Posts Tagged lawfare

Anti Gun Group Now Targeting NSSF

From Bearing Arms:

“Luckily, we at Brady know how to fight the NSSF because we’ve been fighting the NRA for years, and we’re seeing the disgraceful end of their organization play out because of our dedicated work. We may know their tricks, but we’re going to need all the support we can get if we’re going to overcome another extremist gun lobby group, and that’s why I’m reaching out today,” reads the email written under the name Kris Brown, President of Brady.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Media Uses Headlines About Rahimi Case To Create A Narrative

From Ammoland:

The dominant media headlines ignore the crux of the case. In headline after headline, they claim the case is whether people who commit domestic violence can be disarmed. Nothing in the case challenges the power of the government to disarm people who are convicted of domestic violence. Rahimi was never convicted of domestic violence.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

SAF Gottlieb On The Current Gun Rights Legal Battles

From Cam and Company:

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Judge Scolds ATF For FFL Revocation

From Ammoland:

In his order, Judge Cogburn had no choice but to rule in favor of the ATF, stating: “Here, the Court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Petitioner violated the GCA. Thus, under Section 923(f)(3), the ATF was authorized to revoke Petitioner’s license.”

“Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Wilson, who sold firearms as a side business, sold the guns to his own stepdaughter. Nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Wilson’s conduct of selling two guns on one occasion to his own stepdaughter affected public safety or hampered the ATF’s ability to reduce violent crime, which is of course one of the purposes of the GCA. Of course, the ATF has been delegated the authority to revoke the license of a licensee who has willfully violated any provision of the GCA, even if the revocation seems a heavy-handed punishment in response to the violation at issue. Still, this sort of heavy-handed exercise of revocations, as opposed to warnings or suspensions, foments antipathy for government agencies,” Judge Cogburn wrote.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Blue States See Civilian Gun Ranges As A Threat

From The Truth About Guns:

After municipal and environmental laws failed, town officials approached Vermont State Senator Phillip Baruth for help. He quickly sponsored a bill making it a felony to operate a “paramilitary training camp” within the state. 

Baruth, a liberal Democrat from Burlington, admitted he introduced the bill after Pawlet officials complained there was no state law that they could use to force Banyai to shutter his private ranges on his private property. 

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Washington AG Now Harassing Gun Stores Via Lawfare

From The Truth About Guns:

Now we are learning that the Attorney General’s office is widening the scope of their investigation, not based on a documented, willful violation by a retailer, but rather scooping up all records and communications from wholesalers nationwide.
 
The latest target, Davidson’s, Inc, is an Arizona-based wholesaler that supplies retailers nationwide. The state, through its Consumer Investigative Demand (CID), has asked Davidson’s to supply all invoices, transfers, and communications of all matters with Washington-based firearms retailers going back to January 1, 2022. That’s is six months before the ban took effect and three months before the ban was even passed as law.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

JSD Supply Wants Injunction Against ATF

From Ammoland:

JSD Supply sued the ATF after the Bureau issued the company a cease-and-desist order demanding that it stop selling parts and kits on its website. The government insisted that selling unfinished firearms frames and parts constituted selling unserialized firearms without a federal firearms license (FFL), even if the customer purchased the items separately. The ATF called this “structuring.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gun Manufacturers Want Mexican Lawsuit Dismissed

From Reuters:

A U.S. judge on Tuesday questioned whether allowing Mexico to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels would open the door to other countries suing them, including Russia over firearms used by Ukrainians in the ongoing war.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gun Rights Community Needs More Group Defense When Attacked

From Ammoland:

If anything, when Everytown comes after a Jimenez Arms, or when a Letitia James wants to shut down a pro-Second Amendment group, the entire Second Amendment community needs to stand up and be counted. Anti-Second Amendment extremists need to be made to understand that messing with one gun owner – or one part of the Second Amendment community – will generate a response from all of us.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

California Uses Texas Abortion Tactic To Go After Guns

From The Office of the Governor:

Alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta, legislators and local leaders, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced a new package of meaningful gun safety legislation to expand the state’s nation-leading protections against gun violence. The package includes a measure the Governor called for in December to help hold the gun industry accountable through private lawsuits, and a bill that would prohibit advertising of certain categories of weapons to children.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Remington Insurer Pays $73 Million To Sandyhook Families

From Bearing Arms:

Suing gun makers over their marketing practices has indeed become more common since the Supreme Court declined to hear Remington’s appeal in 2019, with gun control activists and anti-gun politicians from New Jersey to Mexico using the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling as the main legal argument in seeking to blame gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their products.

The settlement with the Sandy Hook families certainly won’t do anything to discourage future lawsuits, though the Supreme Court will have another chance to weigh in on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was approved on a bipartisan basis by Congress in 2005 specifically to stop this type of litigation.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Twelve States Back Foreign Country In Lawsuit Against American Businesses

From Guns.com:

The 26-page brief, submitted by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon, as well as the District of Columbia, supports a controversial $10 billion lawsuit brought by Mexico against some of the biggest names in guns including Barrett, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson. 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Passing A Law Doesn’t Mean People Will Obey

From Reason:

Media outlets love reporting the results of polling on hot-button policy issues, but they rarely tell you if the people supporting proposed legislation (especially when it’s restrictive) are the same people who would be affected by it. That matters in several important ways, not least of which is that getting a law passed is not the same thing as getting people to obey. Nowhere does that matter more than in the heated debate over gun laws.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Muslim Woman Sues Gun Range Over Safety Rules

From Bearing Arms:

Rania Barakat and her husband went to Frontier Justice on Jan. 1, 2020, to shoot at its gun range. According to the lawsuit, Barakat was told she would not be allowed to use the range unless she removed her hijab, a religious head covering worn by some Muslim women.

Frontier Justice officials said in a statement posted on Facebook that the dress code rules, which have been in place since the store opened in 2015, are designed to protect people from being burned by expended brass and are not discriminatory.

The gun range requires shooters to remove all head coverings except baseball caps facing forward. A store manager explained that shrapnel could cause the hijab and skin to burn.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Pros and Cons of Mandatory Firearms Insurance

From Ammoland:

Anti-gun politicians in New York are proposing mandatory liability insurance for some firearms owners. Let me give you the pitch and let’s see how you react. Yes, this is a test of sorts, so you might want to have some coffee before you dive in.

The theory is that honest gun owners cause crime. The law holds gun owners liable for everything that happens. Gun stores and gun manufacturers are held liable too. They are even liable for the actions of criminals who steal guns until the guns are reported stolen. I didn’t see any first party indemnification, so if you try and stop a robber who is stealing your guns and he shoots you with one of your own guns then you might be held liable. To sum up the theory, society would be safer because criminals will be disarmed after honest gun owners lock up their guns. The politicians say we would finally have peace on our streets, and who could object to that.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments