Category: News

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

• A 4^th Circuit ruling upholding Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban
• Two rulings (9^th Circuit and 3^rd Circuit) upholding mag bans in California and New Jersey
• A 9^th Circuit ruling upholding Hawaii’s de facto public carry ban (similar to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. HI is another may issue state that essentially banned carry)

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.

In the landmark Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas upheld, in no uncertain terms, your constitutional right to bear arms. Yet just a day after this ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is already defying this decision by doubling down on California’s “may issue” permit laws – this time through a “good moral character” requirement when applying for a public carry permit.

California’s current permitting laws allow local officials to grant carry permits to applicants demonstrating “special need” and who are of “good moral character.” The Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling struck down “special need” requirements for permitting, but did not specifically address “good moral character” requirements.

In a letter sent to all Californian district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, county counsels, and city attorneys, Bonta recognizes that Bruen eliminated their “good cause” requirements for public carry permits and encourages them to institute “good moral character” requirements instead.

What constitutes someone having a “good moral character”? It is left entirely up to the discretion of the local official, but the list of possible disqualifying flaws is long and ugly. Here are a few of the worst suggestions from the Attorney General:

Any arrest in the last five years regardless of disposition. Any “mistake” by law enforcement can lead to stripping your gun rights for five years, opening the floodgates for abuses of power. Being arrested for something does not mean you are guilty of anything, yet under this scheme you could lose your rights.

“Respecting the rights of others and the absence of hatred and racism.” Social media posts will be searched to make sure everything you post lines up with the left’s radical agenda. Any comments or posts that could be twisted or spun as “hateful” or “disrespectful” could lead to the loss of fundamental rights.

Observance of fiduciary duty and fiscal responsibility. This could mean that if you have any debt and/or you don’t land in the right tax bracket you can be denied a permit – a recipe to make sure only rich elites are afforded their constitutional rights.

When told by the Supreme Court not to violate your Second Amendment rights, California doubled down and is now attacking First Amendment rights too.

This is why your National Foundation for Gun Rights just sent a cease-and-desist letter to Attorney General Bonta instructing him that what he is describing in this “good moral character” scheme is nothing more than “a witch hunt against anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry in public.”

We point out that this exact type of “loophole” was directly addressed in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, “As the Court explains, New York’s outlier may-issue regime is constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense. Those features of New York’s regime—the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement—in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens.’” (emphasis added)

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is monitoring this situation closely to see how the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is enforced in the State of California.  Further, we are ready to explore all legal options to aid any citizen whose First and Second Amendment rights are violated.

To read our cease-and-desist letter click here.

To see the anti-gun guidance sent out by AG” Bonta click here.

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.

A case challenging California’s ban of standard-capacity magazines was recently appealed to the Supreme Court, and we just filed an amicus brief calling on the Court to take the case and rule in favor of the Second Amendment.

California initially banned the purchase of standard-capacity magazines (holding more than ten rounds of ammunition) in 2000, and in 2016 banned the actual possession of these magazines – without compensating magazine owners for the loss of their property. Gun owners who failed to dispose of their magazines could receive up to a year of jailtime.

These magazines are standard for many guns – including the most popular gun in America, the AR-15 – and include about half of all magazines in circulation. While California is the only state banning actual magazine possession, Maryland, Colorado, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have also banned the purchase of standard capacity magazines.

This is unacceptable.

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights is fighting this unconstitutional attack on the rights of law-abiding Americans by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the California magazine ban.

Click here to read our amicus brief >>

Specifically, we are asking the Supreme Court to take Duncan v. Bonta, a case out of the anti-gun 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9^th Circuit ruled incorrectly that the magazine ban is not a violation of the Second Amendment and that the law should be upheld.

The 9^th Circuit’s (which presides over California, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana) “test” for whether or not a gun law violates the Second Amendment has accurately been described by Judge Lawrence VanDyke as, “providing numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat.” (McDougall v. Ventura, 2021)

The amicus brief we filed asking the Supreme Court to step up and take this case calls on the Justices to correctly rule in favor of the Second Amendment. As we said in our brief:

“History, tradition, and text demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms is not a second-class right, and not subject to a second-tier, less-than-favorable analysis that eviscerates that right.”

In their own words, the 9^th Circuit has said they will continue to restrict gun rights “unless and until the Supreme Court tells” them otherwise. And we are telling the Supreme Court that it is high time they did just that.

If this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will be a green light to anti-gun politicians everywhere to follow California’s example by banning commonly owned standard-capacity magazines.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights will not stand by and let this happen. We are fighting for this law to be overturned by the Supreme Court in favor of your Second Amendment freedoms.

As with all freedoms, protecting them is not free. Please consider joining with us financially in this fight to protect the Second Amendment by clicking here.

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.

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 11^th, 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: http://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.

###

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.

###