Youtube ^ | 4/13/13 | Daylight Disinfectant
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2013 11:56:46 AM by Nachum
An influential Gun Rights Advocate actually helped write the Background Check Bill coming up before the Senate this coming week. Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, speaking candidly at a GOP gathering on Friday claimed that his staff had actually helped write the bill. He went on to describe how the Bill would be a step in the right direction for gun control advocates. “There’s a Million other checks in there it’s a Christmas Tree,” bragged Gottlieb, “We just hung a Million Ornaments on it.”
A pair of California cities and the state’s Department of Justice are facing a federal lawsuit today because, plaintiffs claim, the police confiscated firearms during investigations but now refuse to return them – even after the subjects of the inquiries were cleared of any wrongdoing.
The Second Amendment Foundation, which has joined gun owners Douglas Churchill and Peter Lau in the lawsuit, say the cities are engaging in “deliberate theft of personal property.”
Second Amendment Foundation Wins Preliminary Injunction V. Omaha Ban On Alien Handgun(NE)
Ammoland ^ | 22 November, 2011 | SAF
Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 8:04:21 AM by marktwain
BELLEVUE, WA –(Ammoland.com)- A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement by the City of Omaha, NE of an ordinance that prohibits legal non-citizens from registering handguns in the city, in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and Armando Pliego Gonzalez.
opposingviews.com ^ | 21 November, 2011 | SAF
Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:01:48 AM by marktwain
BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” claiming that the statute is “vague and ambiguous” in its definition of assault weapons, leading to the arrest of a California man on two different occasions.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the CalGuns Foundation and Brendan John Richards, an honorably-discharged Marine and Iraq war veteran, who was arrested and jailed in May 2010 and August 2011. On both occasions, charges against Richards were dismissed when it was determined that he had not violated the law because firearms in his possession on both occasions were not “assault weapons” as defined by California law. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo.
“It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage. Brendan Richards’ dilemma is a textbook example of why the California statute should be nullified.
sfweekly.com ^ | 18 November, 2011 | Joe Eskenazi
Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:51:42 AM by marktwain
The term “assault weapon” has always rankled Second Amendment absolutists. Handled properly, an umbrella could be an “assault weapon.” Considering the purpose of a weapon, the term “assault weapon” is rather redundant.
In this state it’s also “unconstitutionally vague” according to a lawsuit filed this week by a band of gun rights crusaders.
The plaintiffs in the case, filed Thursday in Oakland, are the Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Brendan John Richards. The latter is an Iraq vet who managed to get himself arrested and his guns impounded — twice. The former are two litigious firearms aficionado groups who have made a cottage industry out of suing cities and states (you may recall the Second Amendment Foundation successfully forcing Muni to accept advertising in which people brandish firearms).
In both of Richards’ confrontations with the law, he and the arresting officer differed on whether the firearms in the ex-Marine’s trunk fit the definition of “assault weapons.” In both cases, Richards lost the argument, was arrested, had his guns taken away, and spent several days in jail while his family ponied up bail money. And, finally, in both cases, weapons experts overruled the arresting officers, declaring Richards’ armory were not “assault weapons” — all charges were dismissed, and Richards got his non-assault weapons back.
Supporters of Montana‘s Firearms Freedom Act are turning up the heat on the federal government in their fight to push Congress back into the box set up by the “enumerated powers” the U.S. Constitution allocates to Washington.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and MSSA President Gary Marbut of Missoula have filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of their lawsuit that seeks affirmation of the state law.The MFFA “is designed to test the power of Congress to regulate everything without limits under the narrow power given to Congress in the Constitution to ‘regulate commerce … among the states,’” according to a report today from the plaintiffs.Learn what you can do about your nation. Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah‘s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewalThe dispute isn’t complicated: the state law “declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the Commerce Clause,” because those items are not in “interstate commerce.”It’s been so popular that besides the original law in Montana, seven other states also have adopted their own versions of the same plan over the course of one legislation session for the states.
Story continues below
‘Constitutional carry’ and the challenges it presentsSeattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 29 September, 2010 | Dave WorkmanPosted on Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:29:41 AM by marktwainIts advocates call it “Constitutional Carry,” and three states now have it, Vermont, Alaska and Arizona; the full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms without the necessity of a license or permit of any kind.
This past weekend at the Second Amendment Foundation’s 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference more about GRPC in a moment, author and gun rights advocate Alan Korwin told the audience in San Francisco, “I’m from Arizona, and I don’t need no stinking permit.” For several years, Korwin has written a book on Arizona gun laws, same as this writer publishes a book on Washington gun laws.Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to affect state and local governments, those peaceful citizens who choose to exercise that right may be on remarkably firm legal ground, especially when it comes to interacting with the police.
Korwin didn’t say so, but he doesn’t have to. Especially in states with strong state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provisions – like Washington – citizens packing pistols is just something the hoplophobes, and police who respond to their hysterical calls to 911, are probably going to have to “get over it.”Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.