Legal Action

Our amazing members & generous donors make our legal action and lawsuits possible. 

Recent CGF Lawsuits

  • Pena v. Horan is a federal Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to California DOJ's Handgun Roster laws and "microstamping" requirement. We argue, among other things, that the Roster and related regulatory scheme is a de facto ban on handguns in common use for lawful purposes.
  • Sharp v. Becerra is a constitutional challenge to the DOJ's defective "bullet button assault weapon" registration system and failures to perform their duties that prevented many Californians from registering their firearms before July 1, 2018, thus denying them exemption from many serious criminal laws, and a petition for writ of mandate to require the DOJ to register their firearms as many individuals tried and intended to do before July 1.

  • Linton v. Becerra is a federal Second Amendment, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional challenge to the State's laws and policies that prevent people who had their firearm rights restored in other states from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition in California.
  • Van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff is a Fourteenth and Second Amendment constitutional challenge to Sheriff Sniff's CCW policies and practices that prevent people otherwise eligible from applying for or being issued a handgun carry license for self-defense.
  • May 24, 2019 - VICTORY! United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order permanently enjoining Riverside County, CA from having a policy and practice of preventing legal U.S. residents from exercising their right to apply for a carry license

Recent CGF Amicus Briefs

  • Cheeseman v. Polillo: Seeks to overturn New Jersey's "justifiable need" (i.e., "good cause") requirement that is a de facto ban on law-abiding individuals' fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to carry outside their home.
  • NYSRPA, et al. v. City of New York (merits stage): CGF argued that the "Constitution itself has done the categorizing and those rights covered ‘shall not be infringed.’ Period," and that so-called “tiers” of scrutiny used by courts are a “wholly judicial invention” that “should be viewed with skepticism when applied to conduct directly protected by the constitutional text.”