Two Suits Against the CA AG

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190703/california-injunction-request-to-be-filed-in-lawsuit-challenging-california-ammo-law?fbclid=IwAR2tu9987vDYKCamS-oC4izLI_eNKZG2PVRXFRT8jAynEm5SmcQ5CrSbcDo

 

Quote

CRPA, with the support of NRA, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago with the filing of the Rhode v. Becerra case. The lead plaintiff in the case is Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode. The legal team already received a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same great judge who gave us “Freedom Week” with the ruling in the Duncan case, challenging California's magazine restrictions. Prior to seeking an injunction in the Rhode case it was necessary to wait for the law to take effect. Now that it has, and the infringements and issues have been documented for use as evidence, the plan is to file an injunction next week. 

The problems encountered since the new ammunition background check system was put into effect on July 1 have far surpassed what was predicted. The overall process for a customer to purchase ammunition is taking far longer than anticipated. DOJ is imposing unnecessary and costly record keeping requirements and clearances on vendors accessing the DOJ’s records. Countless customers are being turned away because they do not have sufficient documentation even if they have a California driver’s license. Law abiding people cannot get ammunition they need and businesses are suffering from this extreme regulatory burden. 

Newsom’s Prop 63 law is a business-killing nightmare and a red-tape charade that is useless as a crime prevention measure. This is a ridiculously excessive burden on Second Amendment rights. This burden may well be by political design, as a way to cripple business, which in turn provides less access or alternatively artificially inflates costs because of the cost of compliance. It is part of elitists’ efforts to eliminate the “gun culture” – which they hate.

If you have faced problems in buying ammunition, and particularly if you are an ammunition sales vendor having problems with the process, please click here to email the legal team.  Click here to review all of the materials about what these laws require and the lawsuit challenging them. 

Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/gun-rights-groups-sue-over-age-ban?fbclid=IwAR236Kt-H0WmVZN_wW3FbQeNxihcheizMtd2626rb6W6yTThdSw_JsY4ij4

 

Quote

SAN DIEGO, CA (JULY 1, 2019) — A new federal lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Diego today, announced two individual plaintiffs and the institutional parties to the case, advocacy organizations The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The case, captioned Jones, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., challenges on Second Amendment grounds the State of California’s discriminatory age-based general ban on firearm purchases by legal, law-abiding adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21. The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel John W. Dillon of Carlsbad, California-based Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP. A copy of the court filing can be accessed at www.firearmspolicy.org/jones.

“Once individuals turn eighteen, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” explained Dillon. “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.”

Adults who are not violent criminals or mentally ill should have access to the full scope of Second Amendment rights, the plaintiffs say. “The individuals involved in this case are adults, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms, and who want to exercise their right to purchase firearms,” Dillon said. “The State’s actions and policies to deny them their fundamental rights are unconstitutional and wrong.”

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and adults over the age of eighteen but under twenty-one are not second-class people,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “This case seeks to restore the Second Amendment human rights of legal adults who are being prevented from exercising them because of unconstitutional laws, policies, practices, customs that the State of California defendants are known to enforce.”

“The Second Amendment fully applies to all non-prohibited adults, period,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “California cannot deny a fundamental, enumerated right to adults over the age of 18 that have no disqualifying criminal or mental health history.”

“We’re going to court against this law because it clearly violates the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When a citizen turns 18 years old in this country, he or she is considered a legal adult, free to exercise their rights under the Constitution, and that certainly should include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But this California law turns that concept on its ear, with very few exceptions, such as possessing a valid hunting license. Our individual plaintiffs do not hunt, and have no intention of pretending to be hunters, just to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Californians who are at least 18 years old but not yet 21, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms due to criminal or mental health history, and who have been denied their right to purchase a firearm due to their age, should contact attorney John W. Dillon or the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or 855-252-4510 (24/7/365).