News

Earlier today, the California Department of Justice released proposed “emergency” regulations on the new total possessory ban on “large-capacity” magazines under SB 1446 (2016) and Proposition 63, passed in November.
All gun owners who possess “large-capacity” magazines in California -- and all gun owners who possess “10/30” or similarly reduced-capacity magazines in California -- need to read the text of the proposed regulations:

1. Notice of Proposed Emergency Action

1. Text of Regulations

1. Finding of Emergency

1. Large-Capacity Magazine Permit Application (adopt)

1. Large-Capacity Magazine Report (adopt)

1. STD 399 Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement

1. Large-Capacity Magazine Permit Application (repeal)

If you would like to support CGF’s pro-gun legal action by making a tax-deductible donation, please do so here.

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.

Even with a Trump victory in the 2016 Presidential election, a perfect storm seems to be forming against those who wish to restore the Second Amendment.

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.