Today, the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee will consider Emergency Powers Legislation, House Bill 325. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee will consider Emergency Powers Legislation, House Bill 325. Please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 325.
House Bill 325 declares firearm possession, transportation, carrying, commerce, training range access, as well as hunting and fishing, to be life-sustaining, essential activities. Both local and state government authorities are prohibited from infringing upon these rights under the guise of a declared emergency, either on a local or state level. Further, the legislation provides legal recourse for people who experience unjust infringements on these essential rights.
Please contact members of the House Government Oversight Committee and ask them to SUPPORT HB 325.
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
HARRISBURG, PA –-(Ammoland.com)- Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced Red Flag laws in Harrisburg, which they consider “reasonable” to protect gun owners and others.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) are better known to the public as Red Flag laws. These laws let police seize guns of those that they believe pose a threat to themselves or others. ERPOs have been a controversial tool of law enforcement since the accused do not get to defend themselves against the accusations in court before a judge issues an ERPO.
Many in and outside the gun world believe that ERPOs violate the Due Process Clause in the United States Constitution.
Red Flag laws vary from state to state, but most states allow a family member or roommate to report a gun owner to the police as a danger to themselves or others. Police will go in front of a judge to get an ERPO issued. It is very rare for a judge to deny a request from law enforcement for an ERPO since the burden of proof is very low.
Police will then serve the ERPO on the subject. In many cases, police treat the serving of an ERPO as the same as serving a high-risk warrant. The state will seize all the guns from the gun owner but will leave them free on the streets. The gun owner will have to go to court to battle to get their firearms back from the authorities. ERPOs have been abused in the past. In one case, an ERPO was taken out on a Colorado police officer by a slain suspect’s mother.
ERPOs have also led to tragedy in the past. In 2018, police killed a 61-year-old Maryland man while serving an ERPO at 5:30 in the morning. The man’s sister filed for an ERPO due to a family dispute. According to the rest of the man’s family, he wasn’t a danger to anyone.
Rep Todd Stevens introduced the Pennsylvania House Red Flag bill (HB 1903). Stevens has introduced similar bills in the past. He has a rocky relationship with the gun community. He actively campaigned under an anti-gun platform.
Under Rep Stevens’ bill, the gun owner would have to provide evidence that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Gun rights advocates point that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Also, the gun owner must hire an attorney or rely on a public defender. It could cost the accused gun owner thousands of dollars to recover their firearms. Removing the guns does not stop a mentally disturbed person from using another tool to hurt themselves or others.
Gun Owners of America has been pushing back against these Red Flag laws in the Commonwealth. According to Pennsylvania State Director Dr. Val Finnell, GOA views ERPOs as “gun confiscation order.” The gun-rights organization believes that ERPOs violate several parts of the Constitution.
“Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders violate 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights of gun owners,” Dr. Finnell told AmmoLand. “The hearing before a judge will be ‘ex parte,’ with the accused having no right to confront his accuser. There is no need for any evidence that a crime is actually being contemplated. All that has to be shown is that you are subjectively dangerous to someone at the incredibly low preponderance of the evidence standard.”
One of the biggest supporters of the Red Flag bill is Rep. Jennifer O’Mara. She claims not to be anti-gun, but she has ties to Bloomberg-funded anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action. She also has the backing of CeaseFire PA, which is a rabid anti-gun group within the Commonwealth.
O’Mara claims that the Red Flag would prevent suicides. O’Mara doesn’t offer any solutions to suicide by overdosing, hangings, or other methods. Many think that the Pennsylvania legislature is concentrating too much on the tool and not enough on the problem of mental health.
In January, State Senator Wayne Fontana introduced Senate Bill (PA SB 134). That bill hasn’t moved since the end of January.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Bloomberg’s pocketbooks are very deep, especially when it comes to trying to destroy the Second Amendment. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- We recently wondered about our favorite anti-gun billionaire, Mike Bloomberg, and whether he would remain committed to buying the votes of legislators willing to promote his gun-ban agenda.
We didn’t have to wait long for an answer.
The new trend in Virginia seems that the election season doesn’t really kick in until Bloomberg starts pouring in money. CNN recently reported that Bloomberg’s personal gun-ban apparatus, Everytown for Gun Safety, plans to funnel “more than $1.8 million” into Virginia elections this year. This continues the former New York City mayor’s trend of spending his personal fortune in the Old Dominion to buy politicians that will promote his extreme gun control agenda.
In 2017, Bloomberg’s Everytown spent nearly $1.5 million to elect current Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D). With a strong anti-gun advocate like Northam as governor, Bloomberg then turned on the money spigot to flood Virginia with another $2.5 million in 2019 in order to purchase the commonwealth’s legislature.
Within weeks of Bloomberg-funded anti-gun extremists winning full control of Virginia’s legislative process, one of the most extreme gun bans—even more restrictive than the law in place in Bloomberg’s home state of New York—was quickly introduced. Countless other bills designed to erode the rights of Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners quickly followed.
In spite of tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment showing up in Virginia’s capital to peacefully protest this unprecedented assault on Virginians’ firearm freedoms, Bloomberg’s legislative minions continued to push the radical anti-gun agenda.
Clearly, Bloomberg wants to go much farther with his campaign to destroy the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia.
This year, the bulk of Bloomberg’s money appears to be earmarked for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, with about $1 million apparently pledged to the campaign thus far. McAuliffe, like Bloomberg, is a wealthy businessman and investor from New York, although his estimated net worth is “merely” $30 million; a far cry from the lofty perch of Bloomberg’s billionaire status.
Also like Bloomberg, McAuliffe has a long history of funneling money into the coffers of anti-gun politicians. With McAuliffe, however, he uses other people’s money. He became prominent in politics as a prolific fundraiser; this includes helping pump $275 million into then-president Bill Clinton’s political accounts.
McAuliffe, of course, has been Virginia’s governor before, serving from 2014-18. In that campaign, Bloomberg’s Everytown put a relatively paltry $20,000 into getting him elected, although Bloomberg did use another mechanism for converting his wealth into political influence; his Independence USA PAC supported McAuliffe to the tune of $1.75 million. Back then, McAuliffe’s anti-gun activities were predominantly limited to vetoing legislation that supported the rights of crime victims and those who are concerned about self-defense, as anti-gun legislators were in the minority.
Then came Bloomberg’s 2019 spending spree.
This year, Bloomberg has increased his Everytown buy-in on McAuliffe by at least 50 times since he held office the first time, and his overall investment for buying Virginia legislators is in the neighborhood of $10 million since 2015. If all of Bloomberg’s purchases pay off at the polls this November, we can expect the two New Yorkers to cash in by completely gutting the Second Amendment in Virginia.
Ironically, the former New Yorker, McAuliffe, once called out the current New Yorker, Bloomberg, and the anti-gun group that relies on his largesse to exist. In 2016, when McAuliffe was compelled to work with pro-Second Amendment legislators in Virginia to fix a mess created by the commonwealth’s Attorney General regarding the right to carry reciprocity, Everytown put out a press release saying they “condemn the Governor’s decision.” A later release said McAuliffe was “sullying his legacy,” that he had “betray[ed]” anti-gun activists, and had “abandoned his standing” as a gun control proponent.
McAuliffe, according to CNN, dismissed Everytown’s temper tantrum, and shrugged off the group as “an outside group meddling in state politics.”
At least he got that right.
But these days, Bloomberg is willing to spend whatever it takes to tighten the New Yorker’s grip on the Virginia legislature, as well as whatever it takes to get the ex-New Yorker McAuliffe back in as governor. If this spending spree is successful, we anticipate the past will be forgotten, and McAuliffe will have an open-door policy for Bloomberg and his paid-for anti-gun proxies in the legislature, as they do everything they can to destroy the rights of Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners.
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
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-We start with thislocal news storyout of Albuquerque, New Mexico and reported by the Albuquerque Journal.
It is between 5 and 6 in the morning. You’re working in the back room at a sandwich shop. The shop is near two major roads and open all night. You hear one of your co-workers yell from the front counter. You look through the doorway and see your co-worker with her arms in the air and a man pointing a pistol at her.
You own a gun. You’re armed today. You present your firearm and shoot the attacker until he turns away. The attacker runs outside and drops his firearm. You and your co-worker step into the back room and call the police.
You speak to the police when they arrive. They find your attacker outside and say he died. You read in the news that the attacker’s gun was a pellet pistol. You’re not charged.
Comments
There are a number of things we wonder after reading this report. However, it is clear that the defender did a number of things to save his co-worker’s life.
This store faced many of the same risks we see at an all night convenience store. In fact, the store front looks like it used to be a gas station. It stands alone on a corner near major roads. It is open all night with reduced staff. These elements increased the risk of robbery and the store staff recognized the threat they faced. The defender chose to carry a firearm at work long before this robber walked through the door.
The armed employee responded to the call of alarm and saw his co-worker being robbed at gunpoint. He recognized the situation as an immediate, unavoidable, and lethal threat. Because the threat was that severe, it justified the use of potentially lethal force so that innocent people were not severely injured or killed.
To his credit, the defender probably recognized the threat because he had thought about it before. That is important because we won’t know how to react unless we’ve already imagined being in this situation and already decided what to do.
We want to recognize a threatening situation rather than have to stop and evaluate it for the first time.
Using lethal force is a complicated decision. The victim in the armed robbery was probably at the cash register and close to the robber. That means we’re putting our co-worker at risk by shooting near them. There may also be other innocent individuals in the store. The store employee who was being robbed had a gun pointed at her. Wounding the robber might cause him to flinch and shoot our co-worker. There are risks if we act and risks if we don’t act.
Yes, inaction is a risk as well. We’re betting our co-worker’s life that the robber is willing to threaten them with murder but won’t actually press the trigger. In the moment, we won’t get a second chance to reconsider our decision. Our defender decided to shoot the robber. He also made effective hits with his shots.
It helps to know the shots you can make and the shots you can not perform reliably. There are good arguments for shooting at the smaller target of the attacker’s head and good arguments for shooting at the larger target of the attacker’s chest. Most of us have seen sandwich shops like this one before. Some of the robber’s body was probably hidden behind the counter and the glass panels that sit on top of the counter. Recent practice reminds us what we can do.
This news story is interesting for what it says and also for what it doesn’t say. The report never said that the defender gave a verbal warning. A verbal warning doesn’t seem appropriate in this case. A warning might work in other situations, but in this case an innocent person was being held at gunpoint.
Our defender stopped shooting when the attacker turned away. He didn’t chase the bad guy across the parking lot. According to the news reports I’ve read, the defender stayed inside.
Many small businesses have glass walls so that customers can see inside. We’d like to get out of that fishbowl after a robbery. It sounds like the defender and his co-worker retreated to the back room. Check on any other customers in the store and invite them to safety too. There are risks and rewards for moving forward and locking the front door so that other attackers can’t run inside to grab their partner and the gun he might have dropped. How easy is it to lock the door in your place of business? Do you have to watch the front door, or can you lock the door and holster your gun?
Check to see if anyone is injured. Then call 911 and ask for help. If there are customers who retreated with you, ask them to call 911 as well.
Suppose you and I were working in that sandwich shop and that we’re both armed. We want to avoid a fair fight with the armed robber. Which of us has the easier shot if I’m at the cash register with a gun pointed at me while you are in the back room off to the side? The defender at the counter held at gunpoint faces a disadvantage in any contest with the robber to see who can shoot the fastest. In contrast, the defender in the back room can use cover. They can draw slowly while they are out of sight. They can expose the gun barrel and the side of their face while they stand well away from the doorway. The person in the back room might shoot and never be seen by the attacker.
You’ll discover opportunities like that if you and your co-works make a security plan. Both employees can benefit from knowing what to do. If I am being robbed while standing at the counter, then I want to drop to the ground as soon as I hear gunshots. I’ll crawl to the back room and call 911.
Unlike many convenience store robberies, I could not find security video to go with this story. Cameras and recording equipment are affordable for almost every small business. If you have security cameras, then you probably want to post a sign on the glass that says, “You are being recorded.” Those signs deter some shoplifting and some robbery. It is hard to measure the return on investment by posting a cheap plastic sign.
Video systems also save you tens-of-thousands of dollars in legal bills if you’re forced to defend yourself. They reduce the legal bills for the employees and for the business owners.
Those legal bills can add up quickly. I have a prepaid self defense plan so that I have a lawyer who will talk to me. Having a lawyer to call should be part of your security plan too.
Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.
Grizzly Bear mother with cub IMG iStock-Mark Kostich
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- There has been a spate of bear vs people conflicts in Idaho from July through September of 2021. Three of them happened near Island Park, which is in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). A sow with at least one cub mauled a hiker on July 10, 2021.
Although the bear that Whitney estimated between 350 and 400 pounds began to swing its claws and biting him, he lay in the fetal position and covered his head and neck. The bear’s cub stayed a short distance away from the attack.
“All I could hear is the growling and I honestly thought, ‘What a way to go, and this might have been it,'” Whitney said. “I said a quick little prayer hoping things would de-escalate, and next thing I knew, the bear took off.”
On July 31, a bike rider was very happy he was faster than the grizzly chasing him. This bear was also a sow. The Idaho Fish & Game believes the bear had cubs.
ISLAND PARK, Idaho — A mountain biker avoided injury after being chased by a grizzly bear near Island Park in northeastern Idaho Friday morning.
The U.S. Forest Service for Caribou-Targhee National Forest posted on Facebook and said a female grizzly bear was sighted in the Stamp Meadows Road area. The bear chased the biker but did not catch or hurt him.
Then, on 23 September, a sow grizzly, reportedly with cubs, in the area, was shot and killed when it attacked archery hunters near Island Park. The hunters deployed both bear spray and a pistol. The incident is still under investigation, but it appears the bear was shot at very close range. It is elk archery season in Island Park, Idaho.
On Thursday, Sept. 23, 2021, Idaho Fish and Game received a report of a sow grizzly bear that charged two elk hunters in the Stamp Meadows area near Island Park. As the bear charged, one of the hunters deployed bear spray while the other discharged a firearm at close range, mortally wounding the bear. Neither hunter appeared to be injured during the encounter.
If the sow and cubs were the same in all three incidents, the sow and her cub(s) will not be a threat to people in the Island Park area any longer.
Black bears were contributing to the problem in other parts of the state. On September 9, 2021, a black bear sow with cubs was killed, illegally, near Priest Lake in the northern panhandle. The bear had been a problem bear for weeks. The Idaho Fish & Game had attempted to live-trap the bear but were unsuccessful. A few days earlier it had wounded one pet and killed another. Priest Lake has an abundance of both grizzly and black bears.
Initially, Fish and Game staff provided local residents with assistance and suggestions for bear awareness and securing trash and attractants to try and reduce potential for human and bear conflicts.
In late-Aug. the sow quarreled with two dogs at separate residences in the area as she was defending her young. The incidents resulted in the death of one dog and multiple stitches for the other.
From Sep. 1 to Sep. 8, Fish and Game staff attempted to trap the bears in the area. In situations like this, the hope is the bears can be trapped and relocated unharmed. The trapping attempts were unsuccessful, and reports of the bears in the area continued.
Between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on Sep. 8, rifle shots near the dumpsters in Hills Resort were heard by residents in the area.
On Sep. 9, Fish and Game staff located the dead sow. She had been shot several times and her body was left to waste. The cubs were not in the area and have not been seen since the time of the incident. If they are located, they will likely have to be put down as they will likely not survive the winter months on their own.
In Boise, on the Southwest part of Idaho, two bears were killed by Idaho Fish & Game on September 18 and 24. From idaho.gov:
Fish and Game officials attempted to chemically immobilize the bear. Before the immobilization drug could fully take effect, the bear fell out of the tree and ran downhill toward Hill Road. Officers from Fish and Game and the Boise Police Department dispatched the bear before it could move further into more densely populated residential areas.
This is the second incident involving a bear in Boise in the past week that has resulted in the bear being euthanized. On Sept. 18, Fish and Game officers euthanized a black bear in a south east Boise industrial park compound between South Federal Way and I-84. The black bear was a subadult male that had been captured and moved from a north-end Boise residential neighborhood 4 months earlier.
The September 9 incident at Priest Lake had to be on the mind of the local Fish and Game officials. When private citizens become frustrated at the inaction of government agencies, Government agents may be incentivized to be more vigilant. Even dedicated animal lovers become irritated when their pets are killed in town, by animals encroaching on their territory.
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.
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- This last weekend the 2021 Second Amendment Foundation‘s (SAF) virtual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) premiered. Due to the pandemic, the SAF was forced to have both the 2020 and 2021 GRPCs virtually. With the ability to organize the conference in this manner, the SAF delivered two day’s worth of quality programming, gun rights news, legislative updates, guidance on advocacy, and more.
Broken up into five different video segments, embedded in order below, the following topics were covered by the invited speakers:
Introduction – History: Welcome To GRPC – The Past and The Present
Introductions: Alan Gottlieb
Invocation: Rev. Kenn Blanchard
History: Cheryl Todd,David Hardy, Kevin Dixie, Dave Kopel, George Mocsary, and John Richardson
Outreach – Gun Culture: Reaching New Audiences – The Future of 2A
Outreach: Tony Simon, Robyn Sandoval, Rick Ector, Derek LeBlanc, and Nicki Stallard
Gun Culture: Andrew Gottlieb, Chris Cheng, and Charlie Cook
Public Safety – Media: Protecting Your Rights – Defense and Freedom of Information
Public Safety: John Lott, Jim Irvine, Massad Ayoob, Patrick Collins, Dan Wos, and Nikki Goser
Media: AWR Hawkins, Beth Baumann, Amanda Suffecool, Beth Alcazar, Don Irvine, Mike Piwowarski, Stephen Gutowski, Cam Edwards, Lee Williams, and Mark Walters
Law – Policy: Fighting for Your Rights – Constitution Law and Public Safety
Law: Joel Ard, George Lee, Donald Kilmer, David Thompson, David Sigale, David Jensen, Daniel Schmutter, Alan Beck, Chad Flores, John Ohlendorf, Josh Blackman, Matthew Goldstein, Pete Patterson, and Raymond DiGiuseppe
Policy: Professor Mark Smith, Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy
State – Federal: Essential 2A News – State and National Level
State: Dave Kopp, Dean Rieck, Philip Van Cleave, Richard Nasck, Alex Kincaid, Bryan Strawser, Richard Pearson, Alexander Rubian, and Holly Sullivan
Federal: Dianna Muller and Rick Patterson
Between the five videos, which can be viewed on the following playlist, there is nearly nine and a half hours of content and just taking a look at the preliminary numbers from YouTube and Face Book, the posted content has already been viewed over 15,000 times.
Noticeably present in this year’s GRPC, as has been in the past, were several guest presenters representing New Jersey. The work of these individuals, what they do with the organizations they represent, and their dedication to Second Amendment preservation needs to be saluted. New Jersey is one of the final strongholds that continually usurp civil rights, having such involvement from Garden State advocates on this national level is key.
Tony Simon from The 2nd is For Everyone(2A4E): Diversity Shoot, talked about his advocacy work in New Jersey. Simon discussed what moved him to get involved and through his story, we can all learn about ways we can positively impact the Second Amendment.
Alexander Rubian from New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) spoke on behalf of the NJ2AS membership. Rubian gave a rundown on some of the challenges that NJ2AS has continued to face while trying to stave off bad policy and law from further encroaching in the Garden State. Rubian also discussed the problems NJ2AS was confronted with in dealing with the Murphy administration in 2020 and being thrown out of press conferences, chilling Rubian’s First Amendment rights.
It’s a point of pride to be able to view the 2021 GRPC and see so many of the great movers and shakers from both my native New Jersey, as well as advocates from all over the country. New Jersey was very well represented and shows the importance of continual hard work in problem child states.
The 2021 Gun Rights Policy Conference by all accounts was a huge success and I urge those of you who have not tuned in to take a look at some of the important content:
Polymer 80 Glock Pistol Build now Complete #ghostgun
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Mere hours after San Diego, California Mayor Todd Gloria signed Ordinance no. O-2022-7 into law, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the new ban that prohibits individuals in the City from home-building firearms, including the possession of parts and materials necessary to self-manufacture constitutionally protected arms. The confiscatory terms of the Ordinance additionally require that all persons who have any of the banned items dispossess themselves of the items within 30 days. FPC Law also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction today to block enforcement of the law. The complaint and application for temporary restraining order in Fahr v. San Diego can be found at FPCLegal.org.
“The right of individuals to self-manufacture arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes is part and parcel of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and an important front in the battle to secure fundamental rights against abusive government regulations, like San Diego’s unconstitutional ban,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “FPC will continue to aggressively work to defend the People’s rights and property in this case and dozens of others throughout the United States.”
“Throughout American history and our nation’s traditions of robustly exercising the right to keep and bear arms, people have been free to personally manufacture, construct, or otherwise assemble arms in common use for lawful purposes, including lawful self-defense and defense of others,” the complaint begins. “The Second Amendment right necessarily includes and thus guarantees the ability of ordinary law-abiding citizens to self-manufacture firearms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.” The complaint also details founding-era examples where “many colonies relied on and incentivized people outside of the firearms industry to produce firearms,” including ones from New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina.
“Indeed, based on the Ordinance’s expansive definitions, even raw materials, such as a uniform block of metal or plastic, would be [banned] by the Ordinance,” the filing notes. “Despite the City’s contention that it ‘is intended to be applied and interpreted consistent with state and federal law,’… the Ban’s very text effectively precludes any path for any San Diego resident to self-manufacture her own firearm under either state or federal law.”
“The Ban must be enjoined, immediately, because it is inflicting irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of law-abiding San Diegans every moment it remains in effect. Under the Ban, these responsible citizens are being forced to dispossess themselves of constitutionally protected property that they lawfully acquired before the Ban for constitutionally protected purposes, and they are being barred from ever again acquiring or using any such property for these protected purposes. Such a broad prohibition against the exercise of constitutional rights, untailored in any way and untethered from any legitimate interest that could be achieved, wouldn’t be tolerated for a moment if the rights being targeted were secured under the First Amendment. Just the same, it cannot be tolerated here, where it targets rights of equal importance secured under the Second Amendment—specifically, the right to keep and bear arms,” the request for injunction argues.
Moreover, the “Ban effectively mandates that all ordinary law-abiding San Diego residents dispossess themselves of all their unserialized ‘unfinished frames’ or ‘unfinished receivers’,” the brief says. “Such a taking is plainly unconstitutional and cannot be permitted.”
FPC is joined in the case by three individuals who wish to maintain possession of parts now banned under the City’s ordinance, as well as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the area’s Second Amendment rights advocacy organization. The parties are represented by Raymond DiGuiseppe, John Dillon, and FPC attorney William Sack.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
For more on FPC cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. FPC and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:
A merits-stage Supreme Court brief providing the justices with the English history of the right to bear arms in support of a challenge to New York’s unconstitutional “may issue” scheme
A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
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.
