Category: RKBA

Taking Back the Narrative Around Responsible Gun Ownership

It’s no secret that some in the national media, anti-gun politicians at both the state and federal level and anti-gun special interests groups, are working hard to diminish the importance of responsible gun ownership.  As the crime crisis continues to bombard communities and the midterm elections quickly approach, anti-gun proponents are doubling down on soft-on-crime policies and firearm bans in efforts to point the finger at those legally acting on their Second Amendment rights rather than admitting the negative impact these policies have on public safety.

This unsubstantiated blame game on law-abiding gun owners commonly occurs after tragedies involving firearms, putting guns at the forefront of the issue versus other contributing factors like mental health, loopholes in the criminal justice system or the evildoers themselves.  However, we’re also seeing an effort to cover up the millions of cases of defensive gun use that take place across the nation each year.  Take, for example, the story of how a good guy with a gun took down an active shooter at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana; preventing what could have been a mass casualty event.  It received a fraction of the national media attention that would have occurred if the perpetrator had been successful in killing more innocent people.

According to a new report by Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been underreporting the number of times legally armed citizens have thwarted an active-shooter situation over the last eight years.

Ultimately, the anti-gun movement wants to demonize all responsible gun owners in order to advance their own political agenda.

That is why the U.S. Concealed Carry Association For Saving Lives Super Pac (USCCA-FSL) is standing up for law-abiding gun owners who use firearms each day to prevent crimes and protect their families.  Most recently, the USCCA-FSL launched a national ad campaign in a number of key congressional races across the country that highlights the story of everyday gun owners in America and outlines why record numbers of Americans are choosing to be their family’s first line of defense.

The ad features Jennifer M., a mother of four and domestic violence survivor, who said that she chose firearm ownership and training to “feel safe in my home and to protect myself and my children.”  Jennifer’s message doesn’t just resonate with gun owners of all backgrounds but with everyday Americans who are thinking of buying a gun amidst rising crime and anti-gun measures at the state and federal level, but haven’t taken that next step yet.  And these stories are starting to gain momentum.

According to a report by Fox News, there have been at least a dozen cases over the last two months where an armed civilian prevented an attack by utilizing their firearm education and knowledge.  For instance, one store owner who defended himself and his store during an armed robbery said, “I took care of it and that was that.”  One woman in North Carolina said she and her husband are working on getting their concealed carry permits because their neighborhood has “gotten to the point where at night, I just don’t feel quite as safe as I used to,” as reported by WSOC-TV.

The USCCA-FSL has also received stories from everyday Americans who have shared why the Second Amendment is important to them.  Jimmie C. told USCCA-FSL “After numerous mass murders in public places, I purchased a handgun to protect my wife, myself, and others where we might be eating, worshipping, shopping, or at some other public event. The Second Amendment gives me that right.”

Whether it’s a mother protecting her family from an abuser or a would-be carjacking victim who had the firearm education and training to thwart an attack at the gas pump, responsible gun ownership is saving lives everyday and is used anywhere from 500,000 to three million times a year.

At the end of the day, anti-gun policies do very little to actually address crime because they ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  The USCCA-FSL is not going to sit quietly by while law-abiding gun owners are used as political pawns in the gun-control game.  We hope that through our efforts, including this ad campaign, we take back the narrative of responsible gun ownership from the hands of politicians who only want what is best for their own self-interests.  It’s not just about the election this November, but the years to come, and we’ll keep fighting for the protection of our God-given right to self-defense.

Mike Lowney is the chief strategy officer at Delta Defense and executive director and chairman of the Board for U.S Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives Super PAC.

That’s not a bug, but a feature, if you’ve read Ayn Rand

Collision over Gun Reform Bill: ‘You’re Making Criminals of Common Citizens’

Republicans on the Assembly Appropriations Committee took aim at Assemblyman Joe Danielsen’s (D-17) gun reform bill (A-4769), which establishes certain criteria for obtaining a permit to carry a handgun while codifying certain venues at which the right to carry firearms would be restricted due to security and safety concerns.

Danielsen wrote the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  His legislation targets the state’s firearm licensing laws and establishes a list of sensitive locations where guns may not be carried, including playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, train stations, and polling places.

“Anything we can do to protect New Jerseyans, including police officers,” said Assemblywoman Lisa Swain (D-38).

Ultimately, the bill passed on the Democratic Party-controlled committee, over the 2nd Amendment-fueled protestations of the GOP.

“Do you agree we have a constitutional right to bear arms?” Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-25) wanted to know.

“I do,” said Danielsen. “I have at many times been an advocate for gun owners. This is a safety first legislation. This bill says more about safety than it does about guns.”

Bergen took the bill apart.

“This bill discriminates against a woman’s right to carry,” said the Republican. “The bill is discriminatory. Will you commit to altering the bill to permit a woman to carry in anything she might be wearing? What’s the rationale for not permitting a woman to carry a gun in a purse? You said under your bill a woman could not carry a gun in a purse.”

Bergen also strenuously resisted another portion of the bill.

“It requires you to take your handgun and lock it to be concealed,” the GOP assemblyman griped. “There is a law against brandishing a weapon; if you show your weapon it’s against the law to do that. You are asking a person to brandish their weapon in public.”

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-26) likewise voted no, citing a key problem.

“It gives the ability of municipalities to make up their own rules,” Webber said. “You’re talking about 565 jurisdictions. You’re going to trap people into committing third and fourth degree crimes. That is one of the worst parts of the bill. There are parts of the bill that make sense (including adjustments to the supreme Court decision on concealed carry).”

But not enough for him to cast a vote in favor.

Rob Nixon of the state PBA expressed concerns over the bills impact on retired officers.

“My understanding is there are amendments to address those issues but they don’t go far enough,” he said.

Bergen fulminated against the bill.

“The sponsor could not list one place where a person could carry a gun,” he said. “It’s insane. You’re making criminals of common citizens.”

Continue reading “”

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.

BLUF
That’s why I don’t really care what 97Percent wants or claims to be about. They’re no different than Giffords, Brady, Everytown, and every other group that wants to annihilate our Second Amendment rights.

Don’t get too excited about “common ground” survey results

For many, the goal is to find common ground on issues relating to guns and gun control. It’s their hope that if they can find enough points of agreement, gun control laws can be passed.

Even if I accepted this premise, though, I know what will happen. Those laws will be passed, only we see no results (at best) so now they want to find “common ground” on still more regulations. Little by little, we’ll see our rights whittled away.

Yet the question remains, does the common ground exist?

According to a recent report, it does.

The majority of gun owners are concerned about gun violence and support policies to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths, according to new research from Tufts University and gun safety organization 97Percent.

Three-fourths of gun owners surveyed said they are concerned about the frequency of school shootings, and 71 percent said the same of mass shootings, according to the research released on Monday. Seventy percent said they also want to help find a way reduce gun-related injuries and deaths.

Most gun owners, including Republican ones, said they support several proposed laws to prevent people with a high risk of violence from accessing guns.

Gun safety organization 97Percent, which touts itself as a bipartisan group of both gun owners and non-gun owners, noted in its report on the research that this defies the current perception that there is an “intractable divide” over gun control in the U.S.

And since 97Percent paid for this study, it’s not surprising that the result was exactly what 97Percent wanted.

It’s part of why all such “studies” need to be questioned vigorously.

Continue reading “”

Proposed “sensitive places” law scaled back after public outcry

When Hawaii County lawmakers held their first public hearing on an ordinance restricting where concealed carry holders can exercise their right to keep and bear arms, they heard from dozens of gun owners and residents who complained that the proposal was far too broad and infringed on their Second Amendment rights. Somewhat surprisingly, several county council members expressed reservations of their own, and the bill was tabled for a few weeks while tweaks were made.

Today, the public got its first look at the revised proposal, and while the measure still contains several “gun-free zones” that aren’t likely to stand up to court scrutiny, this is the first blue-state response to the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that I’ve seen that at least half-heartedly recognizes the right to bear arms for self-defense in public rather than attempting to regulate it out of existence.

The original list of “sensitive places” outlined in the county’s concealed carry ordinance bore a close resemblance to the expansive number of “gun-free zones” included in New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”, hospitals and healthcare facilities; schools (both K-12 and colleges and universities) and day care centers, playgrounds and parks, all houses of worship, public transit, private property “open to the public”, and all businesses that serve alcohol among them.

The newly revised proposal removes many of those “gun-free zones” outright, while modifying others.

[Council Vice Chairman Aaron] Chung’s amendment, which had input from the Hawai‘i Police Department, adds a clause saying guns would be prohibited except where permission is granted at schools, colleges, universities or places where people are assembled for educational purposes. It removes language that originally included where people are assembled for literary or scientific purposes as well. The same clause was added in reference to day care centers, but playgrounds, parks and/or other places where children gather remain in the proposed bill.

I don’t think the ban on parks and playgrounds is going to hold up in court, given that there’s no evidence the state of Hawaii or Hawaii County treats them as “sensitive” in any way. There are no metal detectors or fences surrounding all parks, and no dedicated police presence at all parks or playgrounds either.

As I said, the new bill isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s still a substantial improvement.

Continue reading “”

Studies Show Guns ADD Risk of Negative Outcomes – The Standard Model Part 3

Why Guns Are Not USED or USEFUL for Self-Defense – The Standard Model Part 2/5

Anti-Gun Junk ‘Science’ Misleads Ignorant with Deceptive Fallacies

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Firearm sales in the United States broke records at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” U.S News & World Report notes. “Now, researchers have found that firearm injuries to children also increased during the pandemic’s first two years compared to the preceding year.”

A reasonable conclusion would be that the two occurrences are somehow related. The way this is presented implies that increased gun sales have resulted in more children suffering firearms injuries, or in the parlance of the citizen disarmament lobby, hurt BY guns. Right?

Wrong, of course.

The obvious logical fallacy is that correlation equals causation. It does not. An extreme example to illustrate why is the nonexistent ice cream/rape “connection,” claiming both sales and sexual assaults go up in hotter weather and falsely concluding that one influences the other.

We’re being led down another deceptive path as well with loaded terms. To see what we’re supposed to envision, enter the word “children” in Google’s image search. The results, happy munchkins doing happy munchkin things, are pretty much what everyone is going to expect.

You have to do a deeper dive to find the population being exploited here includes 19-year-olds and that the dramatic increases are happening due to gang activity participated in by minority populations:

“Firearm-related injuries in Black children grew from nearly 31% in 2019 to 40% in 2020 and 48% in 2021. Those cases also showed increases in patients with mental health issues and in injuries where the shooter was a friend.”

Increased firearm sales are extrapolated by increases in background checks. Who thinks teen gangs submit to those? In order for pandemic-related sales to significantly move statistics, the transference from the “legal” to the “illegal” market would need to be almost instantaneous, when in fact, ATF time-to-crime (“the amount of time between the retail sale of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee (FFL) and its recovery by law enforcement”) statistics show a national average period for 2021 of  6.21 years.

True, the Michael Bloomberg-“seeded” agenda “journalism” project The Trace tries desperately to  establish a connection, but after it’s all said and done must concede the relationship is only “suggested” and admit:

“[T]he increase in gun sales is not solely responsible for the increase in short time-to-crime recoveries [and] the number of guns recovered and traced by law enforcement does not always indicate the amount of gun crime in a given year. In other words, factors driving increases in the amount of short-time-crime guns in the ATF’s data may be separate from the factors contributing to gun violence.”

Continue reading “”

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.”

California Judge Blocks Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Information

Last fall, California’s oleaginous governor signed a bill into law that allows the distribution of personal information of the state’s gun buyers with academic researchers. Researchers like gun control advocate Garen Wintemute who runs the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center, a producer of anti-gun “research” used to back efforts to limit Second Amendment rights.

Sharing California gun owners’ personal data is a situation that’s ripe for abuse. And given the state’s record of doxxing gun owners, it puts law-abiding citizens at risk. That’s why a group of gun rights orgs sued to block the data dumps. And the state’s abysmal record played into San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal’s decision. As she wrote . . .

Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Opp. at 17. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Additionally, although the most recent sharing of plaintiffs’ personal identifying information occurred in November of 2021, this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim. Furthermore, and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. See ROA # 85 at 5. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction. (emphasis added)

Judge Bacal has issued an injunction blocking the distribution of the information. Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s press release . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

No, we don’t

Gabby Giffords: We need to come together for gun control

Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was the unfortunate victim of a violent attack targeting her specifically. It was an awful event and one that should never have happened.

Since then, though, the Democrat who tried to position herself as at least somewhat pro-gun has fully embraced gun control, founding her own group to advance just that agenda.

Now, she’s taken to the opinion page of the Fox News website to call on all American gun owners to join with her to advance gun control.

That’s why I founded a coalition within Giffords called Gun Owners for Safety. It’s a community for responsible gun owners to advocate for gun safety laws while standing up to extremists who claim to stand up for freedom — but whose ideas undermine the safety of our schools and communities.

Members of Giffords Gun Owners for Safety have the courage to take action to address the gun violence epidemic. They understand that the right to own guns must be balanced with civic responsibility. They know that gun ownership is not a license to terrorize and harass others with firearms — and they don’t feel understood, heard or represented by gun lobby groups that use fear and extremism to sell more guns.

First, I agree owning a gun isn’t a license to “terrorize and harass others with firearms.” Of course, I’m pretty sure Giffords thinks any sight of firearms counts as terrorization and harassment with a gun whereas I don’t, but that’s just my assumption based on her views. I could be wrong.

The problem, though, is that rather than working on educating gun owners about how to be responsible gun owners or something like that, they’re demonizing the groups that actually work to preserve our gun rights.

That’s because, for Giffords, the only way to advance “gun safety” is to restrict law-abiding gun owners.

Continue reading “”

The Paranoid Style in Gun Control Politics
Bloomberg’s “The Trace” fabricates a conspiracy about amicus brief writers who adhere to Supreme Court Rules

If you’re looking for a website like QAnon, but catering to gun control advocates, you will enjoy some articles from The Trace, a gun control website founded and funded by Michael Bloomberg. In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The article was reprinted by Politico. Will Van Sant, The NRA’s Shadowy Supreme Court Lobbying Campaign, Politico, Aug. 5, 2022.

The 12-brief conspiracy

The Politico reprint of the Trace article opens with snazzy graphics. Forty-nine amicus brief were submitted in the Bruen case: “12 of those briefs were filed by people or institutions who had received millions of dollars from the NRA, a Trace and Politico Magazine investigation found. Only 1 brief disclosed the financial connection.” According to Van Sant, “neither the justices nor the public were told that 11 of these ostensibly independent voices owed their livelihoods in part to the NRA.” Let’s look at some of his examples.

In 1991, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) was created by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle. The then-police chief of San Jose, Joseph McNamara, was one of the leading gun control spokesmen in America. McNamara attempted to fire Pyle for Pyle’s Second Amendment advocacy. Pyle ended up winning his case, thanks in part to the excellent work of his attorney, who happened to be the daughter of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Later, Jim Fotis succeeded Pyle as head of LEAA, and LEAA received substantial donations from NRA. Although LEAA is apparently now defunct, in its day it advocated for the viewpoint of most rank and file law enforcement officers: skepticism about gun control and support for strict punishment of violent criminals.

In Bruen, an amicus brief was filed by The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense, which is based in Virginia. Van Sant’s article reports:

“Those of us involved with the League have been involved in 2nd Amendment advocacy for decades,” attorney Christopher Day, counsel of record on the brief, said by email in response to a request for comment. “The League is not affiliated with the NRA, nor received any financial support from them.” The League is led by James Fotis, who for many years oversaw an NRA-supported effort to elect judges and state attorneys general who opposed firearms restrictions.

According to Van Sant, it was “shadowy” for the League’s 2021 brief not to disclose in that brief that the League’s president had, years before, headed an organization that received NRA grants.

That is not what the Supreme Court Rules say, nor should they. Consider some career attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice. During their employment, they “owed their livelihoods” (Van Sant’s phrase) to the DOJ. Later, they left the DOJ for private practice, and still later they wrote an amicus brief supporting a DOJ position in a Supreme Court case. Per Van Sant’s theory, the former DOJ lawyers must disclose their past DOJ employment in their amicus brief.

Continue reading “”

WNY Baptist ministers filing federal lawsuit over NYS ban on guns in place of worship

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) — On Thursday, two Western New York congregation leaders alongside Firearms Police Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against New York State.

The plaintiffs are challenging the state’s law and regulation banning guns in places of worship or places of religious observation.

The two WNY congregational leaders, Pastor Jimmie Hardaway with Trinity Baptist Church and Bishop Larry Boyd with Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist are filing this against Kevin Bruen, who recently resigned as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Niagara County District Attorney, Brian Seaman, and Erie County District Attorney, John Flynn.

According to the 49-page lawsuit, the ban denies the plaintiffs and “other typical law-abiding individuals” from carrying loaded handguns “in case of confrontation for immediate self-defense in a place of worship that would otherwise permit them to carry.”

The complaint notes that both Hardaway would typically carry a concealed firearm at Trinity Baptist, particularly on Sundays and during services.

“Reverend Hardaway has carried both for self-defense and because he feels a unique obligation to his congregants as Pastor to be prepared in case of confrontation. Trinity Baptist is in a neighborhood that has struggled with violent incidents,” the complaint argues.

It is also noted Boyd would carry a concealed firearm at Open Praise’s on Sundays and during services. “Open Praise is in a neighborhood that has struggled with crime, violence, and gang-related issues,” the complaint argues.

The plaintiffs also argue that because of tragic shootings in churches across the country, specifically in Charleston in 2015, Boyd has even more of a desire to carry for self-defense.

Boyd and Hardaway, the complaint argues, are both law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

7 News did reach out to Boyd and Hardaway for comment, but was directed to their attorneys, Nicolas Rotsko and Pete Patterson. 7 News reached out to them, but have not heard back.

7 News also reached out to the defendants. A spokesperson for the Erie County’s District Attorney’s office said Flynn would not comment on pending litigation.

FPC VICTORY: Judge Issues Injunction Against California Gun Owner Data-Sharing Law

SAN DIEGO, CA (October 14, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Another look at that serial number court ruling

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

Oct 13 (Reuters) – A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston on Wednesday found that the law was not consistent with the United States’ “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.

The decision came in a criminal case charging a man, Randy Price, with illegally possessing a gun with the serial number removed that was found in his car. The judge dismissed that charge, though Price is still charged with illegally possessing the gun after being convicted of previous felonies.

Price’s lawyer, Lex Coleman, called the decision “thoughtful, measured and accurate.” A spokesperson for the office of U.S. Attorney William Thompson in Charleston, which is prosecuting the case, said the office was “reviewing the ruling and assessing options.”

The federal law in question prohibits anyone from transporting a gun with the serial number removed across state lines, or from possessing such a gun if it has ever been transported across state lines.

Serial numbers, first required by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, are intended to prevent illegal gun sales and make it easier to solve crimes by allowing individual guns to be traced.

Price argued that the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s June 24 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen. That ruling held that under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot restrict the right to possess firearms unless the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.

Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.

Even in Los Angeles………

U.S. Supreme Court aids gun rights yet again

The United States Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its rulings, but the justices are doing what they can to enforce their decision earlier this year in a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., v. Bruen.

Last week the court took a dim view of a Massachusetts law that bars people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors from ever being allowed to buy a handgun again.

In Morin v. Lyver, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Massachusetts law using a two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court forcefully threw out in its New York State Rifle & Pistol decision. The Supreme Court has now vacated the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back down to be heard again under the high court’s new standard, which is based not on subjective judicial balancing tests, but on history.

This time Massachusetts will have to prove that its law barring some people from buying guns is similar to restrictions that have traditionally been viewed as consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Dr. Alfred Morin was arrested for carrying a gun without a permit while on a trip to Washington, D.C., in 2004. Morin was licensed to carry in Massachusetts and didn’t realize his permit was not valid in D.C. due to the city’s total ban on carrying a gun (later declared unconstitutional). He was arrested after he complied with a no-gun sign at a museum and tried to check his gun with security. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun without a license and was sentenced to jail time, but never required to serve it.

That misdemeanor conviction now bars Morin from ever again obtaining a permit to buy a handgun. He sued the state, but the U.S. District Court found that the law was constitutional because Morin was not a “law-abiding citizen,” having been convicted of a gun-related misdemeanor warranting imprisonment. The Court of Appeals agreed with that reasoning.

However, under the Supreme Court’s new standard, it’s no longer enough for courts to find that the states have “an interest in preventing crime” and then determine if the law is “reasonably tailored” to meet those needs. The presumption now is that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. States must prove that any laws restricting that right have traditionally been consistent with Second Amendment rights going all the way back to the early days of the Republic.

Morin v. Lyver is the fifth case the Supreme Court has vacated and sent back down for reconsideration under the new standard. One is a California case, a challenge to the state’s 10-round magazine limit. In addition, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated a decision in McDougall v. Ventura County, involving a challenge to the closure of gun shops early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The case has been sent back to the trial court to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York case.

This is an important course correction. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that governments may arbitrarily withhold or revoke. A written constitution is the consent of the governed, and it places limits on government power. Enforcing those limits is the job of the Supreme Court. Freedom depends on it.

The truth about Michael Bloomberg’s militia fetish

If you don’t control your mind, someone else will. Jim Morrison said that, and it’s as true today as it was when The Doors front man first uttered those prophetic words. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, there is no one who wants to control minds more than former New York City mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, 80, funds a vast array of anti-gun propagandists who operate across multiple digital and print platforms. Some, such as Bloomberg News, are accepted by the mainstream media as a legitimate news source. Others, such as The Trace, masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than well-paid anti-gun activists with access to unlimited print and pixels.

Bloomberg turned to his loyal staffers at Bloomberg News to launch his latest assault on our gun rights, by trying to change how we define a militia.

The former mayor wants the public to believe that the National Guard is the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment, which is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, if the public accepts that it’s the National Guardsmen whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, our individual gun rights can be eliminated, Bloomberg hopes.

This misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, while laughable, is nothing new. We are the true militia the framers had in mind – everyday Americans who possess modern firearms, ammunition and the skills to use them proficiently.

Here are some recent examples of Bloomberg’s attempts to redefine militia:

  • A Bloomberg News story published July 1 states that the New York Governor signed a law extending property tax relief to veterans who served at least 10 years “in the U.S. Armed Forces or in the organized militia of the State of New York.”
  • A Bloomberg News story published June 29 examined a labor dispute involving active-duty Ohio National Guardsmen – those serving an Active Guard and Reserve, or AGR, tour. “The US Supreme Court accepted the Ohio National Guard’s request to consider whether the agency that oversees federal-sector labor relations also has jurisdiction over state militias,” the reporter wrote.
  • A Bloomberg News story published Aug. 17 profiled an Ohio National Guard unit comprised of high-tech computer specialists including several civilians. It was headlined: “Modern-Day Militia Ready for Fight Against US Election Hacking.”

Telegraphing an attack

These confusing headlines and word-salads were not accidental. They were carefully designed, and they betray the propagandists’ true intent: Change the public’s mindset because another attack on our gun rights is coming.

Fortunately, we have case law and several strong Supreme Court decisions that protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bloomberg’s attack will not be a legal one – at least not yet.

This is propaganda, which is designed to alter public opinion and perception, and Bloomberg’s propagandists have always played the long game. They seek to change minds first, which will make it easier to change laws later.

Keep in mind what we’re dealing with: “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people,” Bloomberg once said, while surrounded by a heavily armed personal security detail, probably.

His attitude and his billions make him our most formidable anti-rights opponent. At least this time we know something is coming