So much for the argument that this rifle was never intended for the civilian market. Now a FOIA production of the original classification letter proves even ATF agreed at the time. (“A 1963 Colt AR-15 Advertisement”/Soldier Systems.)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request … concerning the following: 1. All classification letters (or if classification letters were named in some other way, those records) regarding Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle, Serial No. GX4968 which was approved in approximately 1963; and 2. All classification letters … for AR-15 platform rifles predating the submission to the ATF for the Colt AR15 SP1 Sporter Rifle,” Adam C. Siple, Chief Information and Privacy Governance Division, notified attorney Stephen Stamboulieh in a Nov. 22 response (see below). “In response to your request, we have processed a total of 2 pages of responsive material.”
That referenced FOIA request was sent in May on behalf of firearms designer Len Savage and resulted in the production of a Dec. 10, 1963, letter from what was then called Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division to Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. This is the first such classification for the AR-15 and has not been published before.
The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”
“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”
So, they were being sold to civilians first?
“There are several things that are interesting,” Savage told AmmoLand News about the classification letter. “One, it shows pre-Gun Control Act ATF policy on the AR-15 system,” He noted. “It also shows why the most likely reason an AR lower is considered a ‘frame or receiver’ is that from 1962-1968 Colt marked the lower receivers with the information (flat surface as the upper is round). Meaning the regulatory scheme used by ATF 1968 to present is based on what Colt marked pre-1968 and not the statute. Willfully and knowingly.”
“Len hit the nail on the head,” Stamboulieh weighed in. “The current notice of proposed rule-making reads as if there was just no way the ATF could have known that the AR-15 split modular design was a thing. Back in 1968, the agency promulgated the definition of frame or receiver, post-dating the classification letter of the AR15, and that shows why they should have originally known what they were making a definition for.”
He and Savage also cleared up a point of potential confusion on why the classification letter refers to the AR-15 as an “automatic rifle.”
“It is because (my thoughts) that they sent two rifles,” Stamboulieh offered. “One was an automatic rifle, and the other was the modified rifle made to be not a machinegun (a semi-automatic version). So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’ is not a firearm under the NFA (therefore, not a machinegun and in other words, a semi-auto).”
“Bingo!” Savage replied. “They sent an ‘Unserviceable’ M16 so ATF could compare it and the new rifle and were told it was still considered an MG even if unserviceable since it was not properly destroyed. I laughed when Colt was told ‘file a Form 2’ in order to get it back… Wonder if it is still in National Firearms Collection?”
“In 1968 firearms industry terminology ‘automatic rifle’ means the same as ‘auto-loading rifle,’ i.e., a rifle that loads itself for the next shot,” he recalled. “Even in 1979-1980 when I took my hunters’ safety course the State of Michigan used the two terms interchangeably throughout the course.”
The FOIA response is embedded below. The actual 1963 classification letter — with redactions to withhold third-party information — begins on the third page.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel: CA can Ban Magazines over 10 Rounds
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the three-judge panel decision in Duncan v. Becerra, the ban on magazines that hold over 10 rounds. The opinion was released on November 30, 2021.
At the end of March, in 2019, Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote a well-reasoned opinion that found the California ban on magazines of over 10 rounds to be an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The case was appealed to a three-judge panel. The panel, in a split decision, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, on August 14, 2020.
As has become common in cases involving the Second Amendment in the Ninth Circuit, the case was then asked to be heard by an en bank panel of the Ninth Circuit. The en banc panel issued its opinion on November 30, 2021. The en banc panel reversed the decision of Judge Benitez at the Circuit court and of the three-judge pane. They found a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds to be an acceptably small infringement on the core Second Amendment right. From the decision Page 31-32:
Defendant does not dispute that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines implicates, at least in some measure, the core Second Amendment right of self-defense in the home. See, e.g., Pena, 898 F.3d at 977 (assuming without deciding that firearm regulations implicate the core right); see also Worman, 922 F.3d at 30, 36 (assuming without deciding that Massachusetts’ ban on large-capacity magazines implicates the core right); Heller II, 670 F.3d at 332 (declining to decide whether the District of Columbia’s prohibition on large-capacity magazines “impinge[s] at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment”). Instead, Defendant argues that the ban imposes only a small burden on the Second Amendment right and that, accordingly, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate lens through which to view California’s law. We agree. Just as our sister circuits unanimously have applied intermediate scrutiny to other laws banning or restricting large-capacity magazines,3 we hold that intermediate scrutiny applies to California’s ban.
Later on, in a concurring opinion, Judge Hurwitz writes:
The people of California should not be precluded from attempting to prevent mass murders simply because they don’t occur regularly enough in the eyes of an unelected Article III judge.
The point of this argument is that any excuse is acceptable to circumvent Constitutional rights.
One of the primary purposes of the Constitution is to prevent majorities from infringing on the rights of minorities, in moments of rhetorically fanned passion or fancy.
The en banc opinion decisively challenges the Second Amendment, indeed, the entire concept of limited government, and the Heller and McDonald decision upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right which limits what the government may do.
Contrary to the Second Amendment, however, our court upholds California’s sweeping ban on so-called large-capacity magazines.1 It can’t be because these magazines lack constitutional protection. The majority assumes they are. And it can’t be because the ban is longstanding. California’s law is of recent vintage. Rather, the law survives because the majority has decided that the costs of enforcing the Second Amendment’s promise are too high. The majority achieves this result by resorting to the tiers-of-scrutiny approach adopted by this court years ago. Under that balancing test, the government can infringe on a fundamental right so long as the regulation is a “reasonable fit” with the government’s objective.
Commentary:
The dissent lays it out clearly. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion eviscerates the Second Amendment. If 11 rounds is too many, why are 9 rounds acceptable, or 5?
Why should a person be allowed to own any semi-automatic, or any gun with more than 1 or 2 shots? There is no end to this argument, once “in common use” is breached.
The decision comes to pass because the Supreme Court has been unwilling to correct the lower courts as they kept chipping away at the Second Amendment, Heller, and McDonald. That may have been understandable given the split nature of the Supreme Court of the time. Neither Originalist or Progressives were sure of the outcome.
The Ninth Circuit opinion admits it is infringing on Second Amendment rights, cites decisions from previous cases the Supreme Court has declined to hear in other Circuits and challenges the Supreme Court to do something about it.
This is the basic standard of law as applied by Progressive ideology. The Constitution is seen as an impediment to be overcome. It interferes with the ability of the ruling class to rule as they see fit.
The ruling class includes almost all of the old media, which issues opinions to the masses; the tech oligarchs, which withholds alternative information from the masses, to obtain the support they desire for their policies; and what most have come to call the “deep state”.
If the Constitution blocks what the ruling class wants; then the Constitution must be changed by the courts, as the amendment process is considered too long and cumbersome by the ruling class.
The Ninth Circuit opinion in Duncan v. Beccera will be appealed to the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will take up the challenge.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Are We’re Losing the Revolution, YES, But Only If You Let Them IMG iStock
Tombstone, Arizona – -(AmmoLand.com)- Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who was attacked by rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and fought back, has been found Not Guilty on 5 counts of Murder and Attempted Murder. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that he was charged at all, and, most importantly, that so few people understand the significance of the case.
Most don’t understand why virtually all of the corporate media and all of the Twitter “blue check-mark” people continue to lie about the case and push a narrative that has already been proven to be patently false.
Many, including Kyle himself, have said that it wasn’t just Kyle Rittenhouse that was on trial, but the whole concept of self-defense. While that might be right to a degree, it falls far short of explaining why so many have gone so far in their efforts to paint Kyle as a “white supremacist vigilante bent on killing BLM protesters”, in spite of the overwhelming video and eyewitness evidence that he was the victim of an attack by multiple assailants, who was forced to defend himself, and who showed remarkable control and situational awareness as he did so.
The big reason for the continuing barrage of attacks and lies against Kyle Rittenhouse is that Kyle stepped out of the safe place, and challenged the officially-sanctioned chaos around him. By stepping up, he set an example of what is right, and what is worth doing.
Kyle’s example is directly opposed to the message that Kyle’s critics want to spread. They want it to be known in no uncertain terms, that anyone who stands up against their mobs or their agenda will be trampled underfoot and destroyed, whether by the mob, the “justice” system or by the media pundits and the court of “popular opinion.” Their hope was to manipulate or intimidate a jury into returning the verdict that they and their mobs demanded, but falling short of that, [although they came close] they will continue declaring lies about Kyle and his actions. In a continued effort to make his life as miserable as possible, and make others think again before stepping into the fray.
We’re in the midst of a revolution, and we’re losing.
We are at war. Leftist, socialist/communist operatives have taken control of trade and employee unions, the education system, the administrative state, the Democratic Party, and virtually all of corporate media.
The overriding message is that the U.S. is vile, corrupt, and beyond redemption, and anyone who does not agree with that assessment is a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, neanderthal moron who deserves to be destroyed in every earthly dimension – legally, physically, emotionally, and financially. An important part of their message is that those who stand in support of their agenda, can act with virtual impunity to smash, destroy, burn, loot, and generally cause mayhem and destruction in the name of “social justice,” but anyone who dares oppose them, even a little, must be made to pay a heavy toll for their sins.
The reason I say that we’re losing, is because too many Americans have given in and been cowed by threats and social repercussions. We’ve learned to “keep our heads down,” “mind our own business,” and not to “stick our necks out.” In short, we’ve let our good manners, be used against us and allowed political correctness to nullify our basic rights.
Wake Up America!
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t about him, nor was it about self-defense. It was about not breaking the new social norms of allowing rioters to riot, allowing looters to loot, and standing idly by as a violent revolution unfolds around us – all while being told and meekly accepting that we’re the problem.
The prosecution and persecution of January 6th rioters and participants in the invasion of the Capitol, is another example. Kamala Harris and her staff, along with numerous members of the establishment media, politicians, and “woke,” urban “liberals,” donated bail money and moral support to rioters and looters who were arrested for violent acts during the “George Floyd Summer of Love,” and few of those rioters and looters faced any serious charges or jail time – this despite billions of dollars worth of property damage and more than 25 lives lost in those riots.
Compare that to the treatment of the people arrested in the wake of the January 6 invasion of the Capitol. There are people who were arrested in that bit of stupidity, who are still being held in jail, in solitary confinement, and in horrible conditions that are still awaiting trial. Political prisoners! Most of the charges against them are misdemeanor trespass and/or interfering with government operations, yet there these American citizens sit, in some of the worst conditions imaginable, denied bail as they one by one are allowed to offer contrite apologies along with their guilty pleas, and pay minor fines.
The point isn’t the violation of the law. The point is the refusal to go along with the establishment’s agenda. Refusal to obey the unwritten laws that have been adopted by the elitists in academia, politics, and most importantly, the establishment media.
A young man volunteering to help guard community businesses from destructive vandals, naively offering first-aide assistance to anyone who needed it, and putting out fires as they popped up, was painted as a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist, a racist murderer, etc. Not because any of that was true, but because he stood up and said “No” to the chaos and carnage, and when he was attacked, he fought back.
The new establishment will not tolerate that kind of resistance. Those who stand against the approved narrative must be punished to send a warning to anyone else who might dare to get in the way.
And this strategy is effective, at least initially, because there are only a limited number of people who are inclined to jump up and run into the conflict. Just as the most effective method for reducing violent crime, is to lock up those who are caught engaging in those types of crimes, the most effective way to reduce resistance to the regime, is to take out the people who actively resist. But this only works for a time, and only if the regime doesn’t push too hard.
When violent rioters under the banner of “Antifa” or “BLM”, began trashing college campuses and attacking conservatives – while the police were ordered to sit on their hands – it served as an invitation for angry conservatives to turn out to meet violence with violence. Those opposition forces were immediately painted as white supremacists and “right-wing extremists,” and undoubtedly some of them fit those labels. But most of the people who showed up at free speech rallies – designed and intended to invite counter-protests from Antifa-types – were just good Americans, tired of seeing thuggery and brutality excused and tolerated by politicians, police, and the establishment media.
As the protests and counter-protests became more violent, and racist and anti-American groups became more prominent in those events, (or so it appeared in the reporting of the establishment media), fewer regular Americans participated. They didn’t want to be associated with racists and anti-government groups, leaving the protests, and the participating organizations, to be more dominated by the more extreme members, eventually making the accusations of the media, less false than they were initially.
This is not an accident or a coincidence. This is intentional and coordinated.
A reporter can stand in front of a burning building, with gunshots going off all around him, and earnestly declare that the riot surrounding him is a “mostly peaceful protest,” with just a few people getting carried away or taking advantage of the situation to engage in violent or criminal behavior. Then a few months later, that same reporter and his fellow talking heads can just as earnestly declare that every one of the tens of thousands of people who attended the Trump rally or the protest at the Capitol on January 6th, is a rioter and violent insurrectionist.
There is not just a two-tiered legal system, where a Navy officer who inadvertently carries classified materials out of a secure building, is sentenced to prison and loses his job and pension, while Hillary Clinton diverts boatloads of classified materials to an unsecured, private email server and faces no legal sanctions at all. Or the acting President’s son lying on a firearm purchase form, but isn’t prosecuted.
There’s also a “Right Side – Wrong Side” aspect to the legal system. People on the right side of the political spectrum, with the “right side” being the far left, face little likelihood of prosecution, and minimal penalties, for heinous crimes, while persons on the wrong side of the political spectrum can expect to be hounded by the system, with the heaviest possible charges leveled against them, and the harshest possible penalties imposed.
This is part of the “shadow government” that aims to destroy our country. It’s not necessarily a vast, coordinated conspiracy. It’s more likely to just be a bunch of ideologues “living their truth” and believing that their noble ends justify any means necessary.
Don’t let them shut you down or back you up, because that’s their objective. The more people who publicly refuse to play their game, refuse to kowtow to their demands, refuse to remain silent to their abuses, the less control they have, and the more freedom we share.
They’ve been winning this secret fight for decades. Donald Trump disrupted it for 4 years, but also inadvertently accelerated it. Today it’s operating in full swing, but the leftists are overplaying their hand, and conservatives and constitutionalists are catching on and fighting back.
To be clear I am NOT advocating violence, [violence is what they want us to resort too] but I am calling out all digital warriors and truely peacfully protestors. Now is the time to rally.
Be part of the solution. Call out the double-standard. Point out the lies and distortions. Don’t be on any “side” except the side of liberty. And stand behind anyone who is persecuted for speaking the truth or standing up for what’s right.
We’re in the midst of a revolution, and we’ve been losing. Now is the time to turn that around.
Join with The Firearms Coalition as we fight to educate the public and our elected servants about their rights and their responsibilities. Subscribe to our newsletter, “The Hard Corps Report,” and share our articles and other media. Join us as we fight the lies and disinformation that’s destroying our nation. We can’t promise we’ll win, but we can promise that we’ll keep fighting, as we’ve been doing for almost 40 years.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Starting at 6:00 PM Eastern on Friday, December 3rd, a 24-hour marathon is being held on YouTube to support Knife Rights.
Knife Rights Founder and Chairman Doug Ritter said, “Knife Rights is honored that all these YouTube knife community influencers have joined together to help Knife Rights. Thanks so much to all involved. Together we will continue to Rewrite Knife Law in America, forging a Sharper Future for all Americans.”
These channels will be having epic giveaways for the entire 24 hours! Culminating with a slew of Grand Prizes including a Doug Ritter Full-size or Mini RSK Mk1-G2 Folder of the winner’s choice! (donated by Knifeworks) Grand Prizes are to be drawn from all who donate a minimum of $10 or join by December 10th, 2021.
Doug Ritter will be LIVE with Christine on Women Carry Knives at 2:00 PM Eastern on Saturday, Dec. 4th.
Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 34 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 23 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.
DAYTON, Nev. – -(AmmoLand.com)- On November 23, 2021, in a huge victory for both Polymer80 and the Second Amendment in Nevada, the Hon. Judge John P. Schlegelmilch of the Lyon County, Nevada District Court stated he would be issuing summary judgment in favor of Polymer80, Inc.
All in response to P80’s lawsuit against Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, George Togliatti, Director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety, and Mindy McKay, Administrator of the Records, Communications, and Compliance Division of the Nevada Department of Public Safety.
The judgment would invalidate and bar enforcement of major portions of Nevada Assembly Bill 286, on due process grounds under the Nevada state constitution.
Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) sponsored AB286 which passed on straight-party line votes in both the Nevada Assembly and Senate. Gov. Sisolak, a democrat signed AB286 into law in early June 2021.
AB286 generally prohibits a person from possessing, purchasing, transporting or receiving any unfinished frame or receiver of a firearm, or assembling any firearm not imprinted with a serial number. Initial violations carry a criminal misdemeanor penalty; repeat violations can be punished by a felony charge.
In deciding to issue summary judgment, Judge Schlegelmilch held that a trial was not needed, and that Polymer80 was immediately entitled to both a Declaratory Judgment that AB286 was unduly and unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and a Permanent Injunction forever banning enforcement of key provisions in the new enactment for that reason. Judge Schlegelmilch, who upon Polymer80’s motion had preliminarily prevented enforcement of those provisions in July 2021, specifically found that Sections 3 and 3.5 of AB286 were unconstitutionally ambiguous in their language criminalizing, among other things, the possession, sale, transfer, transport, and manufacture of “unfinished frames or receivers.”
Polymer80 had argued that this said criminalization would threaten its very existence. In that respect, the Court further found that the definition of an “unfinished frame or receiver” incorporated in those two Sections was exceedingly and unconstitutionally vague in its use and reliance upon various terms including, among others, “blank,” “casting,” and “machined body” that were undefined in the statute and did not have accepted common meanings.
In addition, the Court determined that the additional required component of the definition of “unfinished frame or receiver” mandating that a blank, casting, or machined body have reached such a stage of formation that “most of the major machining operations” needed to turn those items into a firearm had been completed was fatally vague and ambiguous. The Court ruled that those terms, alone and together…
..were so unclear and uncertain that they did not provide fair notice to a Nevadan of ordinary intelligence as to what specific conduct AB286 prohibited, rendering the bill unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Nevada Constitution.
The Court also ruled that those vague terms encouraged and effectively authorized arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against all Nevadans, in that AB286 left the interpretation and application of those nebulous terms entirely to the discretion of governmental authorities, which Nevada Supreme Court decisions have precluded. Finally, Judge Schlegelmilch indicated that he would be issuing a formal written Order in December 2021, encapsulating and memorializing his oral rulings, declaring the cited provisions of AB286 unconstitutionally vague, and barring their enforcement permanently.
“This is a significant victory for Polymer80, Nevadans, and our customers nationwide,” Polymer80 CEO Loran Kelley said.
“AB286 is vague and unlawful legislation that targets our company specifically for conducting a lawful business. We will continue to challenge lawless attempts to curtail our rights and the rights of our customers. Polymer80 would like to thank our loyal customers, whose continued support allows us to keep fighting for Second Amendment rights across the country and our attorneys at Greenspoon Marder, LLP who worked tirelessly and never gave up this fight. Polymer80 strongly believes that the Second Amendment is a foundational principal in America that can never be violated. Continuing to fight those who strive to take it away is a core belief of our company. It’s one more example of our company motto, ‘Engage Your Freedom.’”
Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Dayton, NV, Polymer80, Inc. designs and develops innovative firearms, components, and aftermarket accessories that allow customers to participate in the build process while expressing the right to bear arms. For more information on Polymer80 and its products visit www.polymer80.com.
Florida – -(AmmoLand.com)- If the gun-banners get their way, they’ll be importing more from Florida than just citrus.
A lawsuit now before the Florida Supreme Court seeks to dismantle the state’s powerful preemption statute, which safeguards all pro-gun laws in the Gunshine State, including the Castle Doctrine, the “Stand Your Ground” statute, and shall-issue concealed carry.
Florida’s preemption statute prohibits anyone other than the state legislature from regulating firearms and ammunition. If a local government such as a city council, county commission or school board tries to create their own gun regulations, the preemption statute allows for their members to be removed from office and fined up to $5,000, which the statute requires them to pay personally, rather than with taxpayer dollars. In addition, the local government can be liable for damages of up to $100,000 plus uncapped attorney’s fees. The law was passed in 1987, but it didn’t get teeth – legal penalties – until 2011.
Without the preemption statute, anti-gun cities and counties could prohibit concealed carry, which would turn the state into a complex patchwork of gun-free zones.
More than 40 states have preemption statutes prohibiting local governments from regulating firearms. Six states – Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas – can penalize elected officials for violating their statutes.
Enter Nikki Fried
In June, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and a coalition of liberal local governments petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit against the preemption statute. It was one of three lawsuits filed against the law after the 2018 Parkland massacre. Fried’s request came a month after the 1st District Court of Appeal denied to certify the group’s “questions of great public importance,” which could have created a path to the Florida Supreme Court.
In essence, Fried and her group are asking the Florida Supreme Court to grant them immunity from the penalties they could face for violating the preemption statute. They do not contest the statute, just the penalties, which they claim are unconstitutional because the local lawmakers don’t want to be fined or fired for creating their own anti-gun regulations.
“Petitioners ask this Court to recognize a fundamental principle of democratic governance: local elected officials acting in their legislative capacities are entitled to the same immunities and protections historically afforded to all legislators in this country, and the judicial power of the state does not extend to impose financial liability on local governments for the performance of discretionary governmental functions. While the judiciary can, and should, exercise its power to determine whether a local law is preempted (and thus invalid), it may not punish local governments or their elected officials for their legislative actions as is contemplated by the Penalty Provisions. This Court should reverse the First District’s decision,” the petitioners’ joint brief states.
According to the press release, Fried’s coalition consists of Florida Rep. Dan Daly, a Democrat from Sunrise, two Democratic mayors, 30 cities, and three counties. Amicus briefs, it says, will be forthcoming from Giffords, Brady, and the League of Women Voters of Florida, which has become an extreme anti-gun group.
Challenging DeSantis
Those unfamiliar with the structure of Florida’s government may question why the state’s Agriculture Commissioner is challenging preemption. There are several reasons. Fried is the only elected Democrat holding statewide office and she is decidedly anti-gun. Her Agriculture Department oversees Florida’s licensing division, which operates the state’s popular Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program. As the elected official accountable for the CWFL program, Fried’s management has been abysmal and the subject of lawsuits. While she has claimed to be a gun owner and CWFL licensee, Fried also has a Florida medical marijuana card, despite the federal legal issues this creates.
The main reason Fried is fighting the preemption statute is due to her candidacy for governor. Some pundits believe her lawsuit is nothing more than a fundraising and publicity stunt in her race against Republican incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Fried did not respond to interview requests seeking her comments for this story.
The Playbook
In her press release, Fried cites data from a scholarly paper written by two Columbia Law School professors titled: “Punitive Preemption: An Unprecedented Attack on Local Democracy.” One of the authors, Professor Richard Briffault, is described in his law school bio as “a leading thinker on ‘the new preemption,’ a critique of states that are increasingly passing ideological laws that override local ordinances. Working with the Local Solutions Support Center, he educates city and county government officials on how to respond to state preemption.”
In her lawsuit, Fried clearly took a page from Professor Briffault’s anti-preemption playbook, as she incorporated several of his suggestions that show how local officials should fight what Briffault calls “punitive preemption,” namely, challenging the statute’s constitutionality based upon the First Amendment, and by arguing that “coercive financial penalties could be inconsistent with home rule.”
If Fried’s lawsuit is successful, it will serve as a template for anti-gun groups in other states who seek to overturn their preemption statutes.
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.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta. IMG Jim Grant
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta, which held that California’s law banning so-called “large-capacity magazines” (those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition) is permissible under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause:
Today’s misguided decision makes it crystal clear that the Ninth Circuit will not respect the Constitution until the Supreme Court requires it to. Rather than following the binding Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago opinions, the Court of Appeals again used legal gamesmanship to avoid the constitutionally required result just as it has for over a decade.
The Supreme Court must make clear in its upcoming Second Amendment opinion that the Bizarro World subversion, obstruction, and avoidance doctrines employed by hostile and recalcitrant judges, as the Ninth Circuit did in this case, cannot continue. That has been and remains a focus of our FPC Law program, which has filed dozens of briefs in the past year, including many at the Supreme Court.
In April, FPC filed a brief in this case that highlighted the history of repeating arms capable of firing more than 10 rounds and made the point that such magazines are not only common now, but have been for centuries. Judge Bumatay’s dissent adopted the approach we articulated and encouraged in our brief and starkly contrasts with the flawed majority opinion.
FPC believes that individuals have a natural right to keep and bear arms—one that is enshrined in our Constitution and which pre-exists government itself—and that entitlement includes the right to purchase and possess firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Just as we have with our Miller v. Bonta challenge to California’s assault weapons ban, the first post-trial victory of its kind in U.S. history, FPC will continue to aggressively execute our mission and litigate these issues in courts across the country until all people can access and exercise their full right to keep and bear arms, including through the possession of the common magazines California unconstitutionally bans.
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.
. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 34 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 23 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.
