Friday, July 25, 2025

Designed to Fail? Gun Permit Processing in the City of Angels

Opinion

Conceal Carry SIG 226 iStock-460151141
iStock-460151141

Even as the majority of states embrace constitutional carry (29 so far), California continues to make it more difficult for its responsible residents to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Not only is the state’s concealed weapons (CCW) permit law already more complicated and burdensome than those in other states, but some localities’ implementation of the law (or lack of implementation, to be more precise) has raised allegations of unconstitutional violations of California law and the Second Amendment.

The Los Angeles, California, Police Department (LAPD) is allegedly advising applicants for CCW permits that a lack of resources means an expected processing time of around 18-22 months, even though California law mandates that permits be approved or denied within 120 days. The LAPD, it is claimed, is even manipulating the statutory deadline “by putting applicants on a waiting list and not treating their application as ‘accepted’ until LAPD decides to receive it,” even though the 120-day period starts as soon as the application is submitted. Given that the term of a permit, once granted, is only two years, the outcome is a ridiculous situation where the process takes almost as long as the permit is good for. CCW holders needing to renew are also kept waiting, and stand to lose their carry rights because renewal processing is liable to exceed the time in which a permit remains valid.

These processing issues are now so acute and well known that they are being cited in criminal proceedings as a defense or justification. According to the Vanguard News Group, an applicant with a pending CCW application was apprehended with three legal and registered firearms and was charged with improper firearm carry. The defense counsel argued the matter was appropriate for a judicial diversion (in which charges are dismissed after a defendant completes court-imposed conditions), pointing to the accused’s stable employment with the Coast Guard, their current CCW waitlist status, and the LAPD’s excessive and likely unconstitutional delays in issuing permits. On July 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Brad Miles Fox denied the judicial diversion request but left the door open for further arguments on the processing delays. The denial was without prejudice so as to allow defense counsel to renew the motion next month and provide the commissioner with “additional information about the LAPD’s backlog and its effect on the accused’s case.”

There’s reason to believe the LAPD’s permitting fiasco is unlikely to improve anytime soon.

A Real Clear Investigations report released this month, Pound Foolish: After Cutting Police, Overtime Costs Strain LA’s Budget, outlines the terrible state of police staffing and resources. The number of LAPD personnel continues to drop, due, in part, to decisions motivated by the “defund the police” movement. “In fiscal year 2020-2021, a total of 631 police officers from all ranks left the department or the profession,” and top LAPD officials anticipate a loss of more than 150 officers over the next year. In May, the Los Angeles City Council, with its “defund/abolish the police” proponents, voted for new LAPD budget cuts, which will “leave the agency with just 8,400 cops, the lowest number since 1995.”

The result is the City’s taxpayers are “shelling out tens of millions more in overtime pay than they would have if the police force were fully staffed.” Last year, the LAPD “spent an all-time high of $265.5 million on overtime alone, an increase of $100 million for that line item in the city’s budget since 2019,” and “fiscal year 2025 is on track to exceed last year’s record total.” This outlay will only get worse: “More overtime is likely on the horizon as Los Angeles gears up for high-profile global events, including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics.”

In the meantime, ordinary citizens are paying in other ways for their politicians’ policy choices. The same report quotes former Interim LAPD Chief Dominic Choi on the fallout of the understaffing crisis. Overwhelmed officers have less time for proactive policing, impacting the “ability to prevent crimes from happening,” and police response times have, in some cases, tripled or quadrupled.

The Los Angeles politicians’ alternative to cops (“a favored program of defund the police efforts”) isn’t doing much to lessen the load on law enforcement. This involves deploying unarmed teams of mental health professionals as the first responders on non-violent calls involving drug abuse, homelessness or mental health issues. A social worker with experience on these teams said the teams “usually end up calling for LAPD backup anyway” because the individuals prompting the calls threaten physical violence or “have weapons and we don’t feel safe.”

For those left in this law-enforcement lurch, there’s a now service, “Patrol,” that allows “[h]omeowners in LA” (Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, Malibu and “more areas coming soon”) to “book off duty police officers to help protect their homes.” The ad on X refers to residents who would “rather sleep knowing someone’s looking out for you.”  One of the replies notes the obvious: “I thought we were paying taxes to have on-duty police officers protect our homes.” It’s not a good look: at the same time that police understaffing makes permits inaccessible for ordinary people, the police in a private capacity are available for the wealthy.

All of this perpetuates an ugly cycle. Residents, who can no longer trust in a dependable police response and who are struggling to stay safe, resort to the state’s CCW law and their right to bear arms in self-defense. While citizens are expected to play by the rules in the permitting law, the police administering the scheme are not, giving rise to a reprehensible situation that strips away constitutional rights when they may be most needed.

Attorneys on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) have already warned the LAPD that its excessive delays over CCW permits violate California law and the Second Amendment, and that a federal civil rights lawsuit lies ahead if the LAPD fails “to make firm commitments to expeditiously resolve its CCW permit application backlog.” The expense of defending any litigation includes the potential of damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

A federal lawsuit may likewise feature in the future, as part of the Justice Department’s investigation to determine whether Los Angeles is “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights” through excessively long processing times or otherwise.

Freedom isn’t free, as the saying goes, but oppression carries its own hefty price tag.

Don’t Be Fooled: Newsom’s ‘Respect’ for the 2nd Amendment Is a Flat-Out Lie

Activists Defeat Motion To Dismiss by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Dept. in Gun Permit-Delay Lawsuit


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)




from https://ift.tt/BkorZ09
via IFTTT

Thursday, July 24, 2025

9th Circuit Strikes Down California Ammo Background Check Law as Unconstitutional

Victory in Rhode v. Bonta Puts California’s Ammo Purchase Restrictions on Ice—For Now

Unconstitutional Bill Of Right Constitution IMG GROK 2025
File Photo IMG GROK 2025

California – In a huge win for California gun owners—and the Second Amendment—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the state’s controversial ammunition background check law is unconstitutional.

The case, Rhode v. Bonta, challenged California’s 2016 law that forced residents to pass a background check every single time they bought ammunition, whether it was a box of .22 for plinking or hunting rounds for the weekend. The court found that the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms by making it harder—and sometimes impossible—for law-abiding citizens to obtain ammo needed to use their firearms.

This decision comes after nearly eight years of litigation and was closely watched by gun rights advocates nationwide. The case was backed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), with support from groups like Ammunition Depot, Able’s Ammo, and Olympic shooting champion Kim Rhode, who served as the lead plaintiff.

“This is a big win for all gun owners in California,” said Rhode. “Once again, California has been found to be wanting, and the courts, with proper review, noted that gun owners have the law on our side.”

The court applied the Bruen test—a landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision—which requires gun laws to be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition. California’s ammo background check failed that test.

9th Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said plainly:

“California’s ammunition background check regime is unconstitutional… [It] infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Chuck Michel, President and General Counsel for CRPA, didn’t hold back in his response:

“This case has been a long, hard fight against overreaching government gun control. But a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable.”

CRPA and other plaintiffs argued that the law created unnecessary costs, delays, and denials for gun owners trying to purchase ammunition—even for people who had already passed background checks to own a firearm. The court agreed.

Meanwhile, anti-gun groups and California officials expressed disappointment, with Everytown Law calling the checks “common sense” and “minimal”—a claim the court clearly rejected.

The ruling also struck down California’s ban on importing ammunition from out of state unless it goes through a licensed vendor. That law had blocked Californians from buying ammo online or during road trips and bringing it home without government interference.

The Saint Benitez Effect

Rhode v. Bonta was first struck down by Judge Roger Benitez—nicknamed ‘Saint Benitez’ by many gun owners—who issued the original district court injunction against California’s ammunition restrictions, a decision now upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

A key plaintiff in the case, Ammunition Depot, celebrated the decision as a pivotal moment in restoring constitutional rights.

“We are thrilled by this victory, which stands as a testament to the power of the Constitution,” said Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot. “Today’s ruling is a major step forward for the Second Amendment and the rights of every law-abiding citizen.”

Wolgin also acknowledged that the legal process may not be over yet, as California could still seek further review:

“We understand that the legal process isn’t over, and we are committed to keeping our customers informed as this unfolds.”

Is It Over?

For now, it remains unclear whether the decision immediately halts enforcement of the ammo check law. Ammunition Depot and CRPA have pledged to keep the public informed once the court issues its final mandate.

California could request an “en banc” rehearing by a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges, or it could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But for now, the permanent injunction stands—meaning the law is dead unless higher courts step in.

Why it matters:

If you can’t get ammo, your gun is useless. This ruling restores a critical part of the right to keep and bear arms and sets a powerful precedent for other states trying to push similar schemes. It also shows that Bruen is reshaping the legal battlefield—putting the burden back on the government to justify its gun laws, not on the people to beg for their rights.

Stay tuned to AmmoLand News and CRPA for updates as the fight continues.

California Judge Hears Case on Ammo Law, More Gun Control Cases to Follow

California AG Rob Bonta’s Nickel-&-Diming of 2nd Amendment Rights




from https://ift.tt/L2cl7aA
via IFTTT

Don’t Be Fooled: Newsom’s ‘Respect’ for the 2nd Amendment Is a Flat-Out Lie

Opinion

Second Amendment But Liars Democrats Fake Lies
iStock

By now, Americans should be well aware that California Governor Gavin Newsom struggles with the truth. Recently, the known fabulist took his act on the road to sit with Tennessee-based podcaster Shawn Ryan for an interview.

At the outset of the show, Ryan gifted the anti-gun governor a Sig P365 XMACRO semi-automatic handgun.

Newsom responded, “By the way, this is too cool. The fact that you would give me this. So, you just want the TSA to take this from me at the airport. I’m onto you man.”

Provided the gift was made as presented on the show, the politician appeared unaware that for such an interstate handgun transfer to comply with federal law would require a local federal firearms licensee (FFL or gun dealer) to ship the firearm to an FFL in California.

As a Californian, Newsom would then be subject to the not-so-Golden State’s 10-day waiting period and Firearm Safety Certificate requirement. The Firearm Safety Certificate procedure includes a written test, which could prove no small feat for someone with a well-documented, and seemingly severelearning disability. Cal. Penal Code § 31640 does provide, “If the person taking the test is unable to read, the test shall be administered orally.”

Newsom went on to state,

This is fabulous. You know what, the last thing people would expect is that I respect this gift

I’m not anti-gun at all. I’m just for some gun safety, common sense, that I think the vast majority of folks to the right and the left agree. And I think we’ve lost a little touch with some common sense around background checks. I think there’s an age appropriateness. I do have some, I’m challenged by large capacity magazine clips in urban centers. And, uh, weapons of war that are out there sometimes outgunning the police

But otherwise, people have the right to bear arms and I got no ideological opposition to that at all.

Further, Newsom claimed,

I’m also deeply mindful and respectful of the Second Amendment and people’s Constitutional rights.

Despite these assertions, Newsom’s record in office leaves no doubt that – when given authority – he systematically uses it to undermine the rights of gun owners, including by advocating for the position there is no individual right under the Second Amendment at all.

In other words, his statements to Shawn Ryan about this “deep” respect for the Second Amendment and about not being anti-gun “at all” are another “pants on fire” episode. If anything, they are the exact opposite of the truth.

During his time as governor, Newsom has signed all manner of extreme gun control legislation. In just the last two years, Newsom signed legislation mandating the use of unworkable microstamping technology on pistols, approved an 11-percent excise tax on all firearms and ammunition, and flouted the landmark NRA-supported U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) by enacting onerous new restrictions on the Right-to-Carry.

Moreover, Newsom has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to California’s state-run anti-gun propaganda factory to manufacture a scientific veneer to California politicians’ pre-existing anti-gun agenda.

However, gun owners need not quibble about Newsom’s individual gun control policies. That’s because the governor’s actions not only show he supports extreme gun control, the record indicates that he doesn’t believe Americans have an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms at all.

From January 2004 to January 2011, Newsom was the mayor of San Francisco.

In 2005, the City by the Bay voted on Proposition H, which was a ballot measure to ban the possession of all handguns in the city. While the measure was approved by far-left San Francisco voters, it was struck down by the courts as a violation of state law after NRA challenged it.

To be clear, this was not a ban on the future sale or possession of handguns, it was a ban on all handguns, which means, had it stood, the firearms would either have had to be removed from the city or turned over to authorities (i.e., surrendered under duress).

A similar fact pattern was at issue in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Court’s decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban. In doing so, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the scope of the right includes possessing firearms in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense – including handguns. Given that the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Heller decision applies to the federal government. The Court went on to make clear that the Second Amendment applies to states and local jurisdictions in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Newsom did not take a formal position on Proposition H. However, his behavior after passage showed that he didn’t view the Second Amendment as any impediment to sweeping gun bans.

On January 30, 2006, Mayor Newsom sent a letter to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to encourage them to impose the maximum penalty allowable under state law, including mandatory jail time, for those who violated the improper and unconstitutional gun ban.

The letter stated:

In accordance with Proposition H and in consultation with the Chief of Police, District Attorney, Sheriff and the City Attorney, we are calling for the maximum penalty under state law for city residents who violate this voter approved ordinance. As you review this important legislation, we recommend that the City and County of San Francisco enact a $1,000 fine for handgun forfeiture, with a minimum imprisonment in county jail of 90 days, not to exceed 6 months.

Let that sink in: Gavin Newsom demanded a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the mere act of possessing any handgun under any circumstance in the jurisdiction over which he presided as mayor.

Further, as the Heller (2008) case was before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mayor Newsom’s city argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In January 2008, Mayor Newsom’s San Francisco joined a handful of other cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Legal Community Against Gun Violence (LCAV) in an amicus brief for the Court. The U.S. Conference of Mayors was a longtime supporter of handgun prohibition. LCAV is now a component of the Giffords gun control outfit, which also occasionally, and disingenuously, claims to be moderate when that is convenient to the politics of the moment.

San Francisco’s brief rejected the correct individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, claiming:

the Second Amendment was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort—either federal or state. For the Framers of the Constitution, irregular bands of armed citizens were a threat to be countered, not a guarantor of their liberties.

The brief from Mayor Newsom’s city also claimed that even if the Second Amendment restrained the federal government in some manner, it did not restrict state or local authority in any way. The filing argued:

although the Court need not address the issue of the Second Amendment’s incorporation against the States or their subdivisions in this case, this Court’s precedents and the federalism-promoting purpose of the Second Amendment firmly establish that the Second Amendment imposes no barrier to state and local regulation of firearms.

In January 2010, Mayor Newsom’s San Francisco again joined an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald (2010), which was a challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban.

The brief argued in favor of the ban and against incorporating the Second Amendment against the states. This outcome would have permitted states and local jurisdictions unfettered power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms (including the right to ban any class of firearms).

San Francisco’s brief claimed:

The [Second] Amendment’s purpose makes clear that it is essentially a “federalism provision” designed to protect the States and their citizens from excessive federal power. In view of the Second Amendment’s stated purpose, it makes no sense to incorporate the right to bear arms against the States.

At bottom, the Second Amendment right cannot be considered implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, so as to justify its incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If that weren’t enough, in June 2023 Governor Newsom proposed a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed at undermining the Second Amendment. The unpopular anti-rights amendment would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government gate-kept privilege by criminalizing private firearm transfers. The proposal would also institute a mandatory firearm waiting period and ban overwhelmingly popular semi-automatic firearms.

After seeing his San Francisco anti-gun compatriot Kamala Harris get trounced by President Donald Trump at the polls, it’s no surprise the rumored 2028 presidential candidate would seek to distance himself from such an extreme anti-Second Amendment record.

Gun owners shouldn’t fall for it.

Actions, as the old saying goes, speak louder than words. Gavin Newsom’s long record in public office proves he cannot be trusted with Americans’ Second Amendment rights, no matter how much he now tries to rebrand himself for a broader audience.

Wait What? Gov. Newsom Now Respects the Second Amendment?

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)




from https://ift.tt/i0tkHfu
via IFTTT

Masked Teens Add Airsoft Guns to Prank in Armed Florida — What Could Go Wrong?

Florida teens have added Airsoft guns and balaclavas to a viral TikTok door-kicking trend. (Photo courtesy Hillsborough County Sherriff’s Office).
Florida teens have added Airsoft guns and balaclavas to a viral TikTok door-kicking trend. (Photo courtesy Hillsborough County Sherriff’s Office).

Florida teens from Hillsborough County have added balaclavas and Airsoft guns to what used to be called doorbell-ditch.

Now, rather than just ringing the doorbell, the masked teens kick the front door and fire several Airsoft rounds at the homes before running away, a video shows.

The events were captured by the victim’s doorbell camera in Riverview, Florida last Friday.

The “masked gunman” approached the front door wearing a ski mask while armed with his Airsoft carbine. He kicks the front door, fires several rounds and then runs away.

Neighbors saw the group earlier. One woman asked them what they were doing, and someone from the group told her to “mind her own business.” She called police instead.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies are trying to locate the offenders, who did not live in the neighborhood where they fired the shots.

Anyone who recognizes the suspects is asked to call Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office detectives at (813) 247-8200.

Takeaways

Florida is perhaps one of the worst states for this newish crime trend, especially Hillsborough County.

The county has an overall crime rate of 17.02 per 1,000 residents. Its violent crime rate is 27.3 per 1,000 residents, and its property crime rate is 48.9 per 1,000 residents. These levels are higher than national statistics, so many county residents are well prepared for criminals.

Florida’s (real) gun ownership rate is nationally known—second only to Texas. Many Floridians are armed all of the time, even while at home.

It is hoped that the offenders’ parents act before these youths encounter a homeowner who is armed with something that doesn’t just shoot plastic pellets.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams



from https://ift.tt/dwR6NUl
via IFTTT

Air Force Pauses Use of Sig Sauer M18 Handgun After Airman Killed

SIG SAUER M18 Sets New Standard for U.S. Army’s MHS Reliability Test
SIG SAUER M18

Air Force Global Strike Command has temporarily paused all Sig Sauer M18 Modular Handgun Systems (MHS) operations after a young female Airman died after being shot by an alleged firearm malfunction.

The Sig Sauer M18 is based on the popular Sig Sauer P320. The fire control unit (FCU) is the serialized part, which allows for the easy swapping of pistol chassis. The modularity of the firearm was a selling point when competing against the Glock 19x to become the replacement for the Beretta M9 as the military’s standard-issue sidearm. This gun wasn’t Sig’s first foray into a modular pistol. The P250 was introduced in 2009 as a hammer-fired modular firearm. The P320, which was launched in 2014, shares many design elements with the P250, but utilizes a striker instead of a hammer.

According to the United States Air Force (USAF), a service member serving at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming removed her M18 that was secured in a Safariland holster by detaching from her belt by using Safariland’s Quick Release System (QLS). The QLS uses a fork system to secure the holster to a backing that is attached to the user’s belt. The young Airman placed the firearm, still in its holster, on a table. While on the table, the gun allegedly fired a round on its own, hitting the Airman in the chest, killing her.

The US Air Force and Army are investigating the incident. The Army is participating in the investigation because the Army manages the M18 program. Until the investigation is complete and the cause is confirmed, the Air Force will remove the pistols from service. The order only affects US personnel but is likely to expand to Air Force service members in Europe. Air Force personnel will be carrying M4s for the time being.

“Air Force Global Strike Command has paused use of the M18 Modular Handgun System, effective July 21, 2025, until further notice,” said Air Force Strike Command spokesman to AmmoLand News and other outlets. “This decision was made following a tragic incident at F.E. Warren AFB, WY, on July 20, 2025, which resulted in the death of a Security Forces Airman.”

In a social media post, Sig Sauer stated that it is cooperating with the investigation. The company said it proactively reached out to the Army and Air Force to assist with the investigation. The post expressed confidence in the military’s investigation and extended its sympathies to the service members and families affected by the tragedy.

Sig Sauer has faced multiple lawsuits over the P320 handgun. The company lost two cases in court last year. In the first case, a Georgia man was awarded $2.35 million in damages after he alleged his P320 fired on its own and hit him. A jury awarded a Philadelphia man $11 million in damages four months later. Twelve other lawsuits have been filed against Sig Sauer, but all those suits have been dismissed. The plaintiffs in these cases claim that the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled. Sig Sauer disputes these allegations.

In May, the company posted on X (formerly Twitter), “The P320, it ends today.” The company claimed that the P320 will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. The company blamed anti-gun groups, trial lawyers, and the mainstream media for the stories about the gun firing without human intervention. The military investigation into the incident might shed light on whether there is a problem with the gun.

SIG Sauer The P320, it ends today. SIG X Screengrab 7-24-2025
SIG Sauer The P320, it ends today. SIG X Screengrab 7-24-2025

AmmoLand News reached out to Sig Sauer for comment, but our request was not returned at the time of publishing.


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump




from https://ift.tt/zZvEXyc
via IFTTT

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Activists Defeat Motion To Dismiss by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Dept. in Gun Permit-Delay Lawsuit

gun license permission slip iStock-Oleksandr Hruts 1468255807
iStock-Oleksandr

BELLEVUE, Wash. — A District Court judge in California has denied in part a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) in a ruling that favors the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in CRPA v. LASD, SAF’s challenge to lengthy concealed carry permit wait times in Los Angeles.

CRPA v. LASD: Backgrounder

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and others, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), La Verne Police Department (LVPD), and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. This case challenges unconstitutional delays, excessive fees, and subjective “suitability” requirements in California’s concealed carry permit (CCW) process.

The lawsuit argues that LASD and LVPD have made it nearly impossible for law-abiding residents to exercise their right to carry firearms for self-defense—despite the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision affirming the right to bear arms outside the home. LASD admits to 12–18 month wait times, while LVPD requires applicants to pay over $1,000, including for invasive psychological exams, just to apply for a CCW permit. To make matters worse, California refuses to recognize permits from other states, leaving visitors and nonresidents disarmed.

This case is about more than Los Angeles County—it’s a fight against the growing trend of anti-gun jurisdictions undermining Supreme Court rulings through bureaucratic stonewalling and financial barriers. If CRPA succeeds, it could set a precedent forcing “shall-issue” jurisdictions to process permits quickly, drop poll tax-like fees, and stop using subjective hurdles to deny rights.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s (LASD) filed a motion to dismiss most aspects of SAF’s claims and limit any relief going forward to only the individual plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit.

The court found that SAF can sue on behalf of all its members, and not just those who are specifically named in the lawsuit. Now, as the case proceeds to final judgment, any relief SAF wins will be on behalf of all its members.

“One of LASD’s main arguments in their Motion to Dismiss was that any relief obtained would not apply to all SAF members who have applied for a permit with LASD, only to the listed individual plaintiffs, which is absurd,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Every SAF member, regardless of their affiliation with this case, faces the same long wait times, period. We are grateful the judge in this case saw through this thinly veiled attempt to subvert the Second Amendment rights of California residents.”

SAF is joined in the case by the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and several individuals.

“What the LASD was trying to do with this motion to dismiss was to severely restrict the scope of relief SAF is seeking in this suit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “At the core of their argument was the idea that even if the court dragged them kicking and screaming into processing these permit applications, they should only have to do so for the handful of individual plaintiffs, while continuing to violate the rights of all other SAF members in the state. We’re thrilled the court saw through this guise and shot this motion down.”

AmmoLand readers nationwide should watch this closely. If California’s schemes are struck down, it will send a powerful message to other states trying similar tactics to chill your Second Amendment rights.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Youth Shooting Ad Ban as Unconstitutional

New Jersey Town Adopts Resolution To Provide Financial Relief To Concealed Carry Holders


About Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.

Second Amendment Foundation




from https://ift.tt/3oPL4DO
via IFTTT

The Hucksters of Gun Control

Snake oil was made by boiling rattlesnakes and skimming the oil that rose to the surface. Hyped as a miracle cure, rattlesnake oil doesn’t have any real medicinal value at all. Nonetheless, hustlers and conmen peddled untold numbers of bottles labeled as snake oil in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Gun control is similar. The entire gun control spiel was created for the gullible. Bold, completely unsupported claims are coupled with words like “commonsense” and “reasonable” to soothe any doubts and overcome reluctance.

This is particularly true of universal background check laws

“Background checks save lives,” gun-grabbers assert as if it had been engraved on stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sinai. However, there’s little objective evidence that background checks deliver on the promises.

In 2000, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig published “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” in the Journal of the American Medical Association. They were studying the impact of the federal background check requirement that went into effect in February 1994 and the waiting period imposed from that month until the FBI’s NCIS program went live in 1998.

Cook and Ludwig concluded, “implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”

In 2017, Dr. Garen Wintemute, Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California’s Davis campus, was one of the authors of “Comprehensive background check policy and firearm background checks in three US states”, a study of the impacts of universal background check laws in Colorado, Delaware, and Washington. The study looked for increases in the number of background check inquiries and concluded people in Colorado and Washington ignored the laws. Delaware did show the expected increase in background check inquiries but It also had the largest increase (45%) in the rate of firearm homicides. Colorado had a 42% jump and homicides rose 31% in Washington.

Not a glowing testimonial, given all the hype about background checks.

The chart above compares 12 states that passed universal background check laws and 20 states that went for constitutional carry in the years from 2003 to 2021. Measuring each state from the year their laws were passed to 2023, the constitutional carry states were the clear winners, refuting all the gun controllers’ dire predictions.

Universal background checks are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The gun control faithful claim background checks have prevented 4.9 million prohibited people from getting a gun. However, a 2019 Department of Justice survey of 256,000 inmates in federal and state prisons showed the overwhelming majority of criminals don’t get their guns from licensed dealers, pawn shops, gun shows, or flea markets. In fact, according to the United States Sentencing Commission’s 2021 manual, 88.8% of those convicted of new weapon offenses were already prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The final nail in the background check coffin is that they’re unenforceable.

In 2013, Dr. Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, published “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies.” Writing about background check laws, he said: “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.”

Creation of a federal gun registry is prohibited by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Moreover, anyone believing Americans would willingly register their guns probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and unicorns (or the efficacy of gun control laws).

New York state experienced the futility of gun registration laws in 2013. The Safe Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement, or SAFE Act, included a requirement for owners of certain firearms to register them with the New York State Police by April 2014.

When the NYSP was ordered to release the number of guns registered, the total was just 44,000 – out of an estimated 250,000 to one million. In the best possible case, the compliance rate was less than 18 percent.

While the snake-oil charlatans knew their product was fake, most of the gun control faithful have an unshakeable belief in their dogma. Despite the RAND Corporation’s finding most gun control studies are junk, zealous gun control evangelists still trot them out whenever they’re challenged.

But they can’t escape the numbers – and they can’t evade the tough questions, including the big one: Why pass a law that doesn’t work?

Let’s Shake up the Supreme Court’s Caseload

Gaming the National Firearms Act


About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.Bill Cawthon



from https://ift.tt/xCoiJrQ
via IFTTT