Category: Courts

Latest New York Gun-Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional Too

A federal judge has found the bulk of the gun-carry law New York instituted in response to the Supreme Court striking down its previous law also violates the Second Amendment.

On Monday, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law’s most controversial provisions. He also refused to issue a stay on his decision to enjoin what he described as a “patently unconstitutional” law, which means the state will not be able to enforce the impacted rules unless and until a higher court intervenes.

“[A]lthough the Court in no way suggests that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes, it finds (based on the current briefing of the parties) that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes conferring open-ended discretion on licensing officers,” Judge Suddaby wrote.

The ruling found the state could not force gun-carry permit applicants to turn over information on their family members or their social media accounts. It stops the state from subjectively denying applicants based on whether officials believe they have a “good moral character.” And it prevents them from banning anyone, including those with permits, from carrying a gun at restaurants that serve alcohol, theaters, protests, places of worship, banquet halls or conference centers, parks, areas at airports or clinics before security checkpoints, and public buses. Suddaby also ruled the state’s attempt to prohibit gun carry on all private property unless explicitly allowed by the owner, including private businesses open to the public, by default was unconstitutional.

The decision brings New York’s gun-carry restrictions closer in line with the rest of the country. It also represents the latest setback for New York’s new gun law and Governor Kathy Hochul (D.), who backed it as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. A second federal judge has already blocked the law’s church-carry prohibition in the Western District, and a group of armed Jewish worshipers is challenging it in the Southern District. The law’s constitutionality took center stage in the recent debate between Hochul and challenger Lee Zeldin (R.) as polls show a much tighter-than-expected contest.

Gun Owners of America, one of the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the decision as a rebuke of Hochul and the law.

“Just like we warned politicians after the Bruen decision, fall in line, or we will force you to,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement. “We are excited to see Kathy Hochul finally served a plate of humble pie, and we are fully prepared to continue the fight should she again attempt to disarm the citizens of her state at a time when her party’s policies are only escalating the danger that everyday citizens face.”

The news from the decision wasn’t all bad for Hochul, though. Judge Suddaby removed her as a defendant in the case and allowed the subway ban to remain in effect because he found plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue her or the train ban. He also allowed the state’s strict training requirements to remain in place despite expressing concern about the potential cost of complying with it.

A spokesperson for the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.), which is representing the state in the case, said “we are reviewing and considering our options.” The state previously appealed the judge’s decision to issue a temporary restraining order against the law that shared many of the same conclusions in his preliminary injunction.

Judge Suddaby’s lengthy ruling, clocking in at 184 pages, examines the historical evidence offered for each of New York’s regulations at length. Suddaby even describes how he performed his own research for potential historical matches for some of the provisions when the state failed to offer them. For instance, the judge said the state offered no comparison for its social media reporting requirement, and what his research found did not help their case.

“Rather, the Court has mostly found only instances in which this demand was (properly) made of convicted sex offenders while registering for a Sex Offender Registry,” he wrote. “Suffice it to say, the need to regulate convicted sex offenders has not been shown to be analogous to the need to regulate applicants for a concealed-carry license.”

Suddaby is also often unsubtle in his critique of the attempts to identify historical analogues the state did make.

“For the sake of brevity, the Court will not expound on why it finds that barring some people from openly carrying rifles on other people’s farms and lands in 19th century America is hardly analogous to barring all license holders from carrying concealed handguns in virtually every commercial building now,” he wrote. “Even if the way the historical and modern regulations burdened one’s Second Amendment right were the same, the State Defendants’ attempt to analogize these six laws to Section 5 of the CCIA would stumble over the second of the Supreme Court’s two ‘central’ metrics: ‘why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self defense.’”

He further argued the state’s attempt to ban is a  “thinly disguised version of the sort of impermissible ‘sensitive location’ regulation that the Supreme Court considered and rejected in NYSRPA.” He said the state’s provision banning licensed individuals from carrying at any public protest was doubly unconstitutional, creating a “paradox” implicating both the First and Second Amendments.

“[T]he Court finds itself in a paradox created by a regulation that prevents a license holder from possessing a handgun while gathering with individuals to collectively express their right to protest the regulation by possessing handguns,” he wrote. “Levity aside, the Court does not understand how barring Plaintiff Terrille from carrying concealed at a gun show at a Polish Community Center would further this regulation’s purpose of avoiding the ‘destr[uction] [of] the exercise of [someone else’s] constitutionally-protected rights.’ The Court could be wrong but it will hazard a guess that the Center probably does not lease space to opposing expressive groups at the same time.”

Ultimately, Suddaby ruled many of the provisions in New York’s law are “unreasonably disproportionate to the burdensomeness of [their] historical analogues” and is filed with “unprecedented constitutional violations.”

CT’s semi-automatic weapons ban at ‘very real risk’ of being lifted by lawsuit, Attorney General Tong says

HARTFORD — Attorney General William Tong warned Friday that Connecticut’s nearly three-decade-old ban on semi-automatic weapons is “at very real risk” of being lifted, at least temporarily, after one of several groups suing to overturn the law requested that the state be prevented from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed Thursday by attorneys for the National Foundation for Gun Rights in a federal court in New Haven. The Colorado-based group is one of several plaintiffs that filed lawsuits against Connecticut’s semi-automatic weapons ban following a Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s gun-permit law, sparking a wave of litigation against other state bans.

“I don’t have to tell you how extraordinarily dangerous this is in this moment to see an immediate repeal of the semi-automatic weapons ban,” Tong said during a hastily assembled press conference on Friday, where he was joined by Gov. Ned Lamont. “We are going to fight tooth and nail, we’re going to throw everything we have at them to keep Connecticut families safe and to preserve our very strong gun laws.”

Tong’s office has yet to file its formal response to the group’s motion. He told reporters Friday that filing would be made “soon.”

In a statement Friday, NFGR President Dudley Brown defended the group’s lawsuit, saying “The day of reckoning for the State of Connecticut has come, and it’s time for them to answer to the Second Amendment for trampling the gun rights of their law-abiding citizens.”

“Our motion for preliminary injunction is simply saying that when rights are at stake, we cannot waste another day in allowing unconstitutional gun control to stand,” Brown said.

Continue reading “”

Columbus city claims that since it’s a ‘home rule’ city, that the Ohio legislature is blocked from passing certain laws affecting city goobermint.

Court Injunction Temporarily Blocking Expanded Self-Defense Ohio Gun Law

A court injunction is now temporarily blocking part of Ohio’s expanded self-defense gun law. A Franklin County judge has granted the preliminary action, limiting House Bill 228, which was originally passed in 2018.

The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by the City of Columbus, blocking a section of the law that partially prohibits Ohio cities from passing local gun control ordinances.

Other portions of the law that eliminate some duties to retreat before legally using a firearm in self-defense are still in place

Actually, this is another reason for laws that ban such civil suits when either the prosecution declares it a case of self-defense, or the person is acquitted at trial, as is the case in several states already.

Another Reason Avoidance is Best — Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Civil Suit Against Acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse

You would be wrong if you figured Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal battle ended when a court acquitted him of murder and other charges for justifiably shooting 3 men in self defense. This is yet another example of why, if possible, avoiding conflict is always the wisest action.

Rittenhouse’s Defensive Gun Use in Kenosha—

So most everyone knows what happened on August 25, 2020 at a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Any reasonably, non-biased view of the facts in the case clearly illustrates that Rittenhouse acted in self defense when he shot 3 men; one who chased after him and tried to disarm him of his rifle, another who chased after him, swinging a skateboard attempting to strike Rittenhouse in the head as Rittenhouse lay on the ground, and another man who ran toward Rittenhouse pointing an illegally possessed handgun at him.

The Criminal Charges Brough Against Rittenhouse—

In a clearly political move, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse. Knowing they had no way of winning, prosecutors used the public trial to gaslight the public into believing Rittenhouse was an alt-right neo-nazi. An assertion proved erroneous. The point was not to convict Rittenhouse, which they couldn’t, but to demonize him. And then anyone who would dare to believe that someone had the right to defend themselves. If you believed what Rittenhouse did was not wise, but clearly justified, you too were an alt-right nazi. Of course, the media and maniacs in the streets even threatened the jurors with doxing and rioting if they ‘decided wrong’.

Rittenhouse legally defended his life against three men in the streets of Kenosha. He defended his freedom against a politically motivated prosecutor in a court of law. Kyle defended and continues to defend his reputation against baseless accusations. And he is trying to protect whatever assets he has after paying for legal defense, to defend against a civil suit brought against him by the family of one of the men who tried to kill him.

The Civil Suit Against Rittenhouse—

The father of an adult who attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard wants money. No doubt he grieves for his son. Any decent father would. But the arguments in this civil suit against Rittenhouse are nonsensical and proven false in the criminal trial.

The Deceased Attacker is actually a Hero—

For example, in the suit, the father claims his son was a “hero” and was trying to disarm Rittenhouse. The claim in the criminal trial was that somehow the 3 men were ‘good samaritans’ who thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and they needed to stop him. A claim that prosecutors couldn’t substantiate with evidence, witness statements or ‘victim’ testimony. The complaint filed by the man’s father reads:

After Anthony was shot, Gage Grosskreutz approached Defendant Rittenhouse with his hands up, pleading with him to stop his shooting rampage. Without provocation or any legal justification, Defendant Rittenhouse shot at Grosskreutz from point-blank range, hitting him in the arm. Thankfully, Grosskreutz survived.

Yeah, this description of events is complete fantasy when compared to all the evidence presented at trial.

Rittenhouse is an alt-right Nazi—

The complaint also attempts to use the same failed approach prosecutors used in the criminal trial—frame Rittenhouse as a racist. The ‘you’re a racist’ argument works on social media. But the same question that the prosecutors couldn’t provide an answer to in the criminal trial lingers. If Rittenhouse is so blinded by racial hatred, why did he only shoot people of his same race? The answer is clear, because he only shot people who he reasonably believed were going to cause him death or serious bodily harm, period.

Rittenhouse Violated Statutory Gun Law—

In the complaint, the attacker’s father drummed up fake news spread by the media that Rittenhouse brought the AR15 he used to defend his life across state lines in violation of law. The morons in the media repeated this, although with basic journalistic investigation, they would find the claim completely untrue.

What’s the Point—

The point is that if you carry a firearm for self defense; you need to know that in some states, even if you’re acquitted, you can still face civil suits. While the saying may be true, that ‘dead men don’t sue,’ it fails to mention that their families do. And they do it all the time.

You also need to remember that whether it be a criminal or civil trial, you can assume that anything the opposing side can do to twist, invent, or bring into question your character or actions, they will. It doesn’t have to be true.

So my advice is:

  • Live your life in a way that always seeks avoidance, if possible. This post on the proper defensive mindset explains this concept more deeply. In essence, live out: Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
  • Be careful what you post on social media. This isn’t about censoring your right to speak. Say what you want to say, it’s your right. Stand up for what you believe in. But do so in a way that doesn’t bring your character into question.
  • Know the law. Not just gun law, but self defense law. The book from Andrew Branca is a must for every person who even thinks about carrying a gun for self defense.
  • Consider a self defense legal membership service like CCW Safe. The amount of money necessary to defend against a political prosecution, and or civil lawsuit is astronomical. Remember, the state has unlimited funds (part of which you pay for, if you pay taxes) available to use against you. How much money do you have to defend yourself?

Another Church in New York files suit

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship
First Liberty Institute, Clement & Murphy, and Ganguly Brothers challenge law adopted by NY legislature just days after Supreme Court struck down numerous state restrictions on firearms

Rochester, NY—First Liberty Institute and the law firms Clement & Murphy PLLC and Ganguly Brothers PLLC filed a federal lawsuit against the state of New York challenging the state’s prohibition on firearms at houses of worship.  The suit was filed on behalf of His Tabernacle Family Church, a nondenominational Christian church in Horseheads, New York, founded by Pastor Micheal Spencer.

You can read the complaint here.

Erin Murphy, Partner at Clement & Murphy said, “No American should be forced to sacrifice one constitutionally protected freedom to enjoy another.  Houses of worship have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves whether to allow otherwise legally possessed firearms into their facilities.”

“Singling out houses of worship for total disarmament demonstrates hostility toward religion, leaves them defenseless to rebuff violent attacks, and defies at least two recent Supreme Court rulings against New York.  Religious leaders are no less qualified than secular business owners to determine whether to allow carrying a firearm for self-defense, and New York should end its defiant assault on First and Second Amendment freedoms,” added Jordan Pratt, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute.

In late 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, chiding New York for singling out religious groups and restricting how they worship in violation of the First Amendment.  And in June 2022, the Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, invalidating New York’s unprecedented effort to limit individuals’ ability to carry a firearm outside the home.  Just days later, New York enacted expansive new laws restricting the carrying of firearms outside the home, including a total ban on carrying in houses of worship.  New York now imposes criminal liability on any person who carries a firearm into a place of worship regardless of whether that person possesses a license to carry a firearm under New York law, and regardless of whether the religious community would prefer to authorize congregants to carry a firearm.  Secular business owners, by contrast, are allowed to choose for themselves whether to allow firearms on their premises.

“Those decisions,” the complaint states, “should have taught New York to proceed with extreme caution where First or Second Amendment rights are at stake going forward.  Instead, the state recently doubled down on its rights-denying tendencies—by infringing two fundamental liberties at the same time.  New York now puts houses of worship and religious adherents to an impossible choice:  forfeit your First Amendment right to religious worship or forfeit your Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.”  The complaint adds, “New York’s attempt to force houses of worship and their parishioners to choose between their First Amendment rights and their Second—an outlier policy shared by no other state in the Nation—stands as an act of defiance to the Supreme Court’s recent and emphatic holdings protecting both.”

Well, he’s just going to have to rethink his problem.

Obama-appointed judge takes issue with Bruen decision

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, who was appointed to the bench by then-President Barack Obama back in 2010, is using a case involving a convicted felon caught with a gun to complain about the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arguing that the Court’s decision has left him wondering if he needs to appoint an historian to help him determine the legality of the federal prohibition on felons owning firearms.

“This court is not a trained historian,” Reeves wrote in an order released last week.

“The justices of the Supreme Court, as distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians,” he continued.

“And we are not experts in what white, wealthy and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” he said.

The Bruen decision, he said, requires him to “play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

Reeves, who sits on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ordered the parties, including the Justice Department, to brief him on whether he should appoint a historian within 30 days.

“Not wanting to itself cherry-pick the history, the Court now asks the parties whether it should appoint a historian to serve as a consulting expert in this matter,” he said.

The challenger to the felon possession law, Jesse Bullock, says the regulation cannot withstand the Supreme Court’s latest decision interpreting the Second Amendment.

“Founding era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons,” Bullock argued.

No offense to the judge here, but if he’s the only member of the federal judiciary who’s felt the need to officially bring an historian into a case involving the Second Amendment then maybe the problem isn’t with the Bruen decision but his own viewpoint on the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Always read articles at the Duke University blog using this simple key:
Judge strikes down gun law -> Wrong decision, confusing, it’s Bruen’s fault
Judge upholds gun law -> Right decision, they did their best to make sense of Bruen

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship

On October 20, a federal judge in the Western District of New York issued a decision in Hardaway v. Nigrelli granting a motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoining New York’s ban on carrying firearms in “any place of worship or religious observation.”  Notably, the decision by District Judge John Sinatra reached an opposite conclusion about this specific piece of New York’s sensitive-places list than an earlier decision by Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District in Antonyuk v. Hochul (Judge Suddaby’s decision was appealed to the Second Circuit and is stayed pending that appeal).

The plaintiffs in Hardaway are a reverend and a bishop in upstate New York, both of whom have active concealed-carry licenses.  The plaintiffs allege that they consistently carried guns on church property “for self-defense and to keep the peace,” under New York’s prior law which permitted license-holders to carry in most locations, and would continue doing so but for the state’s new law which designated places of worship (among many other locations) as sensitive places where guns are prohibited.  The judge first engaged in a lengthy standing analysis, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs face a sufficiently imminent threat of prosecution, based on statements by New York politicians and law enforcement officials that the new law would be actively enforced.

Moving on to the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claims, the judge summarized the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, including Bruen, and applied the Bruen test.  New York cited laws passed by four states and two territories between 1870-1890 “that contained place of worship firearm restrictions.”  Relying on Bruen, the judge held that these post-ratification laws were insufficient to constitute a historical “tradition” because they did not “show endurance over time”—rather, in the judge’s view, the laws were “outliers,” “a handful of seemingly spasmodic enactments involving a small minority of jurisdictions governing a small minority of population” passed long after 1791.  According to the judge, “[t]hese enactments are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers—insufficient, then, in the search for an American tradition.”  Emphasizing the continued danger that Americans face outside of the home, the judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims.

The judge also rejected New York’s argument that churches are analogous to historical sensitive places such as legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.  The judge found that places of worship are unsecured and visited regularly by congregants, whereas the government buildings historically designated as sensitive are heavily secured areas that citizens visit “sporadically.”  The judge also held that “[t]he State’s argument that places of worship are analogous because the exclusion supposedly also minimizes the chance of violence between those with opposing views [was] undeveloped and, in any event, belie[d] the non-confrontational purpose drawing people to houses of worship in the first place.”

Judge Sinatra granted a TRO enjoining New York’s ban on guns in “places of worship or religious observation,” effective immediately with no stay, and set a preliminary injunction hearing for November 3.  There is no indication that the state has yet appealed the decision or requested a stay pending appeal, which would mean that the restraining order is currently in effect.

Hardaway reaches a contrary result to Antonyuk, which just three weeks ago upheld New York’s prohibition on guns in places of worship contingent on the state construing the provision to include an exception “for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace.”  In Antonyuk, Judge Suddaby weighed the exact same set of historical laws relied upon in Hardaway:  laws passed between 1870 and 1890 in Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Missouri, and the Arizona and Oklahoma territories.  But Judge Suddaby found that three historical laws constitute a tradition and, applying that threshold, upheld New York’s places of worship prohibition with an added exception for those responsible for keeping the peace in a church.  Judge Sinatra, on the other hand, used some unspecified higher number of laws as the cutoff.  Four state and two territorial laws were not sufficient, in his view, to form a tradition and were all outliers.  It’s difficult to say which approach is more faithful to Bruen, but—given such disparate outcomes at the district-court level—it’s clear that some guidance from the appellate courts is urgently needed.

The Hardaway opinion also highlights an issue lurking within Bruen’s historical test which I’ve written about before: judges seem all too willing to credit “colonial” history, even when that history is much further in time from the Founding than contrary post-ratification history.  Bruen states that “late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.”  But “earlier evidence” here should only be persuasive to the extent it might illustrate the scope of the right established at the Founding.  The further back in time from the Founding one ventures, the less likely that evidence is to shed light on the meaning of the amendment ratified in 1791.  Both Antonyuk and Hardaway point to early-1600s laws requiring white men to carry guns to church, with Judge Sinatra’s opinion noting that New York’s late-1800s evidence is suspect especially in light of “colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship.”  The judge cites a 2014 law review article by Benjamin Boyd titled Take Your Guns to Church.

Many of the colonial-era laws Boyd catalogues long pre-date the Founding and ratification of the Bill of Rights (his article cites to other sources for some of these colonial-era laws, including Clayton Cramer’s Colonial Firearms Regulation).  Boyd starts his colonial journey with a 1619 Virginia law requiring weapons to be brought to church on the Sabbath.  Of eight colonial laws summarized in Boyd’s article, six were passed between 1619 and 1643—the other two were passed in 1738 and 1743, respectively.  So, the vast majority of these laws were passed 150 years or more prior to ratification of the Bill of Rights, in British colonies.  Yet, to Judge Sinatra, a law passed in a U.S. state in 1870—80 years after ratification and a mere two years after the 14th Amendment was ratified—is “far too remote [and] far too anachronistic.”  How can that possibly be?  Bruen itself cautioned that a colonial law passed “roughly a century before the founding sheds little light on how to properly interpret the Second Amendment” and noted that “[h]istorical evidence that long predates either date [1791 or 1868] may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions changed in the intervening years.”

As Dru Stevenson has observed, “eras in the distant past seem closer together in our perception than recent events separate[d] by the same amount of time.”  This is a documented phenomenon in psychology known as “temporal compression.”  Researchers have found “evidence that memories are [] logarithmically compressed with time: the farther from the present the memory, the less discriminable it is from an earlier memory.”  It stands to reason that historical analysis is susceptible to this same fallacy, and that judges and lawyers must guard against it when examining the historical record.  It is tempting to lump all of colonial history together as close in time to 1776—the most salient historical date, the signing of the Declaration of Independence—because that is how our minds naturally perceive history.  But the colonial period, which one might date to the 1607 establishment of Jamestown, stretched for almost 200 years.  Why should a cluster of laws passed in certain British colonies in the early 1600s be more indicative of an American tradition codified in 1791 than laws passed from 1870-1890 (a conclusion that Hardaway and other decisions treat as obvious)?

Moreover, the two “bring your gun to church” laws passed closer in time to the actual Founding, in Virginia and South Carolina in 1738 and 1743, respectively, warrant a closer look.  As Carol Anderson describes in her recent book The Second, Southern militia and gun laws in the 1700s were motivated by “an overwhelming fear among whites of the enslaved’s capacity and desire for retribution” that led certain colonies to pass laws effectively deputizing the white male militia into a slave-patrol force also prepared to suppress any slave rebellion.  And Virginia and South Carolina were the two colonies with the consistently highest slave populations.  By 1710 Blacks outnumbered whites in South Carolina, and, as of the 1780 census, South Carolina was 53.9% Black and Virginia was 41% Black—the highest percentages by far in what would become the original 13 states.  There is little doubt, then, that the Virginia and South Carolina laws requiring militiamen to attend church armed were intended to address concerns about slave uprisings.  Indeed, Professor Anderson describes how the 1739 Stono Rebellion in South Carolina was conducted “[u]nder the cover of the Sabbath.”

These two laws were a direct response to slave-uprising concerns and not a recognition of any kind of widely-accepted right to bring guns to places of worship.  Notably, the very fact that South Carolina’s law was enacted in response to Stono suggests that the idea of having guns in church was not longstanding or deeply-rooted; rather, it was necessitated by the perceived exigency of potentially imminent slave rebellions and the need to keep Blacks enslaved in the colony.

Hunting Coalition Seeks Injunction Against California Law Banning Free Speech

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Sportsmen’s Alliance, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Safari Club International filed for a preliminary injunction today in their federal lawsuit against a newly passed California law to protect the free speech rights of shooting, hunting, and conservation organizations throughout the state.

The law, created by the passage of AB 2571, which purports to prohibit the “marketing” of firearms to minors, actually goes much further by banning free speech regarding the use of firearms while hunting, shooting or engaging in competitions that might be “attractive to minors.” It’s anyone’s guess what this means.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance was the first to alert sportsmen on AB 2571 early in the legislative session, citing the bill’s prohibition of communicating any youth firearm-related activities as the death-knell of recruitment efforts and hunter safety training statewide.

Because the law institutes a massive $25,000 per occurrence penalty, individuals and organizations responded by putting the brakes on communicating anything about youth shooting and education programs of all types.

“We’ve just implemented a major overhaul of our next magazine to comply with this draconian law, removing a number of stories about youth hunter recruitment, our high school Conservation Science curriculum and pulling all photos of kids hunting with firearms,” said Todd Adkins, vice president of government affairs for Sportsmen’s Alliance.

“And this is precisely what Gov. Newsom and supporters of AB 2571 want, to muzzle our free speech and gut our recruitment efforts, because their ultimate goal is to remove hunters from the landscape altogether.”

Although Newsom signed an amendment that was passed in the waning moments of the 2022 legislative session, the new language does little to protect free speech by hunting organizations like the Sportsmen’s Alliance which regularly publish on firearm-related issues. Many organizations with routine communication outlets like magazines, websites, social media platforms, and the like will simply cease to exercise their protected First Amendment rights because of the uncertainty created by the new law.

“The amendment Newsom signed is just a bunch of nice-sounding words that don’t fix the underlying gag order the law puts on organizations like ours,” continued Adkins. “It’s political eyewash to call this is a ‘fix’ when it’s really nothing more than a shiny object to show some groups who wanted a carve out.”

The Sportsmen’s Alliance legal challenge in federal district court continues, and the filing of the preliminary injunction necessary to stop enforcement of the law so that free speech related to youth hunter education, recruitment, and shooting programs can continue while the case is pending.

 

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit
“Any contrary holding ‘would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals’ by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.”

From Friday’s decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.):

Continue reading “”

Georgia Supreme Court Allows Residents to Sue to Keep Confederate Statues

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that residents may sue county governments for removing Confederate monuments, but people who do not live in the county do not have the standing to sue.

The court on Tuesday upheld an appeals court dismissal of lawsuits filed by Sons of Confederate Veterans against Newton and Henry counties because the group lacked standing — because its members do not live in the community.

However, the court upheld the case brought by Newton County resident T. Davis Humphries, who sued after her county voted in 2020 to remove a Confederate statue.

BLUF
“The right to carry is here, and it’s here to stay, and everybody’s got to get used to that,” Bach told the outlet. “This angry fist-shaking by various states like New York and New Jersey is going to blow up in their faces. They can pretend that Bruen doesn’t say what it says, but it’s only going to come back to bite them.”

New York court rulings against gun law may signal trouble for similar New Jersey bill

A gun restriction bill backed by top Democrats in New Jersey is already facing legal threats after the Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional right to carry and sparked challenges to New York ‘s similar gun law.

Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, the New Jersey bill’s main sponsor, is pushing the legislation to prohibit licensed gun owners from bringing firearms into nearly 25 “sensitive places” while imposing stiff barriers for people seeking gun licenses. The bill made it out of committee via a party-line vote this week and has the backing of Gov. Phil Murphy , who has vowed to sign it into law.

If enacted, the legislation could be a tough road ahead in light of two federal court rulings in New York that held the Empire State’s new gun law fails the test established in the summer high court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen .

Just last week, a federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on a provision of a New York gun law that made it a felony for a person with a concealed carry gun license to bring a firearm into churches or other houses of worship. That ruling came just weeks after a separate lower court ruled that much of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act , signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul , failed the Bruen test. Since then, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has restored much of the act while a three-judge panel decides on a motion to stay the lower court decision.

New Jersey’s Bill A4769 features many similar components that have been subject to judicial scrutiny in light of the 6-3 high court opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas .

Continue reading “”

New Low(y): Gun Controllers Register as Foreign Agents to Undermine American Freedom

Beginning last year, NRA-ILA has been keeping readers up to date with an ongoing effort by the Mexican government and domestic gun control supporters to attack the American firearms industry. According to a new report from Politico, this conspiracy to leverage a foreign sovereign to undermine an American constitutional right has become more formalized in recent days with the creation of a new advocacy group named Global Action on Gun Violence.

Back in August 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the most prominent U.S. gun manufacturers alleging that these heavily regulated businesses were somehow responsible for Mexico’s violent crime problem. The suit was the international version of a domestic gun control strategy from the 1990s, when anti-gun jurisdictions and avaricious plaintiff’s attorneys teamed up in an effort to bankrupt the U.S. firearms industry by holding companies accountable for the third-party criminal misuse of their products. This wild departure from long-established tort law eventually necessitated Congress enacting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

In an attempt to get around the PLCAA, the Mexican suit argued that the U.S. federal courts should ignore both U.S. law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the gun companies under the laws of Mexico.

Some observers will find it ironic that Mexico has sought to exert sovereignty over foreign businesses in this manner when the Mexican government has failed to exercise sovereignty over its own purported territory. A 2020 Washington Post item stated,

In a classified study produced in 2018 but not previously reported, CIA analysts concluded that drug-trafficking groups had gained effective control over about 20 percent of Mexico, according to several current and former U.S. officials.

The Mexico suit was filed with the help of handgun prohibition group Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), and specifically longtime Brady counsel Jonathan Lowy. At the time, NRA pointed out, “That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.”

Continue reading “”

As the Election Nears and With Bruen Now the Law, Reality Begins to Dawn on the Gun Control Community

Susan Liebell, a political science professor at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, said that gun control provisions with large amounts of popular support are unlikely to advance in the current political environment.

“The way this should play out politically is that senators and representatives would be punished in elections because they don’t support the kind of gun safety laws that Americans want,” Liebell said. “However, there’s no evidence that Americans are willing to vote on gun safety the way they’re willing to vote on the economy.”

Liebell also pointed out that the conservative legal movement spent much of the last four decades building the Supreme Court majority that led to the Bruen decision, one that is not likely to go away anytime soon.

“We’re not really talking about history, we’re not really talking about the original interpretation of the Second Amendment, we’re talking about the number of votes that you have on the Supreme Court,” Liebell said.

— Michael Macagnone in Court rulings wipe out gun laws in wake of Supreme Court decision

Analysis: The New York Gun-Carry Law’s Grim Start in Court

New York’s new gun law, meant to rebuff the Supreme Court, is already having a rough go of it in federal court.

Just two weeks after a federal judge ruled broad swaths of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) unconstitutional in an opinion granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), another federal judge did the same for the law’s felony prohibition on licensed gun carry in places of worship.

“The nation’s history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state,” Judge John Sinatra wrote in his opinion granting a TRO. “The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized at these places.”

Unlike the previous TRO granted against portions of the law, Judge Sinatra declined to add a temporary stay to his ruling. That means licensed gun carriers in the state are now free to carry a firearm for self-defense while attending church or any other religious institution without fear of committing a state felony. That’s a limited but key win for concealed-carry advocates.

Moreover, the decision adds to the growing body of case law examining modern gun-carry restrictions. Judge Sinatra conducted a robust evaluation of the place of worship provision utilizing the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations,” Judge Sinatra wrote. “New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

New York attempted to justify its church ban by pointing to place of worship restrictions enacted in the states of Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Virginia between 1870 and 1890. Judge Sinatra, however, was unpersuaded that such laws constituted a tradition pursuant to the Bruen test because they are “outlier” laws.

“The State relies on a few laws from the late-1800s to insist that a relevant tradition exists,” he said. “Bruen anticipates this argument. Rejecting the relevance of an outlier analogous law and state-court decisions, the Court stated that it would, ‘not give disproportionate weight to a single state statute and a pair of state-court decisions. As in Heller, we will not stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense in public.’”

In a footnote, he explained that the laws in Georgia and Missouri, unlike New York’s current law, were ultimately interpreted to allow church leaders to decide for themselves whether to allow armed congregants. He also noted that New York failed to identify a single analogous law enacted between the time of the founding and 1870. In contrast, he documented the existence of certain colonial-era laws that actually mandated carrying firearms when attending a place of worship.

“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” Sinatra said. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation.”

He argued that right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, forecloses the ability of state governments to implement certain gen policies.

“New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” he wrote. “It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”

Federal courts have now twice sternly rebuked New York over its failure to heed the direction set forth by the Supreme Court. Aside from amending or outright repealing the CCIA, the state’s options for continuing to resist current Second Amendment jurisprudence are limited.

New York, for its part, has already appealed the first TRO to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It could do the same with the new order.

It has had some limited success on this front already. A Second Circuit judge threw the state a lifeline by placing an administrative stay on the first TRO issued against most of the law, allowing it to remain in full until a three-judge motions panel gets around to reviewing the validity of the TRO. That panel has yet to act so much of the law remains in force for the time being.

New York could choose to pursue the same strategy with regard to its church gun ban. But it seems likely that will only delay the inevitable. Both Judge Suddaby and Judge Sinatra have already demonstrated how the most controversial sections of the law fail under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard. And, as Judge Suddaby pointed out in his TRO opinion, the criteria for granting a TRO and a preliminary injunction are virtually identical.

Therefore, even if New York can scuttle the TROs that continue to be issued against its law, the imminent injunction hearings seem likely to put them right back where they started.

That bodes well for gun-rights advocates, not only those directly impacted by New York’s restrictive law but for those in similarly situated states as well. California and New Jersey appear to be competing to see who can be the next former may-issue state to replicate New York’s gun restrictions. If and when those copycat bills pass, gun-rights advocates in those states will have a roadmap and caselaw for challenging those laws in court.

Since I don’t think the colonies had ‘colony parks’ back then, I guess we can – maybe – extrapolate town squares? So, did any of the colonies ban guns in town squares? If not……………

Federal lawsuit challenges restriction on firearms in Alabama state parks

A Mississippi resident has filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Alabama state parks regulation that requires written permission to carry a firearm into a state park.

William Lee Mitchum, 43, of Pascagoula filed the lawsuit on Monday, claiming the regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment. His lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction to block its enforcement.

Mitchum, who grew up in Robertsdale and said he is a frequent user of Alabama state parks, learned about the rule in July and exchanged emails and letters with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Alabama Attorney General’s office before filing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Monday.

“The constitution is there to restrict the government from infringing on our rights,” Mitchum said. “It doesn’t give us rights. And I believe they have infringed on our rights by these rules.”

Mitchum visited Meaher State Park on Mobile Bay in July. He said the firearms rule was posted and he talked to the park manager, who told him he could not bring his firearm into the park.
Mitchum had previously learned about the rule and said he went to the park specifically to establish legal standing to challenge the rule. Mitchum said he also went to the pier at Gulf State Park, where a permit is required to carry a firearm.

Attorney General Marshall and the ADCNR declined comment on Mitchum’s lawsuit.

Continue reading “”

Another, more in depth, look at the takedown of the kneejerk New York gun ban.

N.Y. Law Banning Gun Carrying in Churches (Including by People Authorized by the Church) Struck Down

From Hardaway v. Nigrelli, decided yesterday by Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. (N.D.N.Y.):

Eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional “proper cause” requirement for conceal-carry licenses, the State responded with even more restrictive legislation, barring all conceal-carry license holders from vast swaths of the State. The complaint and motion in this case focus solely on one aspect of the new legislation, namely, the portion making it a felony for such a license holder to possess a firearm at “any place of worship or religious observation.”

Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms—from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen—dictates that New York’s new place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional. In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. As set forth below, New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense….

Reverend Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr. and Bishop Larry A. Boyd filed this lawsuit on October 13, 2022, and are joined by institutional plaintiffs, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (“FPC”), and Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”)…. Hardaway and Boyd, leaders of their respective churches, “wish to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public for self-defense by carrying concealed firearms on church property in case of confrontation to both themselves and their congregants.” They allege that, as “leaders of their churches, they would be authorized to carry on church premises to keep the peace, and would do so, but for Defendants’ enforcement of the unconstitutional laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs at issue in this case.” In particular, they seek to prevent the enforcement of New York’s new law that makes it a felony to carry firearms at all places of worship and religious observation….

 

The State argues that the place of worship exclusion complies with Bruen. The State cites to 1870-1890 enactments by four states (Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Virginia) and the territories of Arizona and Oklahoma that contained place of worship firearm restrictions. This does not carry the State’s burden, as explained below.

At the outset, as the Supreme Court has made clear, individuals have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State “affirmatively prove[s]” that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The test is rigorous because the Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing, already conducted by “the People,” which “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense.” …

New York’s restriction finds no analog in any recognized “sensitive place.” In Bruen, the Court noted: “[a]lthough the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions …. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.” Id. (emphasis in original).

In particular, places of worship or religious observation are unsecured, spiritual places that members of the public frequent as often as daily as part of day-to-day life, and encounter vast numbers of other people there—as they do anywhere in public. In contrast, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses are civic locations sporadically visited in general, where a bad-intentioned armed person could disrupt key functions of democracy. Legislative assemblies and courthouses, further, are typically secured locations, where uniform lack of firearms is generally a condition of entry. The State’s argument that places of worship are analogous because the exclusion supposedly also minimizes the chance of violence between those with opposing views is undeveloped and, in any event, belies the non-confrontational purpose drawing people to houses of worship in the first place. The argument would apply nearly everywhere in public. The places of worship and religious observation exclusion thus finds no analogy in Bruen‘s recognized sensitive places.

Nor is there an American tradition supporting the challenged law here. As in Bruen—where, “apart from a handful of late-19th-century jurisdictions, the historical record compiled by [the State] does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense”—the State does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense at all places of worship or religious observation across the state.

Nevertheless, the State relies on a few laws from the late-1800s to insist that a relevant tradition exists. Bruen anticipates this argument. Rejecting the relevance of an outlier analogous law and state-court decisions, the Court stated that it would “not give disproportionate weight to a single state statute and a pair of state-court decisions. As in Heller, we will not ‘stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense’ in public.” …

Here, the State cites to a handful of enactments in an attempt to meet its “burden” to demonstrate a tradition of accepted prohibitions of firearms in places of worship or religious observation. The notion of a “tradition” is the opposite of one-offs, outliers, or novel enactments. Rather, “tradition” requires “continuity.”

These enactments are of unknown duration, and the State has not met is burden to show endurance over time. As a result, the Court is left with a handful of seemingly spasmodic enactments involving a small minority of jurisdictions governing a small minority of population. And they were passed nearly a century after the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. These outlier enactments also contrast with colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship. These enactments are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers—insufficient, then, in the search for an American tradition….

For instances of effective defensive gun uses in church shootings, see the Colorado Springs New Life Church shooting and the Antioch (Tenn.) Burnette Chapel Church of Christ shooting, though of course these are just anecdotal illustrations.

Congratulations to Nicolas J. Rotsko (Phillips Lytle LLP), and David H. Thompson, John W. Tienken, and Peter A. Patterson (Cooper & Kirk, PLLC), who represent the plaintiffs. Note that one of the plaintiffs is the Firearms Policy Coalition; I have consulted for the FPC, but I haven’t been involved in this case.

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks New York’s “Places of Worship” Handgun Carry Ban

BUFFALO, NY (October 20, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order against New York’s ban on guns in “any place of worship or religious observation.” The order in Hardaway v. Bruen, which is effective immediately, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation. As in Bruen, where the Court stated that, ‘[n]othing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’ nothing there casts outside of its protection places of worship or religious observation. New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.’ It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”

“Today another court blocked an unconstitutional gun law, this time the ‘places of worship’ carry ban New York imposed as punishment for the Bruen decision,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today, the Court recognized what we have long argued: That no one should be forced to forgo one constitutional right in order to exercise another.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Second Amendment Being Restored to Its Rightful Place, Thanks to Bruen Decision

In Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (aka “Bruen”), decided in June, he wrote:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a “second-class right,” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.

The ruling in Bruen was twofold: 1) that New York State’s law requiring a citizen to show “proper cause” before being granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon was unconstitutional; and 2) that the right to carry a handgun in public is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

That ruling has unleashed a tsunami of lawsuits by Second Amendment supporters, to the point where far-left news outlet CNN complained that the decision has “put gun control laws in jeopardy nationwide.” Noted CNN:

In the three months since the 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state, and local levels….

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

The outlet noted with chagrin that a federal district judge in Delaware declared that state’s ban on “ghost guns” (guns that are made at home without serial numbers) not valid under the high court’s ruling. In addition, reported the network, assault weapons bans inflicted on Coloradans in two local jurisdictions were placed on hold, and Texas’ public-carry ban on individuals aged 18 to 20 was struck down as well.

CNN failed to note, probably by design, that many other rulings following the Bruen decision have begun to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights.

Here is just a partial list of Second Amendment victories scored since Bruen:

  • To avoid going to trial over its ban preventing concealed carry licensees from carrying more than 20 rounds of ammunition, the chief of Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department repealed the ban in September.
  • The Supreme Court, following its Bruen precedent, tossed Massachusetts’ lifetime ban on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor involving the possession or use of a firearm from ever being able to purchase a firearm in the future.
  • The Attorneys general of New Jersey, California, and Hawaii concluded that, based on Bruen, a citizen no longer must show a “justifiable need” to carry a firearm.

Second Amendment scholar and attorney Dave Workman listed other targets for lawsuits following the Bruen decision, including Illinois, which requires citizens to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition. New Jersey has a similar law, as do North Carolina, Minnesota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Michigan, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

There is a case pending in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh — challenging Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. Attorneys general from 25 states have filed an amicus (friendly) brief supporting the case, which was brought immediately after the Bruen decision by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Workman estimates there are some 20,000 to 25,000 restrictive gun laws in the United States. If he is anywhere close to right, the rising tide of lawsuits is likely just the beginning.

FED. JUDGE LETS ANTI-GUN GROUP JOIN SAF MAG BAN CASE AS DEFENDANTS

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in Tacoma, Washington has allowed a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group to intervene as a defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of an Evergreen State magazine ban which became effective July 1.

The billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility requested intervention only days after the law took effect. Their motion was supported by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and State Patrol Chief John Batiste, who are defendants in the case. The Alliance supported the magazine ban as part of its gun prohibition political agenda, and Ferguson requested the legislation earlier this year.

“Apparently the Alliance is worried Ferguson isn’t capable of defending his own magazine ban in this lawsuit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Obviously, after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision last June, the gun ban lobby fears the state may not be able to defend any of its gun laws, including a couple passed by initiative campaigns the Alliance financed.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Daniel Martin and Gabriela Sullivan. The case is known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

“A few days after the high court handed down its ruling in Bruen,” Gottlieb recalled, “the Supreme Court granted certiorari to two other magazine ban challenges, in California and New Jersey. The court vacated lower court rulings in both cases and remanded the cases back to the respective appeals courts for further action in compliance with the language in Bruen.

“Based on the Supreme Court’s action in both magazine ban cases,” he added, “it is clear such restrictive laws might be in serious trouble, which explains why the Alliance is interested. Courts in California have already ruled that state’s magazine ban is unconstitutional, and that position may now stand when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has to reconsider the case under the new guidelines set down in the Bruen ruling.

“If the Alliance wants to hold hands with Ferguson,” Gottlieb said, “that’s their business. Maybe he needs the moral support.”