Colorado magazine ban lawsuit - National Association for Gun Rights

We’re suing over the mag ban!

We are suing to end standard-capacity magazine bans once and for all!

In a joint lawsuit between the National Association for Gun Rights and our sister organization Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, we are challenging the Town of Superior, CO’s ordinance banning standard-capacity magazines, so-called “assault weapons,” and public carry.

And we’re suing over it all.

Click here to read it >>

Colorado magazine ban lawsuit - National Association for Gun Rights

This outrageous ordinance was passed mere weeks before the Supreme Court handed down its pro-gun ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. This ruling obliterated the “two-step” cost-benefit analysis framework lower courts have used to uphold gun control, defying the Second Amendment in the process.

Now, lower courts will be forced to start with the text of the Second Amendment and the surrounding historical context of the right to keep and bear arms understood by the founders at the time the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted.

Needless to say, there is no way most gun control laws can withstand this true Second Amendment scrutiny, and that includes the Town of Superior’s mag ban and “assault weapons” ban.

If our lawsuit succeeds, this will have broad implications for standard-capacity magazine bans and “assault weapons” bans in the entire 10th Circuit and even the entire country (if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court).

Stay tuned for details!

National Foundation for Gun Rights

JUST FILED: Class-Action Lawsuit Against Doxxing of Gun Owners

National Foundation for Gun Rights

Today we filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta for the outrageous leak of gun owners’ personal data, including full name, date of birth, race, home address, driver’s license number, permit issue date, and criminal history (if any).

Click here to read it >>

This retaliatory doxxing of gun owners not only violates the Second and Fourth Amendments, the California Constitution, and California law:

“California’s collection and maintenance of that data is an infringement upon the right of Californians to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment…

“Californians will be less likely to submit such information to the state in order to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, thus they will face the Hobson’s choice of providing such information to California, or not exercising their right to keep and bear arms…

Plaintiffs and Class Members therefore seek a declaration that California’s wrongful disclosure of this sensitive personal data violated their privacy rights under the United States Constitution, placed their identity, property, and physical safety at risk, and seek an injunction prohibiting California from collecting, maintaining or disclosing such sensitive personal information in connection with any regulation of firearms pursuant to California law.”

Donate here to help us fight back against this unconstitutional data collection and outrageous breach of gun owners’ personal info!

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

Supreme Court reverses lower court rulings on mag ban, “assault weapons” ban, carry ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights filed amicus brief in Supreme Court Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court just struck down four anti-gun lower court rulings:

SCOTUS granted cert in all four of these decisions, and told the lower courts “You got it wrong in all of these. We’re striking down your opinions. Go do it again, and do it based on the actual text of the Second Amendment and the history/tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Essentially, those courts have to review those state laws in light of Bruen and issue new rulings using the new “text, history, and tradition” framework.

They may try to wriggle out of it (they almost certainly will) but if they obey the Supreme Court, there’s no way any of these state laws can withstand actual Second Amendment scrutiny.

This spells doom for mag bans, assault weapons bans, and public carry bans.

GUN RIGHTS WIN: Supreme Court upholds right to bear arms!

The Supreme Court just handed down a MASSIVE victory for gun rights!

Speaking on behalf of the majority in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen – the first major gun case the Supreme Court has taken in over a decade – Justice Thomas said:

We…now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home…
Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution…

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.

That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense

And in this ruling, the Supreme Court destroyed the so-called “balancing tests” the lower courts have used to basically say that your right to keep and bear arms “isn’t worth insisting on:”

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

The implications for gun rights litigation are massive. Only by involving the convoluted “two-step” framework were courts able to wiggle around the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. The plain text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – which is exactly what most state gun regulations do. Judges will now have to admit that the Second Amendment means what it says, and rule accordingly. This spells doom for numerous state and federal gun laws and regulations.

Stay tuned for more analysis soon! To read the full ruling, click here.

Tennessee gag act

Legal Warning Sent to TN General Assembly over Gag Act

Tennessee gag act

The Tennessee General Assembly is in the process of passing an anti-free speech bill, and the National Foundation for Gun Rights is preparing to take legal action should it become law.

Click to read the legal warning we just sent the Tennessee legislative leadership >>

Under SB1005 (which just passed the Senate this morning), 501(c)4 issue-advocacy nonprofits – like the National Association for Gun Rights – cannot so much as mention a candidate or use his picture within two months of an election or primary without having to disclose their donors to the Tennessee government.

Here’s the language that passed the Senate this morning:

(b) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, an organization that is tax exempt under United States Internal Revenue Service Code § 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)) is required to report expenditures, in accordance with § 2-10-105(c)(1) and (h) and file an appointment of treasurer form if:

(1) The organization expends an aggregate total of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000) in organizational funds, moneys, or credits for communications that expressly contain the name or visually depict the likeness of a state or local candidate in a primary or general election; and

(2) Such expenditures or communications occur within sixty (60) calendar days immediately preceding a primary or general election in which the named or visually depicted candidate appears on the ballot.

While the language of the amendment only specifically mentions having to report spending – which is certainly bad enough – the code section referenced (highlighted above) requires reporting of both spending and donations.

In summary? This language is a clever way to require organizations like NAGR to report their donors or cease operating in Tennessee for the two months preceding a primary or general election.

This defies U.S. Supreme Court precedent in both Buckley v. Valeo (1974) and AFPF v. Bonta – the Supreme Court’s most recent free speech ruling in a case we backed just last year.

As we said in the legal warning letter we just sent the Tennessee legislative leadership:

While unconstitutionally burdening the associational rights of Tennesseans, this language is not narrowly tailored to achieve any valid state interest. It blatantly ignores the guiding precedent of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1974), in so far as it broadly deems non-election-related speech as election-influencing expenditures subject to reporting… The direct result would be the suppression of Tennesseans’ free speech and healthy engagement in the political process – precisely what the Founders designed the First Amendment to protect.

The National Association for Gun Rights absolutely will not expose our donors to harassment, intimidation, or political retaliation by disclosing their identities to either state government officials or to cancel-culture society, and we stand ready to take Tennessee to court to preserve our donors’ privacy and the right of Tennesseans to engage in the political process without threat of retaliation.

If you would like to contribute to our civil litigation fund to help us fight for your First and Second Amendment rights in the courts, click here.

San Jose city hall -Photo credit: Daderot

LAWSUIT AGAINST SAN JOSE, CA’S GUN OWNERSHIP TAX

San Jose city hall
San Jose city hall. Photo credit: Daderot

You probably saw the news coverage of this — the gun grabbers in San Jose want to make gun owners pay a gun ownership tax.

In other words, they want to tax law-abiding gun owners simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

This is just as unthinkable as imposing a “free speech tax” or a “church attendance tax.”

But San Jose’s city council voted UNANIMOUSLY last summer to draft an ordinance that does just that.

They initially backed off and tabled the ordinance after our legal arm – the National Foundation for Gun Rights — sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening to sue them if they passed it.

But on January 25th, 2022, the San Jose city council voted to impose the “gun ownership tax.”

Immediately after the vote, we filed a lawsuit against them to stop this unconstitutional ordinance in its tracks (click here to read it).

This isn’t just about San Jose – or even California.

There is a whole coalition of Bloomberg “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” in cities all across America just waiting to implement this blatantly unconstitutional attack on gun rights if it works in San Jose.

If gun grabbers get away with taxing the right to own a gun, every left-leaning local government across the country will quickly follow.

This will be an expensive, drawn-out legal battle.

Hiring the best lawyers to put the kibosh on this progressive anti-gun nonsense means we’ll be racking up the legal bills quickly.

But we can’t afford not to. To stop it, we have to stop it now.

 So please consider donating to help us fund this lawsuit.

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR demands that Florida sheriff restart concealed weapons permit fingerprinting

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2022

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 877-405-4570
Email: pressdept@gunrightsfoundation.org

National Foundation for Gun Rights demands Sheriff Lemma restart Concealed Weapons Permit fingerprinting

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding that Sheriff Dennis Lemma of Seminole County, FL, immediately reinstate fingerprinting services for concealed weapon permit applications.

On December 28, 2021, The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office announced that they were suspending public fingerprinting services indefinitely due to “the recent surge of COVID-19.” As fingerprinting services are a required part of obtaining a license to carry, this is a direct infringement on the public right to bear arms.

“This is merely an excuse to trample on the Second Amendment rights of Seminole County citizens,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights and the National Association for Gun Rights. “Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or Florida’s Constitution and laws allow a local sheriff to indefinitely suspend a citizen’s right to bear arms in public. Sheriff Lemma needs to immediately reinstate the required services for the issuance of carry permits, or prepare to face us in court.”

Hannah Hill, NFGR’s policy director, added, “By indefinitely suspending fingerprinting services, Sheriff Lemma joins the ranks of fascist politicians across the country who gleefully see the pandemic as an opportunity to trample the inalienable rights enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. Today, we put the good sheriff on notice that he doesn’t get to cancel the Bill of Rights in his county – and we are prepared to argue that in court if necessary.”

If Sheriff Lemma does not immediately reinstate fingerprinting services for concealed weapons permit applications, the National Foundation for Gun Rights will be exploring legal action.

To read the full cease-and-desist letter, click here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NFGR-SeminoleSheriff-CeaseDesist-Letter.pdf

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 501(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 501(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

###

Gov. Gavin Newsom

National Foundation for Gun Rights sends Cease and Desist letter to Gov. Newsom

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 15, 2021

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 877-405-4570
Email: pressdept@gunrightsfoundation.org

National Foundation for Gun Rights sends Cease and Desist letter to Gov. Newsom

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding that California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta back down from their new legislative proposal which is designed to nullify the Second Amendment in California, and to create an unconstitutional bounty system to entrap gun owners.  

On December 11th, 2021, Gov. Newsom issued an official statement explaining that he would direct the Attorney General and Legislature to draft and pass legislation allowing private citizens to sue California business owners (and individuals) who make or sell homemade firearms and semi-automatic rifles.

“In typical socialist fashion, Gavin Newsom and his anti-gun pals in the California Legislature are looking to further restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians by creating this preposterous bounty system for so-called ‘illegal’ firearms. This is clearly an attempt to dismantle the  Second Amendment once and for all in California,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

Under the proposed law, Californians could seek at least $10,000 in damages against anyone who manufactures, sells, or distributes firearms which Newsom and the Legislature deem “illegal” to own.  

In response, the National Foundation for Gun Rights has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Newsom and the Attorney General. The full text of the cease and desist letter may be found here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Signed-cease-and-desist-letter.pdf

“While cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are ravaged by violent crime and lawless assailants physically destroying private businesses and murdering innocent Californians, Newsom is focused on passing a law which will only further harm the people he’s supposed to help protect.” said Brown.  

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is exploring all legal options to oppose imposition of any California legislation which would dismantle a constitutionally protected right, and harm law-abiding businesses engaged in selling and manufacturing firearms.

“This is exactly why the National Foundation for Gun Rights exists – to stand up to anti-gun bullies like Newsom. We look forward to fighting back against such a ridiculous law,” concluded Brown.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 501(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

###

Kyle Rittenhouse thanks the National Foundation for Gun Rights

Kyle Rittenhouse: “Thank you for all the support”

Kyle Rittenhouse thanks National Foundation for Gun Rights

We recently had the privilege of speaking with Kyle Rittenhouse on the phone. He wanted to express his gratitude for all the assistance and support the National Foundation for Gun Rights has given him, and he asked us to pass a message on to our members who made it all possible:

“Thank you [to National Foundation for Gun Rights supporters] for all the support you have given from day one, and the generous donations to help not just me but my entire team and family. Without your generous support, we could not have gotten so far or beaten the charges against me.”

– Kyle Rittenhouse

The National Foundation for Gun Rights was the only Second Amendment organization to provide support and assistance to Kyle, standing by him from day one – even when the woke mob made it highly unpopular and even risky to do so.

Immediately after Kyle’s arrest, NFGR raised and sent him a $51,000 check to help support his family during their crisis.

And during the course of the trial – before the verdict was announced – NFGR raised another $25,000 to further assist Kyle regardless of the outcome of the trial.

Dudley Brown signs check for Kyle Rittenhouse
NFGR Executive Director signs a $25,000 check for Kyle Rittenhouse

This is due entirely to our members — pro-gun patriots who don’t care what kind of propaganda-narrative the anti-gun media is spinning.

We were all thrilled to hear the jury’s “not guilty” verdict on all charges, resulting in Kyle’s complete acquittal!

It was the right to self-defense itself that was on trial in Kenosha, WI, and the jury declared what we all know to be true: When you’re under attack from a mob bent on destroying you, you have EVERY right to defend yourself!

The right to defend yourself from attack is one of the bedrock principles of the American Republic – and that’s why the Left is so determined to obliterate it.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights exists to bring a no-compromise defense of the Second Amendment in the courts, and to stand behind law-abiding Americans unjustly targeted for exercising that right.

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR joins Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in targeting illegal gun registry

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is partnering with sister organization, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, to target an illegal gun registry in Douglas County, Colorado.

See RMGO’s press release below:

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Allied Partners Finds Illegal Gun Registry in Douglas County

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

DENVER, CO – This morning, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners [RMGO] and the National Foundation for Gun Rights [NFGR] were given credible information that Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock has illegally collected and housed the data of gun owners, in direct violation of C.R.S. § 29-11.7-102.

RMGO and NFGR joined with a Douglas County resident to send Sheriff Spurlock a letter to demand him to preserve the evidence while they discuss the next steps with their attorneys.

“Sheriff Spurlock has a long history of supporting gun control legislation,” said Taylor Rhodes, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. “Spurlock’s illegal gun owner database is in direct violation of Colorado’s law.”

Enacted in 2003, C.R.S. § 29-11.7-102 gives specific guidelines prohibiting local governments, including law enforcement, from maintaining a list or database that includes persons who purchased or exchanged firearms or persons who transfer firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

“After looking over the evidence, it is apparent this is a clear violation of C.R.S. § 29-11.7-102,” said Taylor. “RMGO will work tirelessly to make sure these records are destroyed and those responsible are held accountable.”

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a 501(c)(4) organization headquartered in Loveland, Colorado, with a mission to hold politicians accountable and achieve maximum liberty for an individual to defend themselves, their family, and their property without having to ask the government for permission to do so. Since its founding, RMGO has led the fight against anti-gun politicians with the support of 200,000 members and grassroots activists statewide.

###