BELLEVUE, WA- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms recently filed a lawsuit against the State of California to challenge its recently expanded ban on its so-called “Roster laws.”

Lawsuit Filed Against California Ban on Firearms ‘In Common Use’ https://t.co/F8LgTK8W65 via @BreitbartNews

— Alan Gottlieb (@bowtiegunguy) November 13, 2020

According to reports, The Firearm Policy Coalition (FPC), San Diego County Gun Owners, and numerous business and individuals are plaintiffs with SAF. Defendants in the lawsuit are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Luis Lopez, director of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe and Michael P. Sousa.

The lawsuit, Renna v. Becerra was filed on November 10, 2020.

The Second Amendment Foundation (@2AFdn) filed suit against New Jersey’s restrictive carry laws, suggesting they “effectively prevent average law-abiding citizens from legally carrying loaded sidearms outside of their homes for personal protection.”https://t.co/bJOVIPx1i2

— John McCann (@realJohnMcCann) November 9, 2020

The plaintiffs opened the lawsuit by pointing to the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), claiming that guns in common use for self-defense at any given time are protected by the Second Amendment.

FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut said:

“In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple test: if an arm is bearable and in common use for lawful purposes, it is prima facie protected under the Second Amendment, period.”

He added:

“The handguns California prevents law-abiding people from purchasing and making themselves are protected arms.”

The plaintiffs the claimed that California’s “roster” rules and regulations deny Californians the ability to acquire and possess firearms in common use for self-defense:

“Under California’s ‘Roster’ scheme, law-abiding Golden State citizens are prevented from buying and or self-building thousands of handgun models that are available anywhere else in the country.

“Under the state’s ‘Unsafe Handgun Act,’ the state can arbitrarily ban handguns that are perfectly legal to own anywhere outside of California. Plaintiffs’ attorneys content this is an unconstitutional ban.”

"The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California in a challenge of its recently-expanded ban via its so-called “Roster” laws."https://t.co/Yds23eV714

— Sanctuary Counties (@SanctuaryCounty) November 13, 2020

The plaintiff’s are seeking a declaratory judgement stating that California’s Handgun Ban does prevent law-abiding Californians from purchasing firearms that are purchasable and in common use for self-defense throughout the country.

They are also seeking:

“A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them and all persons who have notice of the injunction from enforcing California’s Handgun Ban statutes.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said in a statement:

“It is clear that the intent of California’s anti-gun lawmakers is to ban more and more protected arms through increasingly restrictive legislation.”

He added:

“This expanded handgun ban scheme cannot go without challenge. We look forward to prevailing in this case and winning Second Amendment rights one lawsuit at a time.”

FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement:

“The Legislature has created a regulatory scheme that prevents people from buying handguns that are widely available and popular in the free market outside of the State.

“California’s new and expanded handgun ban is unconstitutional because it prevents law-abiding people from purchasing the common, modern firearms they have a right to under our Constitution.”

He added:

“Just like the State cannot prohibit people from buying the political books of their choice, different versions of religious texts, or computers with technological and commercial developments better suited for publishing speech, it cannot ban the sale and self-manufacture of these constitutionally protected handguns.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

While you were fighting over masks, Joe Biden figured out a way to destroy the Second Amendment if elected

November 13, 2020

 

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

—

WASHINGTON DC – Biden has made things crystal clear – if he wins, he’s going after the gun manufacturers.  And he’s already figured out how to do it.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) became law. It is now public law 109-92.

The law protects arms manufacturers from various types of liability for the criminal use of their products. It does not relieve them of responsibility for manufacturing defects or negligent transfer of arms or parts to persons who are prohibited from having them.

Think about it like this.  If someone buys a gun and shoots someone, the person who was shot can’t turn around and sue the gun manufacturer.  It’s sort of like if a drunk driver crashed a Ford into you – you shouldn’t be able to sue Ford for that.

Biden has characterized gun use in America as “carnage” and accuses gun manufacturers of creating it. According to him, repeal of the PLCAA will be one of his first priorities as president.

Law enforcement officers are well aware of the dangers posed by firearms when in the wrong hands.

They have been killed by criminals, and have witnessed the devastation of criminal gun use among civilians. There is no doubt that the improper use of guns is a bad thing and should be stopped.

The same is true of the improper use of knives, which were used in 1,515 murders in 2018, according to the FBI. “Other weapons” (non-firearms, not knives or other identified weapons) accounted for 1,671 murders in the same year.

Fists, feet, or other forms of physical assaults were responsible for 672 murders.

In total, there were 3,878 murders that did not involve guns of any kind in 2018. That number represents 38% of all murders in 2018. Firearms-related murders make up the remaining 62%.

Despite the significant number of non-firearm-related murders, there are no calls to restrict the manufacture or sale of knives, baseball bats, or human fists and feet.

The only type of weapon Democrat law makers work tirelessly to restrict, is the only form of weapon mentioned specifically in the Constitution. ”

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Arguments about private ownership of guns center on the first four words of the text, “a well-regulated militia”. Among gun control advocates, ownership of firearms by “a militia” is different from private ownership by anyone.

According to them, the National Guard is the closest in meaning to a militia to be found in the United States. Others argue that militias at the time the Bill of Rights was written, were not pre-existing, waiting for an opportunity to serve in the defense of their community like the National Guard is today, but available in case of need.

If private citizens were unable to own firearms, they would not be able to serve in a militia either. Hence, private citizens must be allowed to own firearms.

The PLCAA protects legal gun ownership by protecting gun manufacturers against a type of lawsuit that couldn’t even be contemplated against any other class of product. Manufacturers of knives, baseball bats, concrete blocks, plastic bags, and other products that have been used in crimes are not held liable for the criminal misuse of their products.

The only reason there aren’t laws to protect those companies from liability is that no one has considered suing them for the obvious reason that it is ridiculous.

If you could sue a sporting goods manufacturer every time someone was beaten with a baseball bat, you could also sue banana distributors every time someone laid a trap with a banana peel and someone slipped on it.

As it is, the law follows the criminal intent to the criminal and prosecutes the criminal. That is as it should be.

If Biden and Harris were serious about doing something about gun-related murders, they would focus their attention on the criminals who commit those crimes, rather than law-abiding businesses that also provide the people of this country with the means to protect themselves and others.

A serious effort to get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals would require an effort to find, prosecute, and incarcerate the criminals who would otherwise use them. With no criminals available to misuse guns, gun murders would drop substantially.

More importantly, all murders, regardless of weapon type, would go down. If the focus remains on guns, even if 100% successful, the criminals would remain, and could continue to commit murders with knives and bats, fists and feet. 

The fact that Biden and Harris brag about their commitment to infringe on second amendment rights is enough to know that with them at the helm of the country, they will harm the country while doing what they blindly and mistakenly believe to be right.