used as chess pieces in a
twisted political game to see who can race to the bottom first,” said Craig DeLuz, legislative advocate for the gun
rights group Firearms Policy Coalition.


Senator de Leon hopes that by fast-tracking gun control through the legislature, he can take the wind out
Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative’s sails—and his 2018 campaign to be the Golden State’s next governor.
“The political class needs to know that law-abiding gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second
Amendment does not protect a second-class right,” noted DeLuz. “Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals acknowledges that.”


The ten gun control bills that were passed out of the Senate today are:


  • • SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • • SB 894 (Jackson): Victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
  • • SB 1006 (Wolk): University of California taxpayer funding for gun control research.
  • • SB 1235 (Deleon): Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
  • • SB 1407 (Deleon): Retroactively requires serial numbers be placed on firearms dating back over 50 years.
  • • SB 1446: Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.
  • • AB 156 (McCarty): Formerly dealt with global warming, but is now the same as SB 1235.
  • • AB 857 (Cooper): Formerly addressed greenhouse gasses, but is now the same as SB 1407.
  • • AB 1135 (Levine): Formerly centered around groundwater but is now the same as SB 880.
  • • AB 1511 (Santiago): Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including sportsmen, family member and competitors.
Uncategorized

Grading California’s Legislature On Gun Rights

May 10, 2016 by

Just as not all Republicans are pro-gun rights, neither are all Democrats anti-gun. Though, I must admit that it is easier to find a pro-gun rights Republican in California than to find a pro-gun rights Democrat.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has just released their analysis of California legislators’ voting records. Unfortunately, there are a lot more F and F- grades than A and A+ grades. Such is the hellhole that is the California Senate and Assembly when it comes to gun rights.

The FPC release and link is below:

SACRAMENTO – Just as vote-by-mail ballots are about to land in mailboxes, the Firearms Policy Coalition is releasing their legislative report card for the 2015 legislative session.

Each legislator is graded based on how they handled priority legislation. Actions such as voting record, authorship and co-authorship of bills were included in the analysis of their records.

The highest scores in the California State Legislature belong to Republican Assemblymembers James Gallagher and Melissa Melendez, as well as Republican Senator Tom Berryhill, who all scored an A+ grade—and have been labeled Defenders of Liberty; a distinction that not only demands a stellar voting record, but also requires the member to actually author or co-author a pro-gun bill.

Other notables include top scoring Democrats Senator Richard Roth who received an

“A” and Assemblymember Jim Frazier with a “B”.

In contrast, Senator Hannah Beth Jackson, and Assemblymember Nora Campos bottomed out their respective houses scoring the lowest grade of “F-” and could be considered the most committed anti-gun owner and anti-gun rights Members of the Legislature.

View all of the grades at www.firearmspolicy.org/grades/2015-california-legislative-grades/