California Sued Over New AWB Regulations

A coalition of gun rights organizations plus three individual plaintiffs have sued California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the California Department of Justice over newly adopted regulations concerning the assault weapons ban on bullet buttons. The suit was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.

The CalGuns Foundation has this summary of the case:

Summary: Holt, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is a constitutional, statutory, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the DOJ's "bullet-button assault weapon" regulations. The DOJ’s regulations expose people to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

Individual Plaintiffs/Petitioners: George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, and Rick Russell are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. 

Institutional Plaintiffs/Petitioners: Firearms Policy Coalition; Firearms Policy Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; Second Amendment Foundation

Defendants: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California; Stephen J. Lindley, Chief of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms; the California Department of Justice; Debra N. Cornez, Director of the Office of Administrative Law; Betty T. Yee, California State Controller; Does 1-50,

Litigation Counsel: George M. Lee; Douglas A. Applegate; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe

The complaint can be found here.

The institutional plaintiffs - SAF, CalGuns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Firearms Policy Foundation - released a joint statement on the lawsuit.

Gun Owners & Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge to California’s “Assault Weapon” Regulations

The lawsuit argues that the State’s “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations are largely unlawful, should have been subject to the Administrative Procedure Act process, waste taxpayer dollars, and should not be allowed to stand.

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 30, 2017) — Today, attorneys for four individual gun owners as well as advocacy organizations The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed a new lawsuit and petition for writ of mandate that challenges more than a dozen new “assault weapon” regulations ramrodded into effect by the State of California’s Department of Justice (DOJ).

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

Plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee said that the lawsuit was focused on protecting law-abiding people from illegal regulatory and enforcement actions.

“By making and enforcing unlawful rules, and going around the rules to do it, the DOJ is putting tens if not hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people at risk of serious criminal liability,” said Lee. “This case seeks to make the DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

“The DOJ is acting like an out-of-control bullet train that’s running off the rails,” said plaintiffs’ attorney and former Deputy Attorney General Raymond DiGuiseppe. “Our plaintiffs want to get the State’s agencies back on the tracks and following the law.”

CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman notes, “The DOJ has used every trick in the book to avoid good faith rulemaking action, and we cannot allow that to go unchallenged. California laws are bad enough without piling on unlawful and harmful regulations, so we seek here to restore the rule of law—and some sanity.”

“The government agencies responsible for enforcing the law must also follow the law,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “This case is an important step in protecting law-abiding gun owners from an out-of-control regulatory state.”

“The DOJ is playing a dangerous game with the law, and it needs to stop,” observed FPF Vice President Jonathan Jensen. “Tens of thousands of people could face potential felonies in just a handful of months, and meanwhile the DOJ has moved the goalposts with the registration clock ticking.”

“The State of California is nothing short of bipolar with its gun control policies,” commented FPC President Brandon Combs. “On one hand, the State is requiring people to register virtually all of their guns. On the other hand, the DOJ is doing everything it can to suppress compliance and prevent people from registering their guns.”

A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra.

CASE BACKGROUND:

Last July, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time.

Following that, last December, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

However, DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters.

Then, in May of this year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later.

Following that, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. The OAL approved those regulations in July, allowing the DOJ to go forward with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process.

Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of bootstrapping its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions.

FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations.

A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, and Rick Russell are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

HR 38 Moves Forward

The House Judiciary Committee passed HR 38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 - yesterday on a 19-11 vote. There were a number of amendments offered. Many of these amendments were meant to gut the bill. Of the 22 amendments offered, only three were adopted and all came from Republican members of the committee. The bill now moves to the whole House of Representatives for consideration.

The first amendment was in the form of a committee substitute offered by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) which added a third section to the bill concerning off-duty and retired sworn law enforcement officers. The amendment would allow these individuals to both carry concealed and discharge weapons in school zones.

The second amendment that was accepted was offered by Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL). His amendment clarified that nothing in HR 38 would prevent a law enforcement officer from "conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the Constitution of the United States" if they had a reasonable suspicion to the violation of any law. This passed on a voice vote.

The final amendment that passed was from Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) and concerned the carrying of concealed firearms by Federal judges. It allows Federal judges to carry concealed in any state so long as they are not prohibited from receiving a firearm. In other words, if Justice Ginsberg can pass a NICS check, then she could carry a concealed firearm not that that would be likely.

The whole list of amendments and their disposition is on this page on the House Judiciary Committee website.

Firearms Policy Coalition Seeks Improvements In HR 38

The Firearms Policy Coalition is headquartered in Sacramento, California. Being as they are in one of the bluest states with some of the worst gun laws, they are hoping for passage of HR 38. However, they want to make it better for those who live in states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc. They also want the bill to include those living in Federal districts like DC, commonwealths like Puerto Rico, and other territories like the Northern Mariana Islands.

Many legal scholars agree with the FPC that the bill would be on stronger Constitutional grounds if it was based not on the commerce clause. The FPC would like to see the right to carry nationally be based upon the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. They hold that this would reinforce the rulings in Heller and McDonald.

Their full release with embedded links to their proposed changes is below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 28, 2017) — Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sent a second letter regarding H.R.38 (the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017) to bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and House co-sponsors. The letter says the pro-gun bill could potentially “leave law-abiding people exposed” because of “a byzantine patchwork of state and local prohibitions” and suggested solutions to 6 individual legal problems in the bill’s text.

The group’s concerns also include “vague and undefined terms,” an exemption to the federal Gun Free School Zone Act they say is “of limited utility,” and the bill’s total reliance on “constitutionally-antagonistic Commerce Clause doctrine.” FPC also suggests that the measure’s scope be extended to include protections for people in places that are not a “State or political subdivision thereof,” like Washington, D.C. (a federal district), as well as commonwealths, republics, and territories “administered or controlled by the United States (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).”

FPC’s letter says that, if H.R38 is passed without some important changes, it “may very well indirectly cause people to be prosecuted and lose their Second Amendment rights over harmless mistakes.” And, if “H.R.38 is not amended to address our concerns,” they “predict that this well-intentioned measure would leave millions of peaceful and law-abiding people exposed to serious criminal liability.”

“As we said in March, H.R.38 is a significant piece of legislation that—properly amended to address the issues discussed above—would establish one of the greatest, if not the greatest, legislative advancements of Second Amendment rights so far in the history of our federal government,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in the letter. “And with just a few simple but important changes, H.R.38 could unlock and protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms for all law-abiding people—especially where it is denied today.”

Explained FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz, “Any bill that seeks to expand the right to keep and bear arms must be carefully crafted to ensure protection for all law-abiding people, but especially for those in ‘battleground states’ and cities hostile to Second Amendment rights.”

“If a bill doesn’t protect people in places like California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, then it doesn’t really get the job done,” DeLuz concluded. “Our reasonable suggested amendments would help ensure that people in anti-gun jurisdictions can exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms.” 

A copy of FPC’s letters supporting H.R.38 can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38. Gun owners who wish to send letters supporting H.R.38 may use FPC’s free Grassroots Action Tools at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38.

FPC has also established #OurGunVote, a grassroots campaign to urge pro-gun bill passage in the House and Senate, available at http://www.ourgunvote.com/.

H.R.38 is scheduled to be next heard by the House Judiciary Committee at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 29.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Rep. Richard Hudson On His Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

One of the speakers at this year's Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Dallas was Shaneen Allen. She made a plea for the passage of HR 38 so as to protect anyone else from having to go through what she did when she crossed into New Jersey. As attorney Evan Nappen who has handled multiple firearms cases in New Jersey noted yesterday on Facebook, passage of national reciprocity will change that state from being the "North Korea of CCW". Nappen was the attorney for both Shaneen Allen and Brian Aitken.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) specifically mentions that Allen case in his release announcing that his bill is scheduled for markup today.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after the House Judiciary Committee announced it will mark up his bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), on Wednesday, November 29:

 

“For me and the vast majority of Americans who support concealed carry reciprocity, this is welcome progress. I want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his strong leadership to protect our Second Amendment rights. I will continue to work with my colleagues and President Trump to pass this common sense legislation to protect law-abiding citizens."

 

Concealed carry reciprocity is one of the most important pro-Second Amendment measures in Congress. Currently, the patchwork of reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing and has caused law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen to unwittingly break the law and suffer arrest and detention. Even the most careful and knowledgeable concealed carry permit holders find it difficult to navigate the current maze of state and local concealed carry laws. H.R. 38 is a common sense solution. The bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups and has 213 cosponsors, would allow law-abiding citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry. It would also allow law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.

 

H.R. 38 would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID, and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.

 

For a one-pager on the bill, click here. For a Q&A document, click here.

 

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which is “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This fundamental right does not stop at a state’s borders and law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right when crossing state lines. In addition, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This is the clause that allows a driver’s license to be recognized across state lines.

 

Contrary to the misinformation critics spread, under H.R. 38, states would retain their authority to enact time and place restrictions on where people can lawfully carry in the state. In addition, the bill would not make it any easier to buy a gun. It has nothing to do with the purchase of guns, it would not alter access to guns, and it would not change the federal law requiring background checks.

 

The American people understand these facts. That’s why an overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity – 73% according to a recent New York Times survey.

HR 38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 - Comes Up For Committee Vote This Morning

The House Judiciary Committee is holding its markup hearings on three bills this morning at 10 am EST. HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and HR 4434, the Fix NICS Act of 2017, will be two of the bills included in the markup. The other bill concerns amber alerts on Indian reservations.

Passing national reciprocity was one of the promises that President Trump and the Republicans made to the gun rights community in 2016. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced HR 38 on the first day of this session of Congress and we have been waiting (and waiting) for any movement on the bill. The bill currently has 210 Republican and 3 Democrat co-sponsors.

HR 4434 and S. 2135 are identical bills introduced to correct some of the problems with the reporting of data to the FBI for inclusion in the databases used to conduct the NICS instant background checks. Both bills were introduced after the murders at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. In that instance, the murderer had convictions on his record that made him a prohibited person. However, the US Air Force failed to report his convictions to the FBI and the murderer was able to buy multiple firearms after passing multiple NICS checks. The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and the Senate bill by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). There is bipartisan support for both of these bills.

You can view the hearings live on YouTube.

When, Oh When, Will The SCOTUS Actually Defend The Second Amendment Again?

I am disappointed in the US Supreme Court. That's nothing new for either me or most people regardless of their political leanings.

My disappointment stems from the absolute refusal by the Court to hear any and all Second Amendment cases since 2010 when they ruled in McDonald v. Chicago. The latest case to bite the dust is the Maryland case of Kolbe et al v. Hogan et al which challenged that state's ban on ARs, AKs, and standard capacity magazines.

From the Orders released today:

17-127 KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.

The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

This case was a loss at the District Court level with an absolutely ridiculous opinion by Judge Catherine C. Blake which was then followed by a 2-1 win in the 4th Circuit that got overturned by an en banc ruling affirming the District Court.

If it is true that President Trump will have the ability to appoint up to 40% of the Federal bench with conservative judges, it can't come soon enough. Moreover, I hope they aren't in the mold of Judge Harvey Wilkinson either.

Pre-Thanksgiving Present For California Gun Owners

When politicians want to announce news or launch a new policy and they don't want it to get a lot of attention they release it without fanfare on either a Friday afternoon or the afternoon before the beginning of a long holiday weekend. Such is the case with the California Department of Justice and their newly announced "assault weapons" regulations. The 52 pages of the new regulations can be found here.

The Firearms Policy Coalition challenged their rulemaking in the past and won based upon how they sought to implement them without public comment. According to their release below, I think it is reasonable to expect more challenges to these regulations and the implementation of them by the California Department of Justice.

From FPC:

California DOJ Pushes New “Assault Weapons” Regulations Before Thanksgiving Holiday

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 22, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement regarding the latest California Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed regulations on so-called “assault weapons”:

Once again, the California DOJ and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have used 11^th-hour tactics to push its anti-gun agenda, this time by releasing new proposed “assault weapons” regulations right before a major holiday.

FPC has published the new proposed regulations at BulletButtonBan.com — a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations — where members of the public can use FPC’s grassroots action tools to submit written comments to DOJ regarding the proposed regulations. A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

Last December, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.

Then, in May, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. Those regulations were summarily rejected by OAL a little more than a month later. Following that, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, which OAL approved in July.

Now, the Department is attempting to promulgate a new regulation to apply the July regulations to all aspects of the State’s “assault weapons” laws, including for purposes of criminal prosecutions.

FPC’s attorneys are hard at work reviewing the regulations and have been instructed to take every appropriate legal action to defend California gun owners and individual liberties.

Earlier this year, FPC was forced to sue the DOJ over the Department’s actions to block access to public records and a previous version of the regulations.

New One-Day NICS Check Record Set

A new one-day NICS background check record was set on this year's Black Friday or the day after Thanksgiving. USA Today reports the FBI processed 203,086 background check requests on November 24th. This compares to 185,713 checks last year which had been the previous all-time one-day record.

According to FBI records, four out of the five highest days have been Black Friday. This includes the years 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014. The outlier was the Friday before Christmas 2012. This was two days after then-President Obama said he planned to submit new gun control legislation to Congress in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, CT.

As I always caution, while NICS checks are a stronger indicator of firearm sales, there is not a one-to-one correlation between check and a firearm purchase. A check could be used for the purchase of more than one firearm. Furthermore, in many states, concealed carry permits substitute for the NICS check on a purchase. Finally, NICS background checks are used by some states as part of the carry permit process though I think it probably could be assumed that few of Friday's checks were related to carry permits.