Author: Hannah Hill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 14, 2021

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 970-460-9010
Email: pressdept@nagrhq.org

National Foundation for Gun Rights sends Cease and Desist letter to San Jose City Council, Mayor and City Attorney

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding the San Jose Mayor and City Council to put an end to their efforts to impose a tax on a select group of law-abiding citizens simply for exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

On June 19^th the city of San Jose voted unanimously to draft an ordinance imposing a mandatory fee on gun owners to cover the costs of “gun violence.” Additionally they voted to force gun owners to purchase gun liability insurance.

In a press release the city concedes that “criminals won’t obey these mandates” leaving the entire burden to be borne by law abiding gun owners.

“This a full-frontal assault on lawful gun owners by the gun control zealots running the city of San Jose,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “The city brazenly admits in their own press release that the burden of extra insurance and fees will ONLY be on the law-abiding.”

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is exploring all legal options to oppose imposition of any forthcoming ordinance that would impose fees or burdensome insurance on citizens for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

“Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals is the kind of insane behavior NFGR has come to expect from bureaucrat gun control idiots like the ones that run San Jose,” said Brown.

The full text of the cease and desist letter may be found by clicking here.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 503(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

###

Gun rights supporters won last week at the United States Supreme Court in AFPF v. Bonta, a case supported by the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that charitable donors’ identities are protected by the First Amendment.

This case started when Kamala Harris, then Attorney General of California, began targeting charitable organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights and demanding lists of their top donors in order to fundraise in California.

No Second Amendment supporter is okay with California bureaucrats having his name and address – even on a “confidential” basis. And – as revealed in the course of the trial – California had “accidentally” published those donor lists online before, and their website URL was only one digit away from hacking.

Why donor privacy is so important – and protected by the First Amendment

In today’s “cancel culture” society, there is no tolerance for saying the “wrong” thing – let alone donating to the “wrong” cause. If our entire donation histories were published, how many of us would lose jobs, experience backlash from family and friends, or be subject to harassment and attacks – both online and in-person?

And unfortunately, gun rights supporters would also risk retaliation from their own state governments. Government officials can harass their constituents in a thousand ways – from denying business permits and licensing, burdensome inspections and litigation, tax audits, and the list goes on and on.

The more effective you are in holding your government accountable, the more motivation corrupt politicians have to make you pay. If lawmakers could find out who supports the organizations that make their lives miserable – say, by forcing roll call votes on Constitutional Carry bills and publishing their voting records during the election season – those supporters could become targets of legislative ire.

As our lawyers argued in a coalition amicus brief filed in this case:

“This case involves a real threat by the California government to coerce the disclosure of the identity of large donors, putting them at risk of retaliation from either the public or partisan office holders. Both mob and ruler are dangerous to dissenters, and the principle of anonymity protects Americans from both.”

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming that freedom of association is protected under the First Amendment, and that the right to associate (and donate) anonymously is a part of that.

What did the Supreme Court say?

According to this ruling, if a government demands disclosure of member info, it has to satisfy a two-fold test:

1. The policy’s purpose must be a core function of government (such as policing fraud), AND
2. The policy better be aimed specifically and narrowly at accomplishing that goal.

The Supreme Court ruled that California’s demand for donor info failed the second test. California claimed to need lists of top donors for the ostensible purpose of policing charitable fraud, but officials don’t actually use them or even really need them when investigating allegations of fraud.

California’s only real claim was that having donor info would improve “efficiency and efficacy.” In other words, it would just make their lives easier to have it – and the Supreme Court ruled that that’s not a good enough reason to trample the First Amendment:

“But ‘the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency.’ Mere administrative convenience does not remotely ‘reflect the seriousness of the actual burden’ that the demand for Schedule Bs imposes on donors’ association rights.”

The Court went on to rule that the risk of having your personal information shared with government bureaucrats and possibly leaked to the public could have a “chilling effect” on involvement with groups like NFGR, which is an impermissible violation of the First Amendment.

For that reason, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s demand for donor information is unconstitutional.

While this is a major win, the Court did not require governments to also use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate goals. Justice Thomas pointed this out in a concurring opinion, arguing that the Court did not go far enough to protect the First Amendment.

What does this mean for gun owners?

While the Supreme Court’s ruling in AFPF v. Bonta is a major setback for gun grabbers, it’s only one battle in the ongoing war to protect NAGR members’ privacy and freedom of association.

Leftists will try to get around this ruling and even violate it outright in desperate bids to undercut the effectiveness of groups like NAGR and NFGR. Each of these attempts must be stopped and the First Amendment enforced.

California is not the only state that has attacked the Second Amendment by targeting gun rights organizations’ donors. This is a favorite tactic of the Left, and state lawmakers and bureaucrats have been pushing legislation and policies attacking donor privacy for years.

Montana, for instance, demanded donor information in order to “allow” organizations to speak out about politicians during the election season. We challenged that policy in a case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, only for the court to reject it for review last year, leaving the Montana anti-speech policy standing.

This means we have more work to do on this issue. Pro-Constitution Supreme Court rulings are meaningless if they aren’t enforced in the lower courts – just take a look at how often the landmark Second Amendment Heller decision is routinely violated in the states.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights will continue to fight to protect our donors’ privacy and First Amendment rights, but we can’t do it alone. To help us fight back these leftist attacks on the First and Second Amendments, click here.

Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a pro-gun ruling in GOA v. Garland, a challenge to the ATF’s 2018 bump stock ban, and a case the National Foundation for Gun Rights is involved in.

Back in March, a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the ATF’s 2018 bump stock ban was likely illegal, and stayed the ban’s enforcement while the case proceeded in the lower courts.

This pro-gun ruling was overturned today by the full court, which agreed to rehear the case en banc (by all the Sixth Circuit’s active judges).

The panel decision had stated clearly that criminal law can’t be created by unaccountable bureaucrats:

“Federal criminal laws are not administrative edicts handed down upon the masses as if the administrators were God delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai…

It is not the role of the executive — particularly the unelected administrative state — to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.”

The court went on to state that bump stocks can’t be classified as machine guns:

“[W]e conclude that the phrase ‘the single function of the trigger’ refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, not the shooter’s pulling of the trigger.

Consequently, a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845(b).”

While today’s decision to overturn this ruling and rehear the case is a setback for gun owners, the case will most likely be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The impact of this case goes far beyond bump stocks. At stake is whether a federal agency (such as the ATF) – controlled by bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people – can unilaterally make laws, especially laws that violate the Constitution.

President Biden’s ATF is currently in the process of rolling out even more unconstitutional gun regulations targeting home-built firearms and stabilizing braces for commonly owned pistols.

These regulatory attacks will keep coming unless the federal courts stop the ATF from overstepping its constitutional role and attacking the Second Amendment.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights will continue to follow this case closely. To help us continue to fight for the Second Amendment in more cases like this, click here to make a tax-deductible donation!

For the first time in over ten years, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up an important Second Amendment case.

The Court’s long-overdue decision to hear this major gun rights case could have enormous repercussions with lasting effects on gun owners’ right to carry weapons in public.

New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett

This case is a challenge to New York’s permit laws, which prohibit concealed carry without a permit – but deny permits unless the applicant can demonstrate “proper cause,” defined by state courts as a “special” need to carry a gun.

In fact, the courts have erroneously ruled that a general desire for self-defense isn’t enough to qualify New Yorkers for a carry permit, even if they live in a high-crime area.

The result? Only special classes of individuals can carry in New York, and ordinary, law-abiding citizens are completely blocked from their Second Amendment right to bear arms – unless they are well-connected to politicians or insiders.

This case challenges New York’s denial of permits for general self-defense purposes. 

“The situation in New York is the same thing we’re seeing all across the country to varying degrees – namely, the good ole boy politicians who treat Second Amendment rights as a favor they get to dole out to their friends and family members,” said Dudley Brown, NFGR’s Executive Director.

“It’s time for the Supreme Court to stop treating the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ and admit that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.”

“Keep” vs. “Bear”

In its landmark Second Amendment rulings D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to self-defense, and that the right is not tied to militia service.

Heller and McDonald specifically protected the right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense purposes, but also clearly established that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to have weapons “in case of confrontation” (a scenario which is certainly not limited to the home!).

However, the lower courts for the most part have ignored Heller when it comes to the right to public carry, the most recent example being the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Young v. Hawaii that there is no Second Amendment right to open carry.

The current case before the Supreme Court deals with the right to bear arms – the other half of the Second Amendment that Heller did not specifically address.

Massive implications for the right to carry

The implications for gun owners’ right to carry a gun in public are enormous. The Supreme Court could issue a broad ruling striking down unconstitutional gun regulations all over the country, or a narrow ruling that doesn’t settle the real issue.

The Supreme Court also has the opportunity with this case to severely curtail or even destroy the Second Amendment right to carry a weapon in public.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is preparing to file a legal brief arguing that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, and the Supreme Court should rule accordingly.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is partnering with sister organization, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, to support the legal defense of Fr. Peter Raleigh, a Catholic priest and gun owner being prosecuted under bogus gun charges.

See RMGO’s press release below:

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Joins Case to Defend Fr. Peter Raleigh

Loveland, CO – Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), Colorado’s only no-compromise gun-rights organization, along with the nation’s premier Second Amendment legal foundation, the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR), announced today that they would be backing the legal defense team of Father Peter Raleigh of Holy Innocents Catholic Church in Trinidad, Colorado.

On August 15^th of 2020, Fr. Raleigh and a group of parishioners went out to eat at a local restaurant after a day at the shooting range. After being seated, Fr. Raleigh showed his Ruger LCP handgun, after removing the magazine and extracting the round from the chamber, to a guest at the table who was scheduled to receive his concealed carry permit the next day.

This caused an uproar from the table next to them. The police were called, and he was initially charged with possessing a firearm while under the influence – despite no evidence that Fr. Raleigh was intoxicated. Charges were later amended to disorderly conduct – displaying a weapon “in a manner calculated to alarm,” also despite zero supporting evidence.

“This is just another case of a power-hungry DA expressing his anti-gun views on an innocent citizen. RMGO along with NFGR are going to do everything in our power to help out Fr. Raleigh,” said Taylor Rhodes, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Fr. Raleigh’s trial date has been set for May 10, 2021, where Erica Anderson of O’Malley and Sawyer, LLC is representing him.

“After reviewing the case, it is clear the DA’s office has no evidence of misconduct. The old saying goes, the punishment is the process, and unfortunately, the anti-gun District Attorney’s office is using that against Fr. Raleigh,” said Rhodes.

RMGO, along with NFGR, have committed substantial financial resources to help fund the defense of Father Raleigh.

Hannah Hill, Policy Analyst for the National Foundation for Gun Rights, added, “Pro-gun laws mean nothing if they aren’t respected by local authorities. This DA’s office is weaponizing the laws that should protect Fr. Raleigh and using them to carry out a personal agenda. We stand with Fr. Raleigh as he fights these bogus charges.”

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 more than 200,000 members and grassroots activists statewide.

###                          

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is no Second Amendment right to carry a gun beyond your front door.

The anti-gun court ruled in March that open carry is not protected by the Second Amendment in Young v. Hawaii. Four dissenting judges ripped the ruling, accusing the Ninth Circuit of deciding that “the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.”

But the ruling, should it be allowed to stand, has consequences that go far beyond just open carry.

Combined with a similar 2016 ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect concealed carry either, 20% of Americans and four Constitutional Carry States are now subject to the jurisprudence of the nation’s largest and most overturned appellate court which will not protect the right to “bear” arms.

How on earth did a federal court reach such a stunningly inaccurate conclusion, and what does this mean for gun owners?

The answer is buried in a radical interpretation of British law, and how the court used a case out of Hawaii as a means to resurrect the concept of “king’s sovereignty” in 21^st century America.

How the case got started

In 2012, Hawaii resident George Young sued both his county and the state of Hawaii after being denied a carry permit twice by his local chief of police.

Under Hawaii law, citizens must demonstrate urgency or need to carry a weapon and be engaged in protecting life and property just to apply for an open carry permit (concealed carry permit qualifications are similar). According to local regulations in Young’s county (as well as under statewide general practice), “engaged in protecting life and property” limits open carry to security guards and private detectives.

Assuming a citizen who is not in the security industry is somehow able to qualify to apply for an open carry permit, it is entirely at the discretion of the county chief of police whether he gets one or not.

Young sued, arguing that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. Federal district court dismissed his claims, saying that the state law doesn’t “implicate activity protected by the Second Amendment.”

Young appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and a three-judge panel initially ruled in his favor. The full Ninth Circuit, however, agreed to rehear en banc, and on March 24, 2021, reversed the panel decision and ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry openly.

“No right to carry arms openly in public”

Perhaps most shocking thing about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is how they reached it.

They did NOT rely on the clear text of the Second Amendment which protects the right to “bear” arms.

Instead, the Ninth Circuit ruled as if the Bill of Rights were never ratified and we’re still subjects of the British Crown.

The en banc ruling dove deep back in time into English gun regulations dating back to 13^th century under King Edward I (known as “the Hammer of the Scots” for his tyrannical attempts to conquer Scotland, including the killing of Scottish patriot leader William Wallace), as well as early American legal treatises, state laws, and court cases in an attempt to “prove” that a de facto ban on public carry is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Through a combination of careful selection of sources, logical leaps, and fact-twisting, the opinion (drafted by a Bush-appointed judge) concluded the following:

• Landmark Second Amendment cases Heller and McDonald establish “only a narrow individual right” to keep a handgun at home.
  • Counterpoint: While Heller dealt specifically with a handgun ban in the home, it (and later McDonald) established that self-defense is an individual right to defend one’s person, and in no way did Heller imply that you only have that right while you’re at home.

• There has never been a historical assumption that individuals have an “unfettered right” to carry weapons in public – and in fact, the government has every right to regulate and even ban public carry.
  • Counterpoint: The text of the Second Amendment itself stands as evidence that an “unfettered right” to public carry is exactly what the founders intended.

• There is a difference between the right to carry in public, and the right to defend your home or workplace. The home is sacred, but defending the public square is different.
  • Counterpoint: The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a corporate (read: militia) right only, and it protects your right to defend yourself and your loved ones wherever the need may arise.

• It is government’s duty to protect citizens in public. “The king who cannot guarantee the security of his subjects—from threats internal or external—will not likely remain sovereign for long.” (Editor’s note: he didn’t.)

Let’s look at that last statement more closely.

The court pointed out that under English law (not the U.S. Constitution), carrying weapons in public was an affront to the King – the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in his ability and willingness to protect his subjects.

As if that were a bad or factually inaccurate statement, they essentially argued that you don’t have the right to public carry, because the government or “king” has the primary right to defend you in the public square, and how dare you question their ability to do so?

This argument was eviscerated by the dissent, which pointed out that the entire point of the Revolution and subsequent U.S. Constitution was to completely break ties with the idea of “king’s sovereignty,” replacing it with “We the People”:

“For an English subject to ‘carr[y] arms publicly . . . as a vote of no confidence in the king’s ability to maintain [the public peace]’ would be an affront to his sovereign. But for an American citizen to carry arms publicly could be no such thing. The American citizen, in contrast with the English subject, is a constituent part of a free and sovereign people, whom state governments serve as agents.

“Indeed, the ‘principal object’ of our Constitution was not to grant ‘new rights’ from government to the people, but rather to ‘secur[e]’ against the government ‘those rights’ we already possess by nature.

“It is thus emphatically the prerogative of the American citizen to give a ‘vote of no confidence’ in state governments’ exercise of those powers delegated from the sovereign people themselves.”

Moreover, the government regularly fails to protect the public square. Poor police response times combined with “gun free” zones have only left citizens vulnerable to attack in public.

The dissenting judges made short work of the poor historical analysis of the majority opinion:

“The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right…the Second Amendment safeguards both the right to keep a firearm and the right to bear—or to carry—that firearm…The right to armed self-defense—both by keeping a gun at home and by carrying one elsewhere—lies at the heart of the Second Amendment.”

To sum up: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with King George over our own Constitution!

What does this mean for gun owners?

Until overturned by the Supreme Court, this ruling, together with the court’s 2016 decision, means that in the nine states in the Ninth Circuit, there is no judicial protection for the right to carry in public, whether concealed or open.

In other words, gun owners who live in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii are at the mercy of their states’ gun grabbers.

Lawyers for Mr. Young have already indicated they intend to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court. When they do, the National Foundation for Gun Rights stands ready to push for the overturning of this decision and the protection of the Second Amendment right to bear arms as well as to keep them.

To help us fight for the Second Amendment in the courts, click here!