Big News For California’s Gun Owners: U.S. Supreme Court Set To Hear The First Major 2nd Amendment Case In Ten Years.

Springfield, VA - January 24, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- the United States Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari in NYSRP v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief.

This case challenges New York City’s near-prohibition on possessing or transporting handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade.

GOA’s executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, “Gun owners across the country — especially those ‘behind enemy lines’ living in anti-gun states — are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a ‘balancing’ test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms.”

In fact, GOA’s brief specifically challenges the “balancing” approach taken by judges in the lower courts.

GOA’s brief states, “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test … [where judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment.”

“GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution — and the text of the Second Amendment — rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” Pratt concluded.

GOA’s brief can be viewed here.

SAF, Calguns Seek Supreme Court Reversal of 9th Circuit Ruling

By Second Amendment Foundation



Bellevue, WA - December 22, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a brief seeking U.S. Supreme Court review and ultimate reversal of a ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their long-running challenge of California's waiting period requirement on additional firearm transactions for people who already own guns.

The case is known as Silvester v. Becerra, which challenges the Golden State's 10-day waiting period on firearms transfers to gun-owning citizens.

"Rights delayed are rights denied," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "By defending this waiting period, the state of California is essentially saying gun owners are potential criminals who are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent, which is silly because they already own guns.

"The Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAF's 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, is not a second-class right," he added. "Nor are gun owners in California, or anywhere else in the Ninth Circuit, second-class citizens who must be treated differently than any other citizen simply because they wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms."

Gottlieb said the Silvester case "simply begs for attention from the Supreme Court."

"It is nonsense for the state to enforce a waiting period on someone who has passed a background check and who already owns other firearms and may have a concealed carry permit," Gottlieb observed.

As noted in the brief, "there is no suggestion that the California legislature ever considered or addressed evidence regarding the need for a cooling-off period either generally or, more relevantly, for those who already own a gun."

"It's time for the Supreme Court to straighten out this problem," Gottlieb concluded.

The 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.


See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site

Rep. Thompson Announces Opposition to So-Called “Sportsmen’s Package”

Source: House Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA, 5th)

Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Mike Thompson (CA-05), Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and two-time co-chair of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, issued the following statement on the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act, following a markup on the legislation:

“The SHARE Act is being billed as a ‘sportsmen’s package’, but the drawbacks for outdoor recreationists in this bill outweigh the benefits,” said Chairman Thompson. “The bill includes a number of anti-conservation provisions, jeopardizes lives by weakening gun regulations, and opens up law enforcement officers personally to frivolous litigation.

“The bill would give States the ability to override federal fishing rules in federally-managed waters. This could be devastating not only to species, but also to the long-term viability of fishing industries and the countless jobs they sustain. Overriding the science that drives fishing in federal waters is short-sighted and counter to our economic interests. California’s National Marine Sanctuaries alone generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing.

“The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a long-standing program that has been extremely effective in leveraging non-federal funds to protect, restore, and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. However, this bill would prohibit NAWCA from using funds for land acquisition, one of the core purposes of NAWCA: to protect and conserve wetlands for public benefit. Conservation projects like the California Delta and the Suisun Wetlands have been greatly enhanced because of NAWCA land acquisition. The beauty and diversity of wetlands like these belongs to all of us and must be protected. Wetlands across our country also support a $2.4 billion recreation industry fueled by hunters, birdwatchers, boaters, photographers, and many more.

“This bill would also deregulate the sale of firearm silencers. Advocates of this provision claim it serves to protect gun-owners’ hearing, a laughable assertion if the consequences weren’t so serious. Silencers do not actually silence gunfire, despite what we’ve seen in movies, they simply disperse the sound. We’ve all become too familiar with mass shootings in this country, and the deregulation of silencers could take future active shooter situations from bad to worse, preventing law enforcement from pinpointing active shooters.

“Further, the SHARE Act would open up our law enforcement officers to personal legal liability for doing their jobs when they inquiry about interstate firearm transportation during routine stops. This is absolutely ridiculous—we need to be making law enforcement’s job easier, not opening up individual officers to lawsuits.

“I deeply regret that my colleagues in the majority party have failed to take into account the priorities of hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists while crafting this ‘sportsmen’s package.’ I hope they will listen to the folks they are trying to help and make significant changes to the bill. Until then, I will continue to strongly oppose the legislation."

Larsen Opposes Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

Source: House Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA, 2nd)

Washington, D.C. - September 13, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) released the following statement on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017:

“I oppose H.R. 38,” said Larsen. “Voters and advocates across Washington state tell me that making our communities safer from gun violence is a high priority. However, this bill would do the opposite. It would force Washington to turn a blind eye to individuals from states with laxer permitting standards who carry a concealed weapon in our state. I am also concerned this bill would make it harder for law enforcement officials to do their already difficult jobs.”

“H.R. 38 tosses out the window laws that Washington state residents have fought hard for and overwhelmingly approved,” said Margy Lavelle, Chair of Safe and Sane Skagit. “Thank you to Rep. Larsen for standing up for your constituents and opposing H.R. 38. Lives are at stake on this one.”

More information about this bill can be found at the links below:


The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Gun Owners of America: We Need Roy Moore in the Senate to Secure Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Cornyn Introduces the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” in the Senate

Goodlatte Statement on Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Source: House Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th)



Washington, D.C. - September 12, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Congressman Richard Hudson (R-NC). This bipartisan legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee.

“Law-abiding citizens should not forfeit their Second Amendment rights simply by traveling to another state. The premise of H.R. 38 is simple – if you are eligible to carry a concealed firearm in your state of residence, you should be able to carry a concealed firearm in another state that allows individuals to do so. This bill does not impede upon or change the authority of state and local governments to decide where citizens may or may not carry firearms. Protecting our constitutional rights is the greatest responsibility of any Member of Congress, and this includes protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms to ensure safety for themselves or their family. I look forward to working toward the passage of H.R. 38 in the House," said Congressman Goodlatte.

H.R. 38 amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

Federal Judge Denies Chicago Motion In SAF-Backed Gun Shop Case

Source: Illinois State Rifle Association



Bellevue, WA - September 3, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A federal court judge in Illinois has denied a City of Chicago motion for summary judgment and refused to dismiss a case challenging a ban of firearms sales within city limits that is backed by the Second Amendment Foundation.

It is the latest in a string of court battles between Chicago and SAF, causing SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb to observe, “We’ve already beat Chicago three times, in the McDonald case before the Supreme Court, and both Ezell 1 and Ezell 2 before the federal court of appeals. I’m reminded of the folk song by Peter, Paul and Mary that asked, ‘When will they ever learn’?”

The case involves a proposed gun shop called Second Amendment Arms (SAA), owned by R. Joseph Franzese, who submitted an application for a business license in July 2010. The city contends that the application was for an address in an area not zoned for commercial use, but Franzese argues that he was not advised about the zoning and that it had been advertised as commercial property. Besides, he contended that the city’s prohibition on gun sales “would have blocked (their) efforts no matter where (they) chose.”

“The City of Chicago under Rahm Emanuel is trying to be too clever by half,” Gottlieb said. “We would have thought by now that they would have ceased this pattern of spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on stubborn litigation, but the city seems determined to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the Second Amendment.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., set Sept. 28 as the next date to discuss damages for the plaintiff in this case, which is known as Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago.

“Since losing its gun ban fight in the Supreme Court’s 2010 McDonald ruling,” Gottlieb noted, “Chicago has been digging its heels in deeper and deeper, throwing every kind of legal roadblock it could in an effort to delay what seems inevitable. The city has got to follow the law and the constitution, and as long as they keep fighting, we’ll keep suing.

“That’s what winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time is all about,” he concluded.

The 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.

Sen. Lee and Rep. King introduce enhanced Pro-Gun Legislation

National Association for Gun Rights

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Steve King (R-IA) introduced companion bills to remove suppressors, or “silencers,” from federal regulation. The Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act of 2017 (SHUSH Act), introduced as S. 1505 and H.R. 3139, further deregulates suppressors by completely removing them from all federal regulation – going further than the Hearing Protection Act.

“Sen. Lee and Rep. King are champions for gun rights, and their joint legislation displays their dedication to restoring the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “Most in Congress who support silencer freedom want full deregulation, and that’s exactly what Lee and King are doing with S. 1505 and H.R. 3139.”

Previously introduced legislation, the Hearing Protection Act, would treat suppressors as long guns under federal law, still requiring a NICS background check to purchase an accessory. The SHUSH Act removes silencers from all federal control, providing the full deregulation supported by the majority of Second Amendment supporters in Congress.

“Suppressors are accessories and should be treated just like magazines, scopes or gun stocks,” said Brown. “Pro-gun Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Congress has the opportunity to pass this meaningful, pro-gun legislation and we should ask for nothing less. Treating an accessory the same as a gun sets a bad precedence for anti-gun legislators to further regulate other accessories in the future.”

“We’re happy and privileged to be able to work with Sen. Lee and Rep. King on this legislation, and excited to continue pushing forward,” Brown concluded.