We are suing the state of Illinois over their newly passed “assault weapon” ban. While we have not filed any brand new lawsuit, we have been able to amend our current lawsuits in Highland Park and Naperville to incorporate the new state law.
NFGR has been proactive in restoring the rights of Illinoisans taking two ripe opportunities in Highland Park and Naperville to attack existing “assault weapon” bans. By merging the state ban into the existing lawsuits we are able to move the legal process forward much faster than if we had started the whole process over with a new claim.
Not only will this help with resource management by not redoing work we have already done, it will send a clear message to other states considering similar laws. These violations of our freedoms will not be tolerated.
Both our Naperville and Highland Park lawsuits can be read about here.
The ATF has released their long-awaited pistol brace ban. The rule will be effective as soon as it is entered into the federal registry, which must be within 30 days of January 13, 2023.
The rule expands the definition of “rifle” as follows:
“the definition of ‘rifle’ shall include a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a ‘stabilizing brace’) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as described in this preamble and in the amended regulations, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”
This means that nearly any weapon with a pistol brace attached is now a rifle. If the barrel is shorter than 16″ (i.e. a pistol), it would now be classified as a short-barreled rifle and illegal unless the owner registers it with the federal government.
This has major implications for millions of law-abiding firearms holders who use pistol braces with their firearms. Unless they register those firearms with the ATF under the National Firearms Act (and pay $200 per tax stamp), they could be prosecuted for a felony.
This is a massive expansion of the only gun registry currently legal under federal law. With this rule suddenly millions of common everyday pistols get treated similarly to machine guns, silencers, and destructive devices (grenades, poisonous gases, and missiles).
So let’s call this “rule” what it really is. Gun registration for millions American gun owners.
This is a deliberate prelude to one day registering and taxing ALL rifles, pistols, or shotguns under the NFA.
Our legal team is analyzing the entirety of the 293-page document and will have a full legal analysis soon.
On December 20th, 2022 Judge Tom Moran of the New York Supreme Court ruled New York’s Red Flag style gun confiscation law, unconstitutional. Putting a temporary stop to red flag sun confiscation in New York.
This came about when a petitioner only identified as G.W. filed an application in August of 2022 for a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (“TERPO”), the name for New York’s red flag law, against an ex-girlfriend listed as C.N.
C.N. hired a lawyer to defend her on Constitutional grounds ultimately resulting in the ruling that this law is unconstitutional.
This is good news for gun owners. It is the first step in setting legal precedent and it is one of the first times a judge has ruled so strongly against red flag laws.
The court stated, “Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than, for example, Fourth Amendment rights (the right to liberty), and must be provided the same level of due process and equal protection.”
The court went on to point out, “the Second Amendment establishes that the exercise of a fundamental right ‘shall not be infringed.’ However, [this law], does exactly that.”
Red flag laws, by design, do not respect due process or the language of the Second Amendment. A fact that is revealed quite glaringly in this ruling. This was perfectly summed up in by the judge when he wrote, “While some may advocate that ‘the ends justify the means’ in support of [this law], where those means violate a fundamental right under our Bill of Rights to achieve their ends, then the law, on its face, cannot stand.”
While the court had a good ruling in this case, it did not go so far as to rule that no red flag law under any circumstances can stand. Gun grabbers will always try and find ways to weasel around the Constitution and strip us of our rights. We need to keep fighting to ensure this does not happen.
National Foundation for Gun Rights Sues Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County
National Foundation for Gun Rights Sues Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County Joined by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Foundation for Gun Rights opposes local level gun bans
August 18, 2022 Loveland, CO – Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) joined with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) in filing lawsuits against the cities of Louisville and Boulder, as well as Boulder County. New gun control laws recently passed by Louisville and Boulder ban certain semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. Boulder County recently banned the sale or transfer of semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines.
Members of both organizations and citizens of the respective cities joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuits – challenging the constitutionality of the laws and arguing that their right to keep and bear arms is being directly infringed upon. Last month, NFGR and RMGO filed lawsuits against the Town of Superior over a similar ordinance, and against Gov. Jared Polis and the State of Colorado to overturn the 2013 Colorado magazine ban.
“As an organization our mission is simple: enforce and expand pro-gun precedents issued by the courts and defend gun owners in the courts. And we’re doing just that in these lawsuits,” said Hannah Hill, Research and Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Law-abiding gun owners are being disarmed throughout these cities in Colorado, and the government officials issuing the new gun control ordinances are ignoring the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions – we’re here fight back.”
RMGO and NFGR are funding all three of the lawsuits, challenging their constitutionality in light of the recent Supreme Court decision NYSRPA v. Bruen.
In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court rejected “intermediate scrutiny” – the cost/benefit analysis framework that allowed lower courts to rule against the Second Amendment – and established that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms; thereby invalidating the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control.
Gun control lobbyists are pouring massive amounts of money into Colorado in an effort to help enforce these illegal gun grabs and keep them on the books.
“Everytown for Gun Control and Michael Bloomberg know that the Bruen decision eviscerated the ‘standing’ they had to put unconstitutional strangleholds on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “So they’re scrambling, spending millions of dollars to pass and uphold local-level gun control laws — hoping that ordinary citizens won’t pay attention as they demolish gun rights one town at a time. But we’re paying attention and I’m looking forward to destroying them in court.”
The full text of the three lawsuits filed be can found at the following hyperlinks: Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County.
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.###
National Foundation for Gun Rights has the honor of partnering with Top Shot Dustin Youth Marksmanship Camp by providing a limited number of scholarships to their Fall 2022 camp.
The camp dates for this fall are October 8-9, October 22-23, and November 12-13. To apply go to marksmancamp.com.
National Foundation for Gun Rights Funds Lawsuit Against Polis and State of Colorado
July 28, 2022 Loveland, CO – Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights, along with citizens Benjamin Gates and Travis Swartz, filed a lawsuit against Governor Jared Polis and the State of Colorado over the 2013 magazine ban which outlaws the sale of standard capacity magazines in Colorado.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) will be solely financing this case, which challenges the constitutionality of the law in light of the recent Supreme Court decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. NFGR and RMGO are also currently suing the Town of Superior over their magazine and rifle ban, and were recently granted a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the ordinance.
“When an Obama-appointed judge agrees that Superior is way out of line in banning magazines and rifles, that means it’s game over for gun control,” said Hannah Hill, Research and Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “This lawsuit is the first step in our goal of overturning mag bans nationwide. It’s time for state legislatures to recognize that they actually do have to follow the Second Amendment, and if they plan to double down on rights-shredding laws, they need to prepare to face us in court.”
In the landmark Bruen decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected “intermediate scrutiny” – the cost/benefit analysis framework that allowed lower courts to rule against the Second Amendment – and established that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms; thereby invalidating the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control.
The lawsuit funded by the National Foundation for Gun Rights and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners argues that Colorado’s 2013 magazine ban flies directly in the face of the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding Coloradans to own standard capacity magazines. The law should be repealed in light of the Bruen decision and the historical text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
“We’ve known for years that the magazine ban is an atrocious infringement against our gun rights, and our members are continuing the fight against this heinous law,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “The Bruen decision is a 4-ton wrecking ball for us to use against gun control laws – and we’re going to destroy every single unconstitutional law which stands in our way. We founded NFGR to defend gun owners in the courts and use our legal expertise to eviscerate anti-gun rulings — and repealing Colorado’s magazine ban is just one of many legal projects NFGR is working on in the battle to restore the Second Amendment.”
The National Foundation for Gun Rights plans to also sue other local governments in Colorado which have imposed magazine bans and so-called “assault weapons” bans next, and is currently finalizing the details for those lawsuits.
The full text of the lawsuit filed against Gov. Polis and the State of Colorado in federal district court can be viewed here.
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.
Today, Obama-appointed Judge Moore of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted our request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the Town of Superior, CO’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines.
Our joint lawsuit with sister organization Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenges Superior’s ordinance banning standard-capacity magazines, so-called “assault weapons,” and public carry. Today’s order blocks the city from enforcing the mag ban and so-called “assault weapons” ban for 14 days.
The court took seriously the direction it received from the Bruen ruling, stating that “the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”
The court further recognized that “irreparable harm”, a requirement for a Temporary Restraining Order, “consider[s] the infringement of a constitutional right enough and require[s] no further showing of irreparable injury.”
Unfortunately, the court did not grant the Temporary Restraining Order in regard to the open carry section of the gun control ordinance, since it does not constitute a complete ban on public carry.
Today was a major victory for Second Amendment rights. This may be the first gun rights win in the federal courts post Bruen, and spells doom for outrageous gun control schemes everywhere – including Colorado’s statewide ban on standard-capacity magazines.
Stay tuned for more details as we continue to fight for gun rights.
At today’s hearing on our lawsuit against the City of San Jose’s gun tax our lawyers made it clear that in fighting this ordinance we have the Constitution on our side, and not just the Second Amendment.
This lawsuit is a challenge to San Jose, CA’s ordinance imposing an annual tax and liability insurance mandate on gun owners – simply for the “privilege” of owning a gun.
This is a wildly unconstitutional scheme. Imposing a tax or requiring insurance on any other Bill of Rights guarantee would be an obvious constitutional infringement, yet San Jose seems determined to treat the Second Amendment as a “second-class right.”
We filed a lawsuit against this ordinance as soon as it was enacted and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop San Jose from enforcing the tax and insurance mandate. Today, we had our first hearing in federal court on the preliminary injunction motion.
Our legal team demonstrated how this tax and insurance mandate burdens burden the Second Amendment by contrasting it with a tax on speech or prayer, and pointed out how the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling obliterates San Jose’s anti-gun arguments.
The tax also directly attacks the First Amendment, since the tax must be paid to a private non-profit that will provide some sort of “gun violence” services. In other words, the moneys collected will be used to fund some sort of anti-gun messaging. However, the government cannot force you to pay for messaging you may or may not agree with. This creates a First Amendment violation on top of the Second.
San Jose’s attorneys took the brazenly untruthful position that their ordinance does not attack Second Amendment rights at all, so Bruen should not apply to them. Here’s a quote from their brief to the court:
“What Bruen did not do was raise any serious questions about the constitutionality of the San Jose Ordinance here. To the contrary, Bruen indicates the Ordinance does not even Trigger Second Amendment analysis because it does not “infringe[]” anyone’s rights to “keep and bear arms.” Moreover, even if it did, per Bruen the Ordinance’s features are well within states’ historical authority to regulate firearms.”
Of course, that is wildly untrue, as a simple reading of Justice Thomas’ Bruen opinion proves.
It remains to be seen whether the court will honor the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. We anticipate a ruling on our preliminary injunction motion soon and will update as soon as we get it.
If the court rules against us, we can appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we are prepared to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
This case is not just about San Jose. This case is backed by gun grabbers like Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” who assisted with the drafting of the gun ownership tax ordinance. If they are successful in San Jose, this policy will be spreading across the country.
As of now San Jose has suspended enforcement of the ordinance until sometime in December, although this could change at any time. We will keep fighting until this ordinance is struck down once and for all, but we can only do this with you continued support.
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.
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).
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).
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.”
