National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR Sends Legal Warning to South Carolina Lawmakers over First Amendment Threat

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 5, 2021

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights Warns of Lawsuit if South Carolina General Assembly Passes “Gag Act” into Law

Enactment of S 174 would trample South Carolinians’ right to political speech and association free from government intrusion

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights and allied law firm the Dhillon Law Group, Inc. informed the South Carolina Senate that if they pass Senate Bill 174 (commonly known as the Gag Act) into law, the Foundation will file a lawsuit as the law constitutes an infringement on multiple Constitutional rights.

“The Gag Act is a blatant violation of the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, and if the South Carolina Senate thinks they can get away with stripping the right to free speech and privacy away from ordinary citizens who join political groups, they better be prepared to face us in court,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

If passed into law, the Gag Act would force organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights, Palmetto Gun Rights, and other grassroots groups and citizen organizations to disclose the private information of their members, as well as restrict citizen lobbying during state elections.

Part of the letter reads, “Senate Bill 174 (S 174) would flagrantly violate the constitutional rights of those who dare to speak to the public and associate with each other regarding their country’s and South Carolina’s pressing political challenges. We urge the Senate to reject this bill, which defies Supreme Court precedent rejecting unnecessary, invasive, vague, overbroad, and burdensome political disclosure requirements that unlawfully chill First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Specifically, S 174 is a multi-pronged assault on South Carolinians’ constitutional rights and must be rejected.”

The National Association for Gun Rights has a vested interest in protecting the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and privacy rights of its members, as well as protecting the privacy rights of its state chapter, Palmetto Gun Rights.

The letter concludes:

“If SB 174 is enacted, we have been authorized to file a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the deprivation of constitutional rights. Once we prevail in protecting those rights, we will seek our reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). We thereby strongly encourage you to reconsider moving forward with the proposed legislation.”

A full copy of the letter sent to the legislative leadership of the South Carolina Senate can be found here: South Carolina Senate Letter

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.

###

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR sends legal warning to Spearfish, South Dakota over concealed carry ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 4, 2021

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

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

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding the Spearfish City Council, Mayor, and City Attorney stop illegally restricting law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms while in Spearfish.

Since at least 1982, the City of Spearfish has had a city ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in Spearfish. This ordinance flies directly in the face of South Dakota’s 1983 preemption law, which specifically prevents cities and localities from passing and enforcing local-level gun control.

“Preemption laws are written for a reason – but apparently the City Council, Mayor, and City Attorney for Spearfish aren’t terribly worried about having unconstitutional laws on the books which restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms while out in public,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

Dudley Brown grew up in Spearfish before relocating during college.

“All local level gun bans are horrendous, but to see this in my own hometown, in a state which has a rich history of gun rights and passed Constitutional Carry into law a few years ago, is especially heinous. The current city council is duty bound to remove these outdated and illegal prohibitions on a constitutional right.

If they don’t, you can rest assured the National Foundation for Gun Rights will bring swift legal action against the city.” said Brown.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is exploring all legal options to strike down City Ordinance 11-86, which bans citizens from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

“Punishing law-abiding gun owners, defying state laws, and making Spearfish a safe haven for criminals is not something I’ll stand by and let happen. I hope they’re ready to face the legal consequences if they refuse to act.” said Brown.

The full text of the cease-and-desist letter may be found here: GunRightsFoundation.org/Spearfish-Letter.

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.

###

San Jose city hall -Photo credit: Daderot

Preparing to sue San Jose!

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

Things are heating up in San Jose!

As you know, back in June the City of San Jose voted to have their city attorney research and draft an ordinance imposing an annual tax and liability insurance mandate on gun owners within the city limits.

We responded immediately. Our lawyer sent them a cease-and-desist letter warning them to prepare for legal action if they attempt to tax the Second Amendment rights of San Jose citizens.

Mayor Liccardo responded by pretending it was all our fault:

“In the realm of sensible gun regulation, the gun industry and their lawyers ensure that no good deed goes unlitigated. I suppose that I should not be surprised that they have threatened to sue the city before they’ve even seen a single word in the ordinance.” (San Jose Inside)

Mind you, the City Council adopted a long, detailed list of exactly what they wanted (which you can view here), so everyone has a pretty good idea of what’s going to be in that ordinance.

Mayor Liccardo’s spokeswoman said the city was moving ahead with the ordinance, so we began planning for legal action.

Our legal counsel is currently preparing documents to be ready to file as soon as the ordinance is passed.

We’ve also put out a call to gun-owning city residents willing to serve as plaintiff (click here to apply!), and YouTuber Reno May promoted our upcoming lawsuit and plaintiff search on his awesome channel:

We have been incredibly humbled by the outpouring of responses, which our legal team is working their way through. San Jose gun owners are NOT happy about their city council’s mad dash for extreme gun control, if the number of plaintiff volunteers is any indicator!

Now, it’s a waiting game. Will the San Jose City Council think twice about taking on an expensive legal fight with little chance of success? Or will they insist on throwing away their constituent’s hard-earned tax dollars on experimental gun-control-by-litigation projects?

The city attorney is supposed to present the draft ordinance sometime in September, so we are watching the city council agendas and meetings very closely.

Finally, putting the best lawyers in the courtroom to fight for gun rights isn’t cheap. We need as many citizen partners to step up to the plate and back this lawsuit financially – even if they don’t live in San Jose.

Trust me, if San Jose gets away with taxing Second Amendment rights, it won’t be long before Bloomberg-funded progressive mayors all across the United States will push to impose similar gun violence taxes on their cities.

Even if you don’t live in San Jose, will you consider becoming a partner in this lawsuit by chipping in a tax-deductible contribution here?

GOA v. Garland bump stock case National Foundation for Gun Rights

JUST FILED: Amicus Brief In 6th Circuit bump stock case

GOA v. Garland bump stock case National Foundation for Gun Rights

The National Foundation for Gun Rights just filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in GOA v. Garland – a legal challenge to the ATF’s bump stock ban imposed in 2018.

Back in March, a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that bump stocks were not machine guns and that executive agencies couldn’t create law:

“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.”

Unfortunately, the full court vacated this ruling and agreed to rehear the case en banc (by all the Sixth Circuit’s active judges).

NFGR’s amicus brief focuses on an overlooked aspect of the case – that forcing gun owners to discard their bump stocks (or lose them in a “tragic” boating accident) is an unconstitutional form of theft, and violates the “Takings” clause of the 5th Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”).

There’s a very good reason the ATF conveniently “didn’t think about” compensating bump stock owners: it would have added a hefty $312.1 million price tag to the regulation! As our brief notes, that may well have made the government think twice about unconstitutionally banning this harmless gun accessory.

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, and GOA v. Garland will almost certainly end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

To help us prepare to fight for the rights of gun owners at the U.S. Supreme Court, click here to make a tax-deductible contribution!

To read our full brief, click below:

Meet Theresa Bragg, the Mother of Four Charged with Murder for Defending Herself

For most of the gun control crowd — living in gated communities far away from the harsh realities of violence commonplace in major urban centers — the idea of owning a firearm for self-defense seems like a bizarre concept.

But for everyday people who can’t afford private security, having the ability to bear arms is a necessity.

Just ask Theresa Bragg, a 30-year-old African American mother of four children. Bragg lives in River Rouge, a rough suburb of Detroit, Michigan. Known for its daily cacophony of gun fire, it’s rife with all sorts of criminal activity.

Michigan mother of four Theresa Bragg

Bragg picked up on her town’s rough environment rather quickly and legally purchased an AR pistol for home defense purposes.

The mother of four had the previous misfortune of getting tangled up in an abusive relationship with John Leverette when she was 18.

Bragg’s ex-boyfriend was a nasty character. A member of the Crips street gang, Leverette had a lengthy rap sheet. Unfortunately, Leverette brought his violent behavior to the home — as evidenced by the multiple beatings he subjected Bragg to, resulting in severe injuries and emergency room visits.

Theresa Bragg’s violent ex-boyfriend, John Leverette, making a gang sign. (Source: Facebook)

Leverette even threatened to put a hit out on Bragg if she told law enforcement about his domestic violence incidents. Bragg eventually broke up with him, but the specter of Leverette loomed large on her horizon.

It eventually reared its ugly head on May 2, 2021, when Leverette illegally entered Bragg’s house unannounced, completely strung out on heroin. The Crip member demanded to know where the former couple’s children were located, information Bragg was not legally obligated to tell him.

At the time, the children were at a birthday party, but Bragg kept that information to herself, and her refusal to reveal this information angered Leverette to the point that he threatened to kill her after she didn’t tell him where the children were located.

Fearing for her life, Bragg went to her room and grabbed her legally owned AR-Pistol – and when she confronted Leverette, demanding he leave her house, he became aggressive and charged at her. Knowing that she was in grave danger from yet another violent attack from Leverette, Bragg fired at Leverette until the threat was stopped.

As a result of defending herself against her assailant, John Leverette died inside Bragg’s home.

Bragg immediately called 911 to report the situation and notify authorities.

The incident was a distressing moment for Bragg, but the entire situation could have gone in reverse — with Bragg losing her life — had she been unarmed as the notoriously violent Leverette attacked her yet again.

However, Kym Worthy, the Wayne County Prosecutor, is charging Bragg with first-degree murder with pre-meditation – simply because this young mother of four exercised her right to self-defense against a certified gangster who was about to kill her.

Bragg’s encounter with her violent ex was a life-or-death decision, and one that many abused women eventually face. There is strong evidence linking domestic violence to homicide, and the Second Amendment exists to empower vulnerable women to protect themselves and their children.

For people like Bragg, who live in troubled areas like River Rouge, the right to bear arms is a literal life saver.

Police departments in high-crime hot spots are often corrupt, underfunded, and cannot be relied on to act decisively in dangerous encounters with criminals. In the latter case, we are reminded of the popular pro-Second Amendment adage, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

This incident is one of the many cases of defensive gun use that millions of lawful Americans engage in. According to the research that criminologists Dr. Gary Kleck and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted throughout the 1990s, they discovered that there were roughly 2.2 to 2.5 million instances of firearms used in self-defense in any given year. Of these cases studied, there were 1.5 to 1.5 million cases of handguns used in self-defense against criminal assailants.

Bragg’s self-defense incident comes against the backdrop of a political environment where the radical Left is not only calling for the defunding of police but is also using progressive prosecutors to destroy lawful individuals’ right to self-defense in the courts.

Today, Democrat-run cities have essentially turned into criminal safe spaces. The current social upheaval American metro areas are experiencing is what the late conservative journalist Sam Francis described as anarcho-tyranny — where governments refuse to control real criminals while punishing the innocent with draconian laws such as gun control.

Bragg armed herself amid this chaos to protect herself and her children, yet Kym Worthy doesn’t understand this and is targeting Bragg for simply exercising her God-given right to self-defense.

According to her legal defense team, Bragg’s case is winnable, but they will need substantial resources to make sure Bragg is acquitted. The National Foundation for Gun Rights has stepped up to the plate to assist Bragg by writing her defense team a check of $10,000, and hopes to do more.

NFGR Executive Director Dudley Brown signs a check for Theresa Bragg's legal defense.

To make a tax-deductible donation to NFGR’s Gun Owners Defense Fund to help Theresa and gun owners like her, click here.

Exercising your right to self-defense should never be treated as a criminal act.

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

JUST FILED: Amicus brief in Supreme Court gun case

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

Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights filed an amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has agreed to consider in over ten years.

The case challenges New York’s permit laws, which prohibit concealed carry without a permit – but deny permits unless the applicant can demonstrate a “special” need to carry a gun (which does not include a general desire for self-defense, according to state courts). As a result, ordinary citizens are functionally prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

NFGR’s amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment is NOT a second-class right — as state legislatures, lower federal courts, and even the Supreme Court itself have treated it — and that the right to public carry is protected by the Second Amendment as understood by the Founders.

Click below to read the brief!

Amicus brief in NYSRPA v. Bruen by National Foundation for Gun Rights

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR sends Cease and Desist letter to San Jose City Council, Mayor and City Attorney

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

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 19th 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.

###

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NFGR Backs Michigan Mom’s Legal Defense

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 12, 2021

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights Backs Michigan Mom’s Legal Defense

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights announced today they will be backing the legal defense team of 32-year-old Theresa Bragg, a single, African-American mother of four children who is being prosecuted for defending herself with a firearm.

On May 2, 2021, Bragg’s home in River Rouge, MI, was invaded by her abusive ex-boyfriend, John Leverette – a gang member with a long criminal history, whose violence had sent her to the hospital multiple times, and who had fentanyl in his system at the time.

Leverette barged into Bragg’s home without knocking or permission and threatened to kill her. Terrified for her life, Bragg retrieved her lawfully owned firearm and fired 17 rounds in self-defense, killing him on site and ending the threat against her life.

Bragg is currently being held without bail and is facing charges of first-degree murder with premeditation.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is contributing $10,000 to help fund Bragg’s legal team, and hopes to do more.

“This is exactly who the Second Amendment is for – a single mom in a crime-ridden city with an abusive ex breathing down her neck,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “The Second Amendment exists so that when that gangbanger ex bursts through her door and threatens her life, she has options – she doesn’t have to die.”

Brown continued, “Thanks to Theresa’s foresight in arming herself so she could protect her family from all threats of violence, Theresa is alive today. The National Foundation for Gun Rights is proud to stand with her and help fund her legal defense. We are asking our members to step up and help Theresa as well.”

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.

###

US Supreme Court rules to protect free speech

SUPREME COURT WIN: California can’t demand NAGR/NFGR donors’ info

US Supreme Court building

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.

Gun rights watch: 6th Circuit overturned pro-gun decision on bump stock ban, will rehear case

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!