Latest SAF ALERTS...This thread is for your information only; no comments/replies, please.

Discussion in 'Activism' started by old lady new shooter, Apr 18, 2021.

  1. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    66ae6463-ef5a-6ff3-aa79-984e5ac1fc05.png
    Dear Gun Rights Supporter,

    The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are excited that the 2022 Gun Rights Policy Conference, our 37thGRPC, will be an in person as well as streamed across multiple platforms.

    On behalf of the SAF Board of Trustees and the CCRKBA Board of Directors, we would like to invite you to join us for what is sure to be one of the best and most far-reaching yet. 

    Since the first GRPC held in Seattle in 1986, it has evolved and grown from 20 speakers and 70 attendees to over 120 speakers and 6500 registered participants in 2021.

    We are heading to Dallas, Texas September 30 through October 2nd. We will be at the Westin – Dallas Fort Worth Airport in Irving, Texas. The conference is free and as in past years, there will be two receptions, a day and a half of presentations and an awards luncheon where we will all be able to gather and make and renew friendships. (Travel, lodging and other meals are to be paid by the attendee.)  You can register here. Hotel reservations can be made here.  Booking through this link will give you our negotiated rate of $115.00 per night Thursday, September 28th – Sunday, October 2nd. 

    Our team is busy working on the details of the LIVE conference and more information will be sent to you each month.

    We are all looking forward to seeing you!

    Sincerely,

    The GRPC planning team

    SAF.org
    (425) 454-7012

    CCRKBA.org
    (425) 454-4911
     
  2. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg


    ATF inflating ‘ghost gun’ numbers hoping Congress inflates its budget
    by Lee Williams

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is counting the number of Google searches for “ghost guns” claiming that the data supports their theory that homemade firearms are skyrocketing in popularity among criminals. The “ghost gun” crisis, which the ATF itself ginned up, appears to be nothing more than the agency’s latest and most desperate attempt to increase its dwindling budget.

    The ATF’s newfound use of internet search trends as a crimefighting tool was revealed in a recently released 306-page report titled: “National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessments: Firearms in Commerce.”

    In April 2021, Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered ATF to produce a “comprehensive report on firearms commerce and trafficking.” What they got was a bit of dealer and industry data mixed with supposition and theories that were both light on actual facts and previously shown to be false – all slickly packaged into a plea for more money, more agents and more authority.

    The report repeats bogus “ghost gun” claims, which have already been debunked by dozens of senior law enforcement sources and a congressional whistleblower. In other words, ATF submitted a report to the President and to the Attorney General of the United States containing information it knew was false.

    The report also cites how the agency is struggling to keep up with the staffing levels of other federal law enforcement agencies, especially FBI and DEA, which could explain why they’re stretching the truth a bit in their report. Some of its claims are laughable. However, nothing in the entire 306 pages is as ridiculous as the amateurish research methods they used to create and support their fictitious “ghost gun” theories.

    Google and media data

    Americans have been legally making guns in their homes since before there was a United States of America. ATF admits this in their report, kind of, stating that the Gun Control Act of 1968 “does not regulate the making of firearms by private individuals who are not engaged in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms.” After that brief disclaimer, however, the report rarely mentions the legality of homemade guns, which ATF calls “Privately Made Firearms” or PMFs.

    The internet, the report states, “provides manufacturers of these technologies, plans, and parts direct access to a mass market. To illustrate this point, one need only conduct an internet search and review the number of results and speed at which the results are returned.”

    The authors entered five PMF phrases into a Google search box: “80% Receivers, Ghost Gun kit, AR-15 receiver, 3d printed gun and Polymer 80.”

    “The Google searches returned more than 5 million pages of search results and more than 130 thousand marketing and instructional videos,” the report states. However, it never puts this number into context. For example, my search for Bigfoot produced 39 million results. A search for UFO Abduction insurance produced more than 760,000 results.

    The authors also searched for news stories about “ghost guns,” and to no one’s surprise they found a few, which they also claim proves they are increasingly used in crimes: “The increase in news stories is reflective of the increase in PMF use in crimes and PMF recoveries by law enforcement,” the report states. It does not explain how the authors made this leap in logic.

    Debunked numbers

    The entire crackdown on “ghost guns” is based on a hoax that has been promulgated by ATF and Joe Biden.

    “Last year alone, law enforcement reported approximately 20,000 suspected ghost guns to be – to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s a tenfold increase in these ghost guns from 2016. Tenfold in five years,” Biden said last April. “These guns are weapons of choice for many criminals. We’re going to do everything we can to deprive them of that choice and, when we find them, put them in jail for a long, long time. Law enforcement is sounding the alarms. Our communities are paying the price. And we’re acting.”

    The “ghost gun” drama was started by Carlos A. Canino, the former Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the ATF’s Los Angeles Field Division. In 2020, anti-gun activists asked Canino about the prevalence of homemade firearms in California. An earlier study said 30% of the guns recovered by ATF in California were unserialized “ghost guns,” but Canino said the real numbers were actually much higher. “Forty-one percent, so almost half our cases we’re coming across are these ‘ghost guns,’” Canino said.

    A story by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project revealed that the ATF could not verify Canino’s comments.

    “I contacted the Los Angeles Field Division earlier today after your initial email, and their Public Information Officer was unable to verify any figures provided in 2019 by former-SAC Canino without knowing the time-period(s) he used for his comments,” an ATF spokesman admitted in an email.

    After the story was published, a staff member for a U.S. Congressman came forward. This whistleblower, who asked that their name be withheld from publication, revealed even more problems about the ATF’s “ghost gun” numbers.

    The whistleblower asked the U.S. Justice Department for “ghost gun” data, since the ATF falls under the DOJ’s purview.

    “Because it is not currently a federal crime to own either a homemade firearm or a braced pistol, DOJ claims they do not have accurate/comprehensive databases to track their use in crimes. They compile information from state and local police units – but that information is only as good as what is reported,” the whistleblower said in an email. To be clear, the Department of Justice told a U.S. Congressman’s staff member that their “ghost gun” data is neither accurate nor comprehensive.

    “Despite that,” the whistleblower said in an email, “the DOJ sent a document stating: ‘Privately made firearms (PMFs), known as ghost guns, are a rapidly growing contributor to violent crime. From January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020, there were approximately 23,906 suspected PMFs reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement, including in connection with 325 homicides or attempted homicides. The trendline is troubling: in 2016, local law enforcement reported to ATF 1,750 suspected PMFs; by 2020, that number had grown to 8,712, an increase of over 400 percent.”

    This is the same data ATF submitted in their report to Biden and Attorney General Garland – data that the DOJ said is “neither accurate nor comprehensive,” – data the ATF knew was false.

    Takeaways

    The authors who wrote this report are not shy about the real reason for the 306-page document.

    “Over the past three decades, ATF has not been funded and staffed commensurate with staffing increases received by other DOJ law enforcement agencies. In 1973, ATF had 3,829 employees, including 1,622 special agents and 826 industry operations investigators. In 2022, ATF has 5,410 employees including 2,653 special agents and 760 industry operations investigators. This represents a 41% increase in total employees.

    By contrast, in 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had 2,775 employees of which 1,470 were special agents. In 2021, DEA employed 9,848 employees of which 4,649 were special agents. This represents a 254% increase. Similarly, in 1973, the FBI had 20,527 employees. In 2021, the FBI employed 35,842 employees. This represents a 75% increase.”

    It's clear the ATF is looking for a 21st Century mission – something more relevant than regulating untaxed cigarettes or bootleg corn liquor – so they turned to “ghost guns,” a fiction which Biden and the legacy media were only too happy to help promote.

    Besides, the dozens of senior law enforcement professionals across the country I have spoken to say “ghost guns” are not a problem in their jurisdictions. The ATF, they say, must be conflating homemade guns and factory-made firearms that have had their serial numbers illegally removed to come up with their large numbers, or, more likely, ATF is just making the numbers up, hoping to increase their budget.

    The research methods ATF used for this report indicate nothing is out of bounds. Claiming there are now more plans on the internet for “ghost guns” so there must be more “ghost guns” makes no sense. There are more plans online now for atomic bombs, time machines and the perfect Bundt cake than there were years ago. Does this mean they too are growing in popularity? And basing any conclusion on media stories is legendarily dumb. I spent more than 20 years in the legacy media. The vast majority of my former colleagues could not articulate the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Ask them anything about “ghost guns” and they wouldn’t have a clue.

    The ATF has always been somewhat of a laughingstock – a pariah among federal law enforcement agencies. That they would now invent a fake problem and then hold their hand out to Congress for more money to fix it shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, this is the federal agency that believed pressuring a retired Green Beret into sawing off a shotgun barrel, laying siege to 76 men, women and children and running guns into Mexico were sound law enforcement strategies, despite the number of lives lost as a result.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
  3. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    JOINT STATEMENT FROM SAF AND CCRKBA ON UVALDE
    Legitimate, law-abiding American gun owners are today as outraged and saddened as everyone else by the horrible acts of a crazed murderer in Uvalde, Texas. The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms join our fellow citizens to grieve the unimaginable loss suffered by the Uvalde community and the citizens of Texas.

    The past 24 hours have allowed us to learn far more about the killer and the circumstances surrounding his deplorable act of violence. Unlike anti-gun-rights politicians including Joe Biden, who quickly exploited this horror to push an agenda aimed at diminishing the Second Amendment and shifting blame to millions of gun owners, we waited for more information.

    If there is blame beyond that of the killer, it must be shared by political leaders whose policies have turned our public schools into soft targets, and by self-appointed activists and school boards that have resisted school resource officer programs, opposed and prohibited programs that train teachers and staff to provide armed first response in an emergency, while perpetuating dangerous “Gun Free School Zone” laws.

    President Biden demanded “commonsense gun laws.” We believe it is time for common sense, period. We spend billions of dollars on foreign aid. We can provide millions of dollars to local law enforcement agencies for school resource officers. We protect our politicians with armed security. Let’s protect our schools to the same degree.

    Let’s take advantage of a great resource: our retired military and law enforcement professionals. They protected our nation and our communities. They can easily protect our school children.

    Instead of demonizing gun owners and the firearms industry, bring them to the table and benefit from their knowledge. Together we can succeed where the gun prohibition agenda has disastrously and repeatedly failed.

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
  4. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

    Biden’s second ATF nominee garnering support among key Senate Dems
    by Lee Williams

    Like his first choice, Joe Biden’s second choice to lead the ATF can’t define an “assault weapon” either.

    Former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach testified Wednesday he would leave it to Congress to define an “assault weapon,” even though during his unsuccessful 2018 run for Ohio Attorney General Dettelbach called for an “assault weapon” ban, restrictions on standard-capacity magazines, universal background checks and Red Flag laws.

    “When I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons,” Dettelbach told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. “I did not define the term, and I haven't gone through the process of defining that term. That would only be for the Congress if it chose to take that up.”

    His non answer drew a stinging rebuke from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican and staunch Second Amendment supporter.

    “I think it's very telling that you're nominated to lead the ATF and you don't have a definition of assault weapon,” Cotton said. “The point is there is really no such thing as a category of weapons known as assault weapons. There are rifles, there are shotguns, there are pistols. They have properties, they have features, but there is no such thing as a category of assault weapon.”

    The Biden-Harris administration is working overtly and covertly to get their second ATF pick confirmed. They do not want to face the public embarrassment that would follow if they lose yet another nominee.

    Biden pressed the Senate to act quickly Wednesday as he was signing so-called police reform legislation, by conflating the mass murder that occurred the day before in Uvalde, Texas with Dettelbach’s nomination.

    “The idea that an 18-year-old can walk into a store and buy weapons of war, designed and marketed to kill, is, I think, just wrong. It just violates common sense. Even the manufacturer – the inventor of that weapon thought that as well. You know, where is the backbone? Where is the courage to stand up to a very powerful lobby? But here is one modest step: The federal agency that measures and ensures that gun laws are enforced and the Second Amendment is abided by – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the AFT (sic) – has not had a Senate confirmation leader for seven years because of these disputes,” Biden said Wednesday. For seven years, they’ve been out – without anyone in charge. I nominated a supremely qualified former prosecutor who has broad bipartisan support from law enforcement and the community overall. His hearing was held easier today – earlier today, I should say. The Senate should confirm him without delay, without excuse. Send the nomination to my desk. It’s time for action.”

    Biden was not the only administration official to conflate recent mass murders with Dettelbach’s nomination.

    White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Wednesday that “as we saw with the tragic shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo – where ATF agents have played a key role in the investigations – and with daily gun violence plaguing too many of our communities, now is the time to provide ATF the leadership it needs to redouble its work to enforce our gun laws and make our communities safer.”

    Apparently, the pressure is paying off for the White House. Several Democrats who opposed Biden’s first choice for the vacant ATF directorship, David Chipman, said they may likely support Dettelbach.

    Sen. Angus King, an Independent from Maine, told CNN Dettelbach’s attitude was better than Chipman’s, adding “This guys is the right guy.”

    Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Jon Tester (D-Montana) each said they had productive private meetings with Dettelbach, but were waiting until the hearings conclude before they announce their decisions. Both senators come from gun-friendly states and both publicly opposed Chipman’s nomination.

    The White House will need the support of every Democratic senator, including moderates like Manchin and Tester, to confirm Dettelbach’s nomination.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
  5. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION FILES
    FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO WA MAGAZINE BAN

    The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson and several other officials, challenging the state ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” for rifles and pistols. The case is known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

    Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., a California-based group; Rainier Arms, LLC and a private citizen, Gabriella Sullivan. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C., Cody J. Wisniewski at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and locally by Joel Ard at Ard Law Group.

    Besides Ferguson, defendants are Washington State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste, King County Sheriff Patti Cole-Tindall, Kitsap County Sheriff John Gese, Grays Harbor County Sheriff Rick Scott, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, Kitsap County Prosecutor Chad M. Enright and Grays Harbor County Prosecutor Katie Svoboda.

    “We’re asking the court to declare Washington’s ban on original capacity magazines to be unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth amendments,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We want an injunction against the state because this ban criminalizes something that is common in a majority of states, and also leaves law-abiding Washington citizens more vulnerable to attack by ruthless criminals.”

    Under provisions of a law passed earlier this year, Washington bans the future sale, importation, manufacture and distribution of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten cartridges. These are widely considered standard capacity magazines by manufacturers of firearms for which they are designed. The legislation was signed in March by Gov. Jay Inslee and takes effect July 1.

    “Many of the most popular handguns and modern semiautomatic rifles come standard with magazines that hold more than ten rounds,” Gottlieb noted. “Such firearms are legally owned by Washington residents. As we note in the lawsuit, there is no reliable proof that restrictions on new manufacturing or sales of such magazines will reduce violent crime. This law unfairly and arbitrarily penalizes honest citizens for crimes they didn’t commit, in the hopes of preventing crimes they wouldn’t dream of committing.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
  6. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

    The media has reached an agreement on guns, not the Senate

    by Lee Williams

    If the legacy media had their way, your front door would explode and seconds later you’d be hip-deep in armed gun-grabbers delivering high-caliber butt-strokes to your noggin until you surrendered the combination to your gun safe. That is the level of anti-gun bias today’s legacy media uses whenever they report on anything related to guns or the Second Amendment. Their recent stories on developments in the Senate are no exception to this rule.

    “The Senate has finally reached an agreement on guns,” a CBS news actor breathlessly announced Monday morning. Except the Senate hasn’t reached any agreement. Ten Republican Senators have agreed in theory to back a gun-control framework, which is lightyears away from agreeing to support an actual gun-control bill.

    Once again, the legacy media is way ahead of the actual story. Once again, they are reporting what theywant to happen, instead of what actually happened. Rather than reporting the truth, today’s media consistently pushes its own agenda, which in this caseis their belief we need more gun control.

    To be clear, a bipartisan group of 20 Senators – 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats – led by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), announced yesterday their support for a proposal, which is not a bill.

    According to a press release from Murphy’s office, the proposal is “a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country.”

    “Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities,” Murphy said in the statement. “Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law.”

    You can read the full text of Murph’s proposal, as well as which Senators have announced their support, here.

    Is this development concerning to those of us who value our God-given constitutional rights? Yes, it certainly is. However, we do not yet know what provisions of the proposal will be included in the bill, or even if there will be an actual bipartisan bill.

    The National Rifle Association said as much in a statement released Sunday night:

    “As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on "frameworks". We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review. The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation.”

    While some of the concepts contained in the Senators’ proposal are likely unconstitutional, it is a proposal, not legislation, at least not yet. We need to monitor developments closely and keep in contact with our elected representatives. While the gun banners are celebrating wildly while the cameras roll, do not fall victim to the media’s spin. That, friends, is exactly what they want. They survive solely on clicks and ratings. Do not feed the media beast.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
  7. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    HIGH COURT RULING IN N.Y GUN CASE AFFIRMS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

    Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a carry permit is a long-overdue affirmation that the right to bear arms exists outside the home, and always has, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

    “We are gratified that the high court has said there can be no bureaucratic prerequisite to exercising one’s constitutionally-protected right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many generations, New York’s requirement has been the vehicle by which the constitutional rights of average law-abiding citizens have been deprived under color of law.

    “Government bureaucrats have routinely been arbitrary and all-too-eager to prevent honest people from having the means to defend themselves against violent crime outside of their homes,” he continued. “This pattern of exclusivity—allowing only those with wealth and political connections to legally carry guns in public—has been an affront to the constitution for decades, and now officials in a handful of other states with similar arbitrary requirements are on notice they can no longer perpetuate what amounts to an outrage against the constitution. We’ll see how this ruling affects eight other states with similar laws including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.”

    SAF congratulated the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association for its victory, and for its daunting determination to see this battle through to its conclusion. This case was only allowed to be brought because of SAF’s 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago which overturned that city’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

    “We expect bureaucrats and even judges in various courts to resist today’s ruling,” Gottlieb acknowledged. “Too many of them have resisted and even ignored the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald rulings on Second Amendment rights in the past. We’re putting them on notice we’ll be watching for any such misconduct and we won’t be shy about taking legal actionespecially if New York City officials adopt near city wide ‘sensitive area’ restrictions making it impossible to carry in New York City.

    “This is a clear victory for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” he added, “and a staggering defeat for the gun prohibition movement and their billionaire financiers. Elitists who have their personal, armed private security have no business trying to undermine the rights of less-privileged citizens whose lives are just as important. Whenever gun prohibition forces lose, average people win, as they did today.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
    starnbar likes this.
  8. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
    The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

    Chief among these cases is Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh, a case brought by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Other cases include challenges to restrictive gun laws in Hawaii, New Jersey and California. In addition, a SAF case called McDougall v. Ventura County, which challenges a closure of gun shops two years ago during the COVID-19 panic, has been vacated by a Ninth Circuit en banc panel and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s New York ruling.

    “This is incredibly good news,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

    Gottlieb, who also chairs the Citizens Committee, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to remand the McDougall case back for further proceedings consistent with last week’s Bruen ruling sends a strong signal that federal courts can no longer use a made-up “two-step” process to determine Second Amendment cases. As Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion, “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”

    “Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen,” he noted, “and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.”

    “It is also important,” Gottlieb said, “that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
    DoubleMag and Valkman like this.
  9. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SAF FILES NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN GUN RIGHTS CASE
    Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in a case challenging the ban on handgun purchases by young adults, ages 18-20, based on language in the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

    The notice states, “As Plaintiffs have argued, text, history and tradition all point uniformly in this case toward 18-to-20-year-olds having equal rights to other adults with respect to firearms, including the right to purchase them, and the Government has not pointed to any sufficiently rooted analogous historical restrictions that would take this case outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

    “The high court ruling in Bruen clearly opens lots of doors in our pursuit of gun rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and this case is one of them.”

    The case is known as Reese, et.al. v. BATFE.

    As explained in the Notice, “The standard Bruen establishes for Second Amendment challenges is precisely the standard for which Plaintiffs argued in their briefing on their motion for summary judgment: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

    “We’re continuing to look back over several cases to determine which courses of action can be followed in the aftermath of the court’s June ruling,” Gottlieb acknowledged. “The importance of the Bruen decision cannot be overstated.

    “Our mission is not about promoting gun ownership, but protecting rights,” he observed. “For decades, liberal anti-gun politicians and activist judges have pushed legislation and issued decisions that have combined to erode rights protected by the Second Amendment. We are determined to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
  10. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SAF, PARTNERS FILE FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST NEW CALIFORNIA GUN LAW

    Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and several partners have filed a federal lawsuit for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in a case challenging the constitutionality of a California law prohibiting gun shops, sporting goods stores, and any “firearm industry member” from advertising, marketing or arranging for placement “any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

    It is a First Amendment case known as Junior Sports Magazine, Inc., et al, v. Bonta. Joining SAF in the motion are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., the CRPA Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Turner’s Outdoors, Inc., California Youth Shooting Sports Foundation, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, Inc., and two private citizens.

    The statute in question—identified as AB 2571 throughout the complaint and signed into law June 30—clearly focuses on any “firearm industry member” in its prohibition, which violates not only the First Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, plaintiffs contend.

    “The First Amendment protects commercial speech that promotes legal products and services,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You simply cannot single out people engaged in a legal business enterprise and forbid them from advertising or promoting their products just because you don’t like them. That’s what this case is all about.”

    While the law prohibits pro-gun advertising and display, the suit notes, “AB 2571 does not, however, prohibit anti-gun organizations not ‘formed for the express purpose of promoting, encouraging, or advocating for the purchase, use, or ownership of firearm-related products,’ like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Gun Free Kids, and Everytown for Gun Safety, from offering and soliciting youth memberships or using branded merchandise, like hats, t-shirts, stuffed animals, coloring and activity books, stickers, pins, and buttons, bearing anti-gun messages and slogans—or even images of unlawful firearms—to spread their political messages, promote their organizations, or solicit memberships and/or financial support.”

    “It’s clearly a double standard codified into law that cannot be allowed to stand,” Gottlieb said. “We’re determined to see that it doesn’t.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
  11. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    ASSOCIATED PRESS MAKES SMART GUN CHANGE TO STYLE BOOK
    After years of incorporating the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapons” into news reports involving firearms, especially when used in crimes, journalists are now advised by the Associated Press to avoid the “highly politicized terms,” and the Second Amendment Foundation says it’s a “smart gun change.”

    “It’s about time the media realized the terms ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’ are inflammatory and meaningless,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Those terms have become part of the gun prohibition lobby’s lexicon, and unfortunately, journalists across the country have been all-too-willing to adopt their vocabulary and repeatedly use it in their reports.

    “I’m glad to see the AP Stylebook now recognizes that these firearms only fire one round each time a trigger is pulled,” he continued, “and really function no differently than any other semi-auto rifle, pistol or shotgun, all of which have been in common use in this country for more than a century.”

    According to an AP Style Tip, “The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle. An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted.

    “Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon,” the AP adds, “which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.”

    As noted by Gottlieb, “The gun prohibition lobby has always used ‘assault rifle’ or ‘assault weapon’ to confuse and frighten the public and make people think it’s a fully automatic ‘weapon of war.’ Now we’ll have to see how intellectually honest journalists will be in adopting this correct terminology, rather than continuing to use these deliberately misleading references.

    “This laudable effort by the Associated Press may help restore the level of trust the public should have in the media,” he observed. “It will be interesting to see if the media now challenges politicians and anti-gun lobbyists whenever they use such terms, especially since ‘AR’ never referred to ‘assault rifle’ but to Armalite Rifle, and the gun control crowd has always known it.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
  12. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SAF FILES MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN CA GUN CASE
    The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the California case of Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

    SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb is hopeful for a preliminary injunction, noting, “We’re filing because a right delayed is a right denied.” He is represented by attorney Don Kilmer of Idaho.

    Gottlieb noted this is a First Amendment case, because it challenges a recently-signed law—AB 2571—which prohibits pro-gun advertising and display of “any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

    In his Declaration in support of the motion, Gottlieb explains, “It is critical to the success of SAF that its promotional material, publications, and messages about the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ be permitted to reach a broad public audience, including minors and young adults.”

    Among SAF’s activities is its support and sponsorship of an initiative called “2A Gaming.” Gottlieb describes this effort as “an outreach program funded by SAF with the goal of growing the Second Amendment Community.” The audience consists of people who play video games, especially games that focus on firearms.

    “Part of the purpose of 2A Gaming is to persuade gamers, whose experience with firearms may – at first – be limited to digital experience, to seek out friends and shooting clubs to obtain the necessary training and make that first trip to a range for a live fire experience,” he detailed.

    “We hope to educate the younger generation,” Gottlieb added, “on safety and where their gun rights come from; and also seek to shift the political culture in the United States from one that demonizes and fears guns, to an attitude of respect and protection for our nation’s Second Amendment heritage.”

    He says the ban on merchandizing codified in AB 2571 would include a ban on SAF-branded t-shirts, hats, other clothing, toys, games, pins, stickers and other material that “promote” a “firearm industry member.”

    Thank you.
    Your support makes our work possible.
     
    .38 Special and Spats McGee like this.
  13. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,922
    Apropos the discussion we recently had in General "a good argument against raising the age for gun ownership to 21" in which many members argued that whatever the age of majority is should be the age of majority for gun rights as well, here comes SAF arguing exactly that position in this Minnesota lawsuit:

    5fb34e7f-22fc-449d-a758-adbfddb64962.png

    SAF FILES SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN MINN. CARRY BAN LAWSUIT
    The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment in a federal lawsuit in Minnesota, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

    The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington.

    Joining SAF are the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens in the affected age group. Defendants are John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, plus three county sheriffs, Mille Lac County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry, in their individual and official capacities.

    The Second Amendment Foundation in this case is represented by COOPER & KIRK, PLLC. a national recognized constitutional and civil rights law firm based in Washington, D.C.

    “We recognize the rights of law-abiding young adults to vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, suddenly we treat them like children. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

    “Minnesota law prohibits private citizens from carrying guns outside the home or vehicle without a permit,” he added, “but the state does not issue permits to anyone under age 21. This is patently unfair to an entire class of citizens who have otherwise achieved ‘majority status’ to exercise these other rights and privileges, but their right to keep and bear arms is kept off-limits. Young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

    The time has come, Gottlieb said, for courts to remedy this situation and eliminate what amounts to a double standard.

    “You either have the rights of an adult, or you don’t,” he observed. “Rights are an all-or-nothing package, whether you are 18 or 81. This inconsistency in law needs to be fixed.”
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice