News

The time is NOW

If you’ve ever wondered when would be a good time to give to The Calguns Foundation, right NOW would be a good time.
Although it’s been a disappointing summer (to say the least) for gun rights activists, CGF has multiple pro-Second Amendment lawsuits working their way through the legal system that could take away the anti-gunners’ momentum.
Currently, we are entrenched in these ongoing, important lawsuits that seek to:


  • Strike down the DOJ's Handgun Roster and microstamping.

  • Eliminate the 10 Day Waiting Period for CCW licensees and current gun owners.

  • Allow gun dealers to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech in non-misleading advertising.

In addition to our legal work in the courts, we’ve revamped our education and research efforts.
We are currently assembling our county-by-county CCW database via our Sunshine Initiative, where we will analyze county sheriff’s policies and practices and see whether they’re infringing on your civil rights.
We’re also in the production stages of our new documentary series, where we tell the stories of successful CGF plaintiffs from our previous cases, illustrating that with the right team we CAN make a difference in Second Amendment litigation.
September is ending...it’s time to wake up.
Make a contribution to our pro-gun programs TODAY.
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]


CGF Lawyers Use California’s New Gun Control Laws Against the State of California in Argument to Strike Down ‘Waiting Period Laws’

In a recent letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for plaintiffs Jeffrey Silvester, Brandon Combs, The Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation argue that a new gun control law passed this year undermines the State’s defense of the ‘waiting period laws’ struck down by federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii following a 3-day bench trial.
Silvester v. Harris, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period, is pending a decision by the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that heard oral arguments in the case in February.
Earlier this year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1235, authored by Kevin de León, which (in part) requires that the Department of Justice implement an ‘instant’ point-of-sale background check process for ammunition purchases that relies on the State’s “Automated Firearms System” firearm and gun owner registry as well as its database of known armed and prohibited persons, also known as “APPS”.
By utilizing this method, SB 1235 says it will “ensure that only law-abiding, responsible Californians who appear in the Automated Firearms System are able to purchase ammunition for their legally owned firearms while violent felons and the dangerously mentally ill who appear in the Armed Prohibited Persons System are not.”
Unfortunately for Kamala Harris, those legislative findings don’t square with her arguments in Silvester.
In our 10-day waiting period case, the State has repeatedly argued that its systems are so unreliable and deficient that they still need a full 10-day waiting period for individuals who have a CCW issued by a sheriff or police chief, a Certificate of Eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, and those who already have firearms registered to them and are not prohibited persons.
At trial, we proved them wrong.
And if the background check system mandated by SB 1235 – which is, in essence, the same system the District Court ordered the DOJ to implement for known gun owners – is good enough to keep ammunition out of the hands of “violent felons and the dangerously mentally ill,” why wouldn’t it work for guns, too?
The answer is: It would.
You can read our letter to the Ninth Circuit here.
Donate today to assist the brief.
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]


CGF Study Finds Assault Weapons Bans Do Not Pass 'Rational Basis' Legal Scrutiny

A paper funded by The Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition examining whether Assault Weapons Bans can survive ‘rational basis’ scrutiny in the courts has been published in ConLawNOW.
The author, Clayton Cramer, is a noted historian whose work was cited in both District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
Cramer concluded that “There is no way to hold that AW bans which deny a fundamental right, as Heller determined the Second Amendment to protect, survives the ‘rational basis’ standard of scrutiny.”
Legislation will pass the rational basis test, Cramer explains, if the court finds it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Because AW bans apply to a segment of firearms that are among the least criminally used, are arbitrarily applied, call for irrational punishment lengths, and target a politically unpopular class of people, they are not rationally based.
While the bans (such as California’s Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989) cite a threat to the health, safety, and security of the public as justification for their existence, the banned weapons are seldom criminally misused. In a study performed to assess the effectiveness of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, the authors had a difficult time “’discerning the effects of the ban’ at least partly because ‘the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country” before the 1994 ban.’”
AW bans focus primarily on name and model numbers rather than functional characteristics, since weapons banned are “functionally indistinguishable from sporting arms that have been used for more than a century by civilians in the U.S. with semiautomatic, detachable magazine feed." This arbitrary application of the law makes such bans vulnerable to an equal protection challenge.
Also, the lack of distinctive qualities makes it difficult to define specifically what an assault weapon is. In fact, Steve Helsley, a California DOJ official, wrote in a 1988 memo:

“Consequently, I believe that assault weapons cannot be defined in a workable way, by size, caliber, action type or magazine capacity. . . . Unless a realistic definition can be developed for ‘assault weapons,’ we should leave the issue alone.”

Cramer also found that the punishments associated with violating California’s AW ban (either the possession or the importation of an assault weapon) involve lengthier prison terms than possession of a machine gun, possession of a hand grenade, or forcible rape.
In addition, those crafting AW bans often display a “bigotry” toward gun manufacturers and owners, indicating that the pursuit of AW bans could be motivated by bias. After he signed the SAFE Act in 2013, New York Governor Cuomo essentially told the law’s opponents they weren’t welcome in his state:
“Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

You can read the entirety of Cramer’s study here.
Please consider contributing today to further sponsor future Second Amendment-related studies.
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]


The Calguns Foundation Issues Statement Regarding Ninth Circuit Decision in Right-to-Carry Second Amendment Litigation

SAN FRANCISCO – In response to the August 15, 2016, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the consolidated cases of Peruta v. San Diego and Adam Richards, et al. v. Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto, The Calguns Foundation issued the following statement:

While the Ninth Circuit’s decision to deny reviewing its wrongly-decided opinion is disappointing, it is far from surprising.
And though the outcome of Richards v. Prieto is disappointing, CGF is absolutely committed to advancing Second Amendment rights.
The Calguns Foundation is already hard at work updating our Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative research and working on pre-litigation planning.
And as part of our important ongoing program to help law-abiding Californians carry for self-defense, we are currently acquiring and reviewing the policies of all California sheriffs and major city police chiefs for unlawful or unconstitutional carry license policies to cooperatively remedy or litigate.
The Richards v. Prieto right-to-carry litigation was always about securing a meaningful and accessible way to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense in public, and The Calguns Foundation will continue doing just that in and out of the courts.

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.


Judge Rules 2nd Amendment Rights are Not Second Class Rights, State of CA Fights Back

The Calguns Foundation scored a major victory earlier this year in Teixeira v. Alameda County in which the Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to protect gun retailers from being shut out of an area by government zoning ordinances.
But now that ruling is at risk.
Alameda County and the State of California are petitioning the court to rehear the case.
They didn’t like the ruling of the three-judge panel, so they want even more judges to weigh in on the issue.
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, preschool or day care center, another firearms sales business, or places where liquor is sold or served.
But, according to a scientific study conducted by CGF and other plaintiffs, which included a geographic study of the entirety of Alameda County, there are no parcels within the county that meet the ordinance’s requirements.
Writing for the majority, Judge O’Scannlain held:

“[The] right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees…”

“If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear. Indeed, where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well….Alameda County has offered nothing to undermine our conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.” If you can’t tell already, this case is integral to our fundamental rights. We have already won once, but we need to be prepared to fight again if the court grants the wishes of Alameda County and the State.
Please make a tax-deductible donation to support Texeira v. Alameda County.
Help ensure that we have the resources to fight back against an ordinance that drove the ability to exercise gun rights out of an entire geographic area. 
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]