Press Releases

The plaintiffs believe that California’s confiscatory magazine ban is a taking of their property without just compensation and violates their constitutional rights. 

SACRAMENTO, CA (June 13, 2017) — Attorneys for individual gun owners and civil rights advocacy organizations filed a motion and brief seeking a temporary injunction in a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The case, Wiese, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). A copy of the lawsuit’s key filings, including the motion, can be viewed or downloaded here.

"Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation, a group that advocates for gun owners and gun rights, said the law puts the onus on licensed firearms dealers — who have to broker any sale through a private-party transfer — to verify that the buyer and seller are both in law enforcement and can make the sale."

Via The San Diego Union Tribune:

FRESNO, CA (April 28, 2017) — Today, attorneys for 7 individual gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “on their own behalves, and as representatives on behalf of the class of individuals who are or would be affected by the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban.”

The civil rights case, captioned as William Wiese, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF)

SAN FRANCISCO (April 6, 2017)­­­­­­ – On April 4, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc (by the “full court”) in the case of Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (formerly captioned Silvester v. Kamala Harris), a federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of California’s irrational waiting period laws imposed on law-abiding existing gun owners and people licensed to carry handguns in public by their sheriff or police chief. 

At 1:30 PM PST, The Calguns Foundation is back up in front of the Ninth Circuit to argue that the government should not have the power to ban gun stores in Teixeira v. County of Alameda. 

As you know, we scored a major victory last year when a 3-judge panel of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to firearm retailers, saying in its ruling that “Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and to bear arms.”

SAN FRANCISCO (February 13, 2017)­­­­­­ – Today, attorneys for The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking en banc (full-court) review of a wrongly-decided opinion that overturned the trial court’s judgment that California’s Waiting Period Laws violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs, who is also an individual plaintiff in the case, issued the following statement:

(San Francisco) – Three Second Amendment civil rights groups are hailing a new Second Amendment decision issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. The opinion, issued this morning in the case of Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, held that the Second Amendment right of gun purchasers extends to protect gun retailers from being shut out of an area.

Under the challenged Alameda County ordinance, a new gun store must be located at least 500 feet away from any residentially zoned district, elementary, middle or high school, pre-school or day care center, another firearms sales business, or places where liquor is sold or served.

SAN FRANCISCO (December 14, 2016)­­­­­­ – In response to today’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning the trial court in the case of Jeff Silvester, et al., v. Attorney General Kamala Harris, a federal Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit challenging the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws, Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation, has released the following statement:

SAN FRANCISCO (December 14, 2016)­­­­­­ – In response to today’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning the trial court in the case of Jeff Silvester, et al., v. Attorney General Kamala Harris, a federal Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit challenging the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws, Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation, has released the following statement:
“Today, this panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proven to be more interested in their own policy preferences than the Constitution and the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
In its decision, the Court bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed weapon as he buys another gun at retail needs to be 'cooled off' for 10 days before taking possession of another constitutionally-protected firearm.
That holding is not even rational, much less should it survive any kind of heightened constitutional scrutiny compelled by the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald opinions.
After undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which held the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws to be irrational and unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers.
Today’s opinion is but one of a growing string of wrongly-decided Second Amendment cases and serves to underscore that, if the fundamental, individual, Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to survive as something more than a second-class right, the Supreme Court will need to say so once more.
This fight is far from over. Our legal team is hard at work exploring all legal options to advance this case and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
Silvester v. Harris is supported by civil rights organizations The Calguns Foundation (Sacramento, CA) and Second Amendment Foundation (Bellevue, WA).
The Ninth Circuit’s decision can be viewed or downloaded at www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/silvester-v-harris/.
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.

The case, backed by The Calguns Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, challenges a State of California law that bans handgun advertising outside of licensed firearm dealerships.

SACRAMENTO (December 5, 2016)­­­­­­ – Today, attorneys for 5 gun California dealers have filed a motion for summary judgment to strike down a state law that bans the on-site advertising of handguns outside of gun store in a federal First Amendment civil rights. California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, bans gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles.