Jonathan Lowy Archives -

Uncategorized

Follow-up On Brady-Lowy Split

October 17, 2022

by John Richardson 1 Comment

This is a follow-up on the departure of Jonathan Lowy from Brady United for Global Action on Gun Violence which I wrote about last week. As many have speculated, Brady United did not want to be viewed as a foreign agent according to a story in Politico. While I had asked Lowy himself many of these questions in an email, I never got a response.

Brady United COO Susan Lavington said they were reluctant to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

From Politico:

Brady, for its part, was hesitant to dive into work that would fall under the foreign influence law, its Chief Operating Officer Susan Lavington said. Lavington added that the group would remain “laser focused on America’s gun violence,” and did not plan to collaborate with or provide any funding for Lowy’s group.

Lowy, by contrast, wanted to go international in the fight for more gun control including lobbying for new laws.

In an interview, Lowy emphasized that he departed from the legacy nonprofit “amicably.” He said he views gun control as a means to address issues with cross-border drug trafficking and migration and plans to work with countries or others “affected by U.S. gun industry practices.”
“The guns that are trafficked across the border, is like the venom in the cartel,” he said. “That is the venom that makes them dangerous.”…
Lowy explained that the goal was to go beyond litigation, suggesting that the group would lobby around legislation and regulation of gun companies on behalf of foreign governments or people outside the U.S.
He declined to provide details about the group’s funding or its advisory committee at this point. But according to a filing with the Department of Justice, its board will include Dennis Henigan, another lawyer and Brady alum, and Malcolm Ruby, a lawyer who has worked with Brady on a lawsuit against the firearm manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of victims of a Toronto shooting.

Forgive me for being skeptical about Lowy’s contention that more gun control, whether in the US or other places in the world, will stop either drug trafficking or illegal border crossing. It will not.

As for his latest lawsuit on behalf of the Mexican government against Arizona gun dealers, I seem to remember a little episode in the not too distant past. You may remember it. It was run by BATFE and DOJ during the Obama Administration. It was called Operation Fast and Furious. Or, as David Codrea and others have called it, Project Gunwalker where the BATFE “encouraged” Arizona dealers to sell to known straw purchasers so that the weapons would cross the border. Their goal was use that as the pretext for more gun control when traced back to the US from crime scenes. So sorry about the two Federal law enforcement officers killed along with untold numbers of innocent Mexican nationals.

If Lowy is interested in suing anyone on behalf of Mexico, perhaps he should start with former BATFE officials and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Since we don’t know who is funding Lowy’s new organization – though we can make some educated guesses – it is impossible to say how his financial backers might respond to that. More than likely, very negatively.

H/T: Rob R.

Uncategorized

Brady United And Jonathan Lowy Parts Ways

October 11, 2022

by John Richardson 1 Comment

Jonathan Lowy and Brady United have parted ways. Lowy was formerly the Chief Counsel and VP Legal for Brady United. He headed their Legal Action Project and had been an attorney with them in various capacities for 25 years. Lowy’s biography has been removed from the Brady Legal section and no mention is made of him in their history section.

Lowy is now the President and Founder of Global Action on Gun Violence. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit located in the District of Columbia. According to Lowy’s LinkedIn profile, this parting of ways took place in September.

The lawsuit filed Monday by the Government of Mexico against five Arizona gun stores was what tipped me to the change. Lowy was listed under that attorneys representing Mexico in this lawsuit along with a firm from Arizona and another firm from Austin, Texas. Unlike past lawsuits in which he was listed as being part of Brady, this lawsuit has his affiliation listed as the new Global Action on Gun Violence.

Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Lowy and his new organization had to register with the US Department of Justice as foreign agents representing Mexico. As his organization doesn’t yet have a website, the registration filing (see below) provides the best clues about it.

The first name that pops out is Dennis Henigan who was the former Chief Counsel and one-time Acting President at Brady. He is now the VP for Legal and Regulatory Affairs at Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Henigan is a member of the Board of Directors for Global Action on Gun Violence. He is joined on the board by a Josh Levy (chair) and Malcolm Ruby who is a Canadian attorney with a background on trans-border disputes.

Rounding out the team is Elizabeth Burke, COO, who was an attorney with Brady, and Lisa Proctor, CFO. Burke often served as co-counsel with Lowy on lawsuits brought by Brady.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what triggered the split. Was it because Lowy wanted to represent foreign governments in their lawsuits against the firearms industry? Or was Lowy being pushed out by Kris Brown as she did to former co-president Avery Gardiner?

Regardless, Global Action on Gun Violence now goes on the watch list. Since the fight for protecting the Second Amendment doesn’t have NFL refs ready to throw the penalty flag, we are on our own to prevent getting blindsided.

7175-Registration-Statement-20221005-1

Uncategorized

We Should Sue Mexico For The Cartels Instead

August 4, 2021

by John Richardson 5 Comments

So the Mexican government is suing US firearms companies for the bloodshed that they can’t control in their own country. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the lead attorneys on the case is none other than Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center?

Of course it wouldn’t.

The 139-page lawsuit was filed in US District Court for Massachusetts. It names Smith & Wesson, Barrett, Beretta USA, Colt, Ruger, Glock, and Century International as defendants along with Interstate Arms which is a wholesaler.

From ABC News:

The Mexican government argues that the companies know that their practices contribute to the trafficking of guns to Mexico and facilitate it. Mexico wants compensation for the havoc the guns have wrought in its country.
The Mexican government “brings this action to put an end to the massive damage that the Defendants cause by actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking of their guns to drug cartels and other criminals in Mexico,” the lawsuit said.

Then there is this overheated rhetoric from the complaint itself. I would have used another word but want to keep it family friendly.

F. Defendants Actively Assist and Facilitate Trafficking by Designing and
Marketing Their Rifles as Military-Style Assault Weapons.
Defendants’ design and marketing of their weapons exacerbate their reckless and
unlawful distribution policies. Defendants design and market their guns as weapons of war,
making them particularly susceptible to being trafficked into Mexico.
It has long been foreseeable and expected that Defendants’ marketing of their
guns as weapons of war would lead to their trafficking to the cartels in Mexico and to increased
homicides and other massive damage to the Government. The Government’s injury is the
foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct.
Defendants design their guns as military-style assault weapons.
Military-style weapons are useful for killing large numbers of people in a short
amount of time, taking on well-armed military or police forces, and intimidating and terrorizing
people. The Manufacturer Defendants designed their assault weapons to be effective peoplekilling machines.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation wasted no time is issuing a new release calling out the Mexican government. They said, in part:

“These allegations are baseless. The Mexican government is responsible for the rampant crime and corruption within their own borders,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Mexico’s criminal activity is a direct result of the illicit drug trade, human trafficking and organized crime cartels that plague Mexico’s citizens. It is these cartels that criminally misuse firearms illegally imported into Mexico or stolen from the Mexican military and law enforcement. Rather than seeking to scapegoat law-abiding American businesses, Mexican authorities must focus their efforts on bringing the cartels to justice. The Mexican government, which receives considerable aid from U.S. taxpayers, is solely responsible for enforcing its laws – including the country’s strict gun control laws – within their own borders.

“The American people through their elected officials decide the laws governing the lawful commerce in firearms in our country,” Keane added. “This lawsuit filed by an American gun control group representing Mexico is an affront to U.S. sovereignty and a threat to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. A right denied to the Mexican people who are unable to defend themselves from the cartels.”

Larry Keane is right. The allegations are baseless. Moreover, the failure of that nation to right in their criminal cartels is at the root of the problem. That they are aided and abetted in this nonsense by the Brady Center is illustrative of the hatred that Mr. Lowy and the rest of the gun prohibitionists have for the rule of law, United States sovereignty, and democratically passed legislation such as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Instead of practicing lawfare, if they want the law to be changed, go to Congress and work to have it changed.

I have embedded the full complaint below using ScribD. It was too large a document for a direct embed.

Mexico v. Smith and Wesson by jpr9954 on Scribd

Uncategorized

NY State Rife & Pistol Case Unnerves Brady Campaign

January 24, 2019

by John Richardson 6 Comments

I had been waiting to see the response of the gun prohibitionists to the Supreme Court granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York. Jonathan Lowy, head of the Brady Campaign’s Legal Project, didn’t disappoint. A fundraising email was sent out yesterday under his signature yesterday afternoon.

He said, in part, that the stakes are high and it is a case of “life and death”.

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that, for the first time in almost a decade, it will hear a Second Amendment case – the first gun case to be decided by a Court with two Donald Trump-appointees. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, challenges a city ordinance governing transportation of firearms. Make no mistake: the stakes could not be higher. Commonsense gun safety laws across the country are at risk. We need your support to make sure that the voices of Americans who want stronger gun regulation are heard loudly in the Supreme Court.

The stakes for this case are nothing short of life and death. Whatever the Supreme Court says in its decision will help determine whether Americans maintain the right to enact the strong, commonsense public safety laws they want and need to protect loved ones and communities from gun violence, or if judges will take this right from us. But the Framers put “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment and “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence for good reason. We are committed to making sure the Supreme Court doesn’t write the gun industry’s guns-everywhere vision into our Constitution.

He goes on to say that the Supreme Court never meant the Second Amendment to apply outside the home as evidenced by the Heller decision. In my opinion, he has misconstrued the late Justice Scalia’s decision.

What is interesting about all of this is that none of the gun prohibitionist organizations bothered to file amicus briefs against the Supreme Court granting cert in this case. The only amicus briefs were from a coalition including GOA, another organized by the Attorney General of Louisiana on behalf of a number of states, and another from the Western States Sheriffs Association and various law enforcement groups. These all were in favor of cert being granted. I don’t know whether it was hubris or ignorance that explains the casual approach of the gun control industry to this case but I am certain they will now be submitting amicus briefs fast and furiously in support of the position of New York City.

Uncategorized

Bad Apple Lawyers Win One In Milwaukee

October 13, 2015

by John Richardson

The Brady Center won one this afternoon in Milwaukee. A jury decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against Badger Guns in a lawsuit that was supported by the Brady Center. The lawsuit accused Badger Guns of being negligent for allowing a straw purchase. The firearm purchased was later used to shoot two Milwaukee police officers. The jury awarded the police officers $5 million.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The high-profile case, only the second of its kind nationwide, went to the jury of eight women and four men late Monday afternoon and deliberations continued Tuesday. They deliberated for nine hours.

Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch were shot by Julius Burton during a routine stop on Milwaukee’s near southside in June 2009. A month earlier, Jacob Collins bought the gun at Badger Guns for Burton, who was too young to buy a handgun from a store. Burton paid Collins $60. Burton is serving 80 years while Collins already finished his two years in federal prison.

Norberg and Kunisch allege in their 2010 suit that Badger Guns, its predecessor, Badger Outdoors, and the owners of both broke the law, were negligent in sales practices and conspired to keep the operation going when federal regulators recommended revoking the license.

The case is the second to make it to trial since a federal law passed granting immunity to gun dealers and manufacturers. The law has exceptions, including allowing plaintiffs to sue if they can show evidence of illegal gun sales. The first such case to go to trial ended in victory for an Alaskan gun store his summer.

The conspiracy allegation by Kunisch and Norberg is aimed at how the store went from being Badger Outdoors to Badger Guns in 2007.

Badger Guns lost its FFL in 2011 for reasons unrelated to this straw purchase.

According to a report on the case by Pierre Thomas of ABC News, the defendants do plan to appeal the verdict.

Brady Center attorneys Jonathan Lowy and Alla Lefkowitz had been forced to withdraw from this case for violating Wisconsin Supreme Court rules of conduct for attorneys.

UPDATE: A commenter on Facebook, Anthony aka The Packetman, pointed out quite correctly that the BATFE would have brought criminal charges against the owners of Badger Guns if they thought they had a winnable case. They didn’t.

It should also be pointed out that the standard of proof in a civil trial is much less than in a criminal trial. It only requires a preponderance of the evidence to win unlike in criminal cases which requires beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uncategorized

If You Want To Donate, Here Are Some Better Groups

August 25, 2014

by John Richardson 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With gratitude,

Jonathan Lowy
Director, Brady Center Legal Action Project

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

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

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