Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC Sues NYC in New 2A Lawsuit Challenging Ban on Electronic Arms
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York City’s ban on electronic arms, such as stun guns and tasers. The lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring the City’s ban unconstitutional, a preliminary or permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, and attorney’s fees and costs. Case documents in Calce v. New York City can be found at FPCLegal.org.

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban in Cook County, Illinois IMG iStock-534364755
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois. Case documents in Viramontes v. Cook County, Il. can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The lawsuit begins by outlining the operation of Cook County’s unconstitutional ban, explaining that common, constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles are prohibited if they can accept a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition and have certain characteristics like a pistol grip, muzzle brake, or a barrel shroud. And while the ban has “very limited exemptions for certain persons,” it still does not “allow typical law-abiding citizens to keep and bear these common firearms.”

“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that law-abiding people possess at home by the millions,” FPC’s complaint explains. “And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of law holding the ordinance to be unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the ban, an award of nominal damages against the County of Cook, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

This case joins other FPC lawsuits challenging bans on common firearms, including its challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the laws, the first such victory in United States history, as well as a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Massachusetts’ ban on common handguns, and dozens of others.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
FPC and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s handgun roster, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)

About Firearms Policy Coalition
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), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

FPC Sues New Jersey To Restore Right-To-Carry Guns in Public for Self-Defense
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and its FPC Law team announced the filing of a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit, Francisco v. Cooke, challenging New Jersey’s unconstitutional restrictions and local practices that prevent residents from exercising their right to carry loaded handguns in public for self-defense. The complaint can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The lawsuit was filed by New York-based firm Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP on behalf of Daniel Francisco, the president of advocacy organization Blue Star Union, a councilman for Englishtown, New Jersey and former Executive Director at Project Veritas, as well as Ori Katzin, the co-owner of a local interior design firm, a former member of the Israeli Defense Forces, and a certified firearms instructor. Katzin alleges in the complaint that he was attacked in an assault caught on camera and documented with police authorities. In spite of their legal eligibility to possess firearms and desire to carry handguns for self-defense, Francisco and Katzin were both denied a permit by New Jersey local police officials and judges, who are named as defendants in the case, along with state officials.

Edward Paltzik, an attorney for the firm representing FPC, said, “For far too long, New Jersey has systematically denied law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment right to protect themselves outside of their homes by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional requirements. Especially with violent crime on the rise, this scheme allowing government officials to deny people the right to self-defense must end.”

New Jersey law makes it a crime for law-abiding individuals to carry a loaded handgun outside of the home unless they have been issued a permit to carry a handgun, thus denying them their right to bear arms. State law requires permit applicants to demonstrate a “justifiable need,” among other requirements.
Daniel Franciso stated in his “Letter of Need” as part of his permit applications that, “I wish to carry a loaded, operable handgun on my person for self-defense and for all other lawful purposes outside my home and in other public places.” His application was denied by his town’s chief of police, Peter S. Cooke, Kr., and Judge Lourdes Lucas on the basis that he failed to demonstrate “justifiable need” to carry a handgun outside his home.
Ori Katzin, who has received extensive civilian and military training in the use of firearms, received a denial on his carry permit application in August 2018 despite detailing how he is “under substantial threat of unjustifiable serious bodily harm.”
The lawsuit states that “due to the onerous nature of Defendants’ Regulatory Scheme, only a tiny fraction of a percent of New Jersey citizens are able to obtain permits to carry handguns, and indeed, most people simply never apply at all because it is well known throughout the State that the ‘justifiable need’ standard effectively renders the process an exercise in futility for all ordinary law-abiding citizens, thus further chilling and denying exercise of the right.”
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
A merits-stage Supreme Court brief providing the justices with the English history of the right to bear arms in support of a challenge to New York’s unconstitutional “may issue” scheme
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

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), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Yesterday, a coalition of Second Amendment organizations from California to New Jersey announced the filing of an important merits-stage United States Supreme Court brief. IMG Jim Grant
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, a coalition of Second Amendment organizations from California to New Jersey announced the filing of an important merits-stage United States Supreme Court brief in the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen supporting the right to bear arms in public. The brief’s parties include FPC American Victory Fund, Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, California County Gun Owners, and Knife Rights Foundation. The brief can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The brief, submitted by historian and constitutional scholar David T. Hardy, argues that nineteenth-century state constitutions equated the term ‘bear arms’ with ‘carry arms for self-defense’; antebellum and post-Civil War case law confirms the original public understanding of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; restrictions from the old west do not inform the Second Amendment’s original meaning; and that carrying arms for self-defense was common and known to the framing generations of 1791 and 1868.

“State constitutions from 1776 to 1868 demonstrate unequivocally that ‘bear arms’ was used to describe carrying arms for individual self-defense. Whatever the most common use of ‘bear arms’ was in ordinary speech, in constitutional enactments, ‘bear arms’ was universally understood as protecting defensive carry of ordinary arms,” the brief says. “History and tradition confirm this. Nineteenth-century carry restrictions, and the cases adjudicating their constitutionality, reflect an understanding that” governments “must allow ordinary citizens to carry arms for self-defense—bans on both open and concealed carry were largely invalidated.”
“CNJFO and its members unwaveringly support the petitioners in this case, who seek to enjoin unconstitutional barriers to the free exercise of Second Amendment rights,” said Theresa Inacker, CNJFO Communications Director. “The unconstitutional standard at the heart of this challenge parallels the impossible ‘justifiable need’ hurdle used by the State of New Jersey to prevent law-abiding people from exercising their right to bear arms. Citizens in states like New Jersey, New York, and elsewhere have been unjustly denied their fundamental Second Amendment rights at the hands of oppressive state governments for too long, and our relief is past due.”
“The right to carry is a focus of our organizations because our members see it as essential to their freedom and their right to self-defense,” noted Michael A. Schwartz, executive director of the amicus California County Gun Owners organizations. “We filed this brief because a ruling in our favor will put an end to California’s sheriffs and police chiefs requiring that carry license applicants provide proof of ‘good cause’ and make it possible for millions more law-abiding Californians to exercise their right to bear arms in public, especially in hostile counties like Los Angeles and in the San Francisco Bay Area.”
“This case will almost certainly lead to a historic decision at a time when some would like to see the Second Amendment diminished to a second-class right and take away one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Knife Rights Foundation Chairman Doug Ritter. “Self-defense, and having the effective means by which a person defends themselves and their loved ones, is one of the most basic of natural human rights. We must stand strong defending this right.”
FPC American Victory Fund is a § 527 political committee that works to defend and promote fundamental rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners (“CNJFO”) is a nonprofit membership organization based in Sewell, New Jersey that was formed to educate the public about the “need” standard, as well as to advocate for lawful, safe, and responsible firearms ownership in New Jersey. CNJFO strives to restore the basic human right of self-defense for the people of New Jersey—a right that, while guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens, all three branches of the New Jersey government have worked to effectively obliterate.
San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, and California County Gun Owners are political membership organizations whose purposes are to protect and advance the Second Amendment rights of residents of California. Their memberships consist of Second Amendment supporters who want to protect and restore the right to keep and bear arms in California.
Knife Rights Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit organization that serves its members and the public, focused on protecting the rights of knife owners to keep and carry knives and edged arms, including for self-defense. The purposes of the Knife Rights Foundation include the promotion of education regarding state and federal knife laws and the defense and protection of the civil rights of knife owners nationwide.

FPC announces a case challenging New York’s “proper cause” scheme for the issuance of licenses to carry arms in public. IMG iStock-935671782
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that attorneys Scott Keller, Matthew H. Frederick, Jonathan D. Urick, and Jeremy Evan Maltz of Lehotsky Keller have submitted an important merits-stage United States Supreme Court brief on behalf of FPC and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case challenging New York’s “proper cause” scheme for the issuance of licenses to carry arms in public. The brief can be found at FPCLegal.org.

FPC’s brief provides a thorough exploration of English history and argues that the English right to have and use arms at the time of the American Founding included the right to carry weapons outside the home for self-preservation and defense. It further argues that the en banc Ninth Circuit’s evaluation of historical sources omitted crucial material, leading the court to a flawed understanding of the preexisting English right to possess and carry arms.

“FPC’s brief provides the Supreme Court with substantial historical support for the fundamental, individual right to bear arms,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “It also highlights how the Ninth Circuit has improperly analyzed the relevant history and failed to respect the right in its Second Amendment decisions, which must be corrected. On behalf of our members and supporters, FPC thanks Professor Malcolm for joining our brief and her incredible scholarship on this critical area of law. We also thank Mr. Keller and his co-counsel for their tremendous work preparing an excellent cornerstone brief in this important case.”
“Those keen to erase the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms outside their homes are attempting to rewrite legal history, inventing convenient facts and ignoring inconvenient facts.  They are entitled to their own opinions, of course, but not their own facts. The Supreme Court in Heller found the right to people to keep and bear arms includes their right to carry weapons outside their homes for self-defense and other lawful purposes. The FPC brief makes that history absolutely clear. It was a pleasure to help bring the truth to light,” said Professor Malcolm.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear for decades that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted in light of the English history at the time of the American Founding. This amicus curiae brief makes clear that the English right to have and use arms at the time of our Founding included the right to carry common weapons outside the home for self-preservation and defense. The Second Amendment therefore protected this well-established right to publicly carry arms, subject to longstanding English common law restrictions on carrying dangerous and unusual weapons in a manner that terrified the public. But simply publicly carrying weapons in common use for lawful purposes was protected by both the historical English right and the Second Amendment,” explained Mr. Keller.
Co-amici Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor Emerita of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, is a historian and constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. Called “the leading historian on the history of English gun control and gun rights” by constitutional scholar David Kopel, she is the author of eight books and many articles on gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights. Her work was cited several times in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Professor Malcolm has previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley College, Boston University, Northeastern University, and Cambridge University. She was also a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, a Visiting Scholar at Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and is a Bye-Fellow at Robinson College, Cambridge University.

Mr. Keller has argued 11 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and 12 cases before the Texas Supreme Court, the only practicing lawyer to have argued at least 10 cases in both courts. Mr. Keller frequently represents parties in high-stakes appeals, and he has argued many cases in federal courts of appeals throughout the nation. He has earned individual accolades from the National Law Journal, Law360, The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, 2021), and other publications. Before founding Lehotsky Keller LLP, Mr. Keller headed Baker Botts LLP’s Supreme Court Practice. He also has significant experience at the highest levels in all three branches of government. Mr. Keller served as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief appellate litigator. He was U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Keller was a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was also a Bristow Fellow in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Solicitor General.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

The FPC filed an opening brief of its challenge to PA’s ban on firearm carry for citizens under 21. IMG iStock-884188404
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Wednesday, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief in the appeal of its federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of Pennsylvania’s laws that prevent young adults under age 21 from carrying a loaded firearm outside of the home for self-defense. The brief in Lara v. Evanchick can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

The brief, filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, argues that “[t]he text of the Second Amendment leaves no doubt that it applies outside the home” and that the “right to keep and bear arms belongs to ‘the people as a whole,” “not [just] the subset of the people who have attained the age of 21.” The brief also notes that “just months after the ratification of the Second Amendment, Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792, which required all able-bodied men to enroll in the militia and to arm themselves upon turning 18.”

Additionally, the brief says that the state has no public safety justification for the ban. “FBI statistics indicate that 18-to-20-year-olds are arrested for violent crimes no more frequently than, say, 21-year-olds—and the percentage of wrongdoers in this age bracket who do commit violent crimes is an infinitesimal fraction of the age group as a whole,” the plaintiffs argue.

Federal District Court Judge William S. Stickman IV, a Donald Trump appointee, previously dismissed the case, holding that adults between the age of 18 and 21 do not have Second Amendment rights. “This Court [of Appeals] should reverse the decision of the district court and remand with instructions to enter an injunction forbidding Pennsylvania from continuing to ban 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public for lawful purposes,” the brief concludes.
“The District Court erred in holding that age-based restriction on the right to keep and bear arms fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “Worse, the Court ignored the historical evidence that shows that the right applies to adults under 21 years of age. Moreover, the Court’s reliance on a flawed Fifth Circuit opinion to arrive at its conclusion underscores the need for the Third Circuit to conduct an appropriate analysis, in this case, using the text of the Constitution as it is informed by history and tradition to guide its decision, as required by the Supreme Court’s precedents. And the faithful application of the Heller decision requires that Pennsylvania’s laws banning carry by adults under 21 must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined. We will continue our litigation to restore the right to carry in this and other cases.”
Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Evanchick must file his opposition brief by July 23; the plaintiffs will file their final reply brief on or before August 13. FPC has also filed lawsuits challenging similarly unconstitutional restrictions in Illinois, California, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Georgia.
Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

‘Yet again, the Ninth Circuit treats the right to keep and bear arms as a “second-class” right and “constitutional orphan.” ‘

The fanatically anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals elected to disregard that fundamental duty.  IMG iStock-898278698
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement rebuking the Ninth Circuit’s stay order blocking the enforcement of the district court’s judgment and injunction in FPC’s Miller v. Bonta lawsuit, a case challenging the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”:

The first duty of our federal courts is to uphold the Constitution and protect the People’s fundamental rights enshrined therein. But today, as it has too many times before, the fanatically anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals elected to disregard that fundamental duty, ignore the text and public meaning of our Constitution, and fail the very people they swore an oath to serve.

If this case were about a similarly broad abortion ban, restrictive immigration policy, or reduction of voting rights, just to name a few examples, there is no question that the Ninth Circuit’s decision here would have gone the other way. Just as Justice Clarence Thomas accurately explained in his 2018 dissent from denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra—the first-ever federal Second Amendment trial victory that the Ninth Circuit outrageously reversed based on its own (anti-rights) “common sense” rather than the Constitution and Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller decision—“the right to keep and bear arms is apparently [the Supreme] Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”
Indeed they have, and that is precisely what the Ninth Circuit did again today in its order granting the stay—treat your fundamental, individual Second Amendment freedoms as a “second-class right.” Rather than allow the parties to brief and litigate the appeal as it would in appeals about rights it favors, the Ninth Circuit put Judge Benitez’s incredibly detailed, historically accurate, and legally sound decision and judgment—and your rights—on ice.
FPC will continue to Fight Forward for the fundamental rights of all People in this and many other lawsuits around the country. And to be sure, neither a stay order in this case nor the Ninth Circuit itself will prevent us from aggressively working to eliminate unconstitutional laws and expand human liberty.
Tens of millions of Californians have suffered under the State’s unconstitutional and oppressive gun control scheme for far too long. Today the Ninth Circuit chose government tyranny over human lives and rights. If the federal courts wish to remain a relevant part of this Republic’s system of ordered liberty, then they should do their [well-paid, lifetime-tenure] jobs and stand up for the rights of the people of the United States in every case—not merely when it is convenient to them and anti-rights radicals like Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta.
We will provide further updates about Miller v. Bonta and other FPC lawsuits at FPCLegal.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Nevada’s unconstitutional statutes enacted in Assembly Bill 286. IMG istock 884215372
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Nevada’s unconstitutional statutes enacted in Assembly Bill 286, which established a new, confiscatory ban on all unserialized, self-manufactured firearms as well as all “unfinished frames or receivers.” The filings in Palmer v. Sisolak can be found at FPCLegal.org.

“Rather than enact tailored laws to address the State’s interests in reducing crime … or even addressing root causes of violent crime and social ills,” the motion for preliminary injunction opens, “Nevada instead enacted Assembly Bill 286,” what the plaintiffs go on to show to be “a radically expansive, confiscatory ban on constitutionally protected property and conduct that runs roughshod over the rights of its many thousands of law-abiding citizens who have only ever self-manufactured and used firearms for entirely lawful, indeed constitutionally protected purposes.” 
“By all measures, Nevada’s Ban is an unconstitutional infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment,” the brief argues. “The strength of Plaintiffs’ claims, the balance of the equities, and the public interest all weigh heavily in favor of granting preliminary injunctive relief against the significant, irreparable harm they have suffered and will continue to suffer on account of these blatant, unjustified constitutional injuries.”
Along with the request for a preliminary injunction, counsel for the plaintiffs also filed a motion “for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Determination,” which argues that fast-tracking the case “is necessary so this Court can determine the matter and issue an injunction with enough time to prevent enforcement of the challenged laws and the dispossession of Plaintiffs’ property, or, alternatively, should the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, allow Plaintiffs sufficient time to seek relief from the Court of Appeals, and should it be necessary, seek relief from the Supreme Court.”

Last week, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed AB 286 into law, which “radically expands the State of Nevada’s statutes to unconstitutionally and categorically ban, under pain of severe criminal sanctions, the possession, receipt, manufacturing, and sales” of Non-Firearm Objects (“NFOs”) the State classifies as “unfinished frames or receivers,” and further bans both the possession of previously self-manufactured firearms as well as, prospectively, any further self-manufacturing of firearms.

“Nevada’s broad ban on the possession and construction of constitutionally protected firearms and precursor materials violates Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights and unlawfully deprives them of their property, in violation of the Constitution,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “In order for a law-abiding individual to exercise their Second Amendment rights, they must have the ability to possess firearms, including those they build themselves. As our complaint explains, the right to self-build one’s own arms has been enjoyed, and at times absolutely necessary, since the founding of our country. We will aggressively litigate this action and seek an injunction to prevent this law from depriving individuals of their rights and property.”
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.