Second Amendment Civil Rights Groups Will Ask Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Decision on California’s Waiting Period Gun Control Laws
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.”
Just a few minutes ago, our lawyers filed the opening brief in our important pro-gun lawsuit Doe, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al.
Put simply, this lawsuit challenges the California DOJ's absurd position that it can make up the law whenever, and however, it wants.
CGF, Others Seek Review by Full 9th Circuit Court in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California Gun Waiting Period Laws
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: