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.
Tracy Rifle and Pistol, a firearm retailer and indoor shooting range located in San Joaquin County, was cited by Attorney General Kamala Harris’ Department of Justice for having pictures of three handguns in window signs that can be seen outside the store. An adjacent window image at Tracy Rifle, which shows a photograph of an AR-15 rifle, was not cited by the DOJ.
The lawsuit claims that the State’s restriction violates First Amendment rights by severely restricting truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. “Section 26820 imposes a content- and speaker-based burden on protected expression that is, in practice, viewpoint-discriminatory, and imposes an intolerable burden on the right of firearms dealers to advertise accurate information about the sale of handguns,” the lawsuit’s complaint alleges.
“The First Amendment prevents the government from telling businesses it disfavors that they can’t engage in truthful advertising,” said lead counsel Bradley Benbrook. “This case follows a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting such disfavored businesses from that type of censorship.”
In a prior order denying a preliminary injunction in the case, Federal Eastern District of California Judge Troy L. Nunley said that, “On balance – based on the arguments and evidence currently before the Court – the Court also finds it is more likely than not that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.”
Though the case doesn’t claim a Second Amendment violation, plaintiffs do argue that commercial advertisement of products and services that are themselves held to be protected under the constitution — whether abortion, contraceptives, or guns — is especially clearly protected under the First Amendment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group as well as Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.
The State of California also filed a motion for summary judgment in the case today. The cross-motions for summary judgment in Tracy Rifle and Pistol LLC, et al. v. Kamala Harris, et al., will be heard before Judge Nunley at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 12, 2016.
The new case filings can be viewed at www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/trap-v-harris.
The lawsuit is being supported by Second Amendment civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as well as firearm industry association California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

---

WATCH: About TRAP vs. Kamala Harris
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

---

Support Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Attorney General Kamala Harris with a tax-deductible donation:

[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]

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.

The lawsuit, which challenges special exemptions to California’s “Gun-Free School Zone Act” for retired government employees, is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
LOS ANGELES (August 8, 2016) – A civil rights lawsuit challenging a special, legislatively-created exemption to the “California Gun-Free School Zone Act” for retired government employees as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following Central District of California Federal District Court Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell’s August 5 order granting the State of California’s motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit, filed in April by 11 individuals and 4 nonprofit civil rights organizations, argues that the state’s many special statutory exemptions to gun laws for retired “peace officers” are a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights.
Judge O’Connell’s August 5 order held that the plaintiffs and retied peace officers are “sufficiently similarly situated to establish an equal protection claim” under the Equal Protection Clause. But, the Court held, review of “the Retired Peace Officer Exemption does not trigger heightened Scrutiny” because the “only group the Act treats differently is retired peace officers based on their status as former law enforcements officers.”
The Court’s order said that “the government interest here is one of private protection and self-defense” for the retired government employees, and, “[t]herefore, allowing retired peace officers an exemption from the general ban of carrying concealed weapons on school property is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring their protection.”
In its conclusion, the Court found that the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Retired Peace Officer Exemption is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause cannot be cured by amendment because so long as the government has an interest in protecting retired peace officers, it will survive rational basis scrutiny.”
The Plaintiffs believe that, should the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause be so narrowly construed as to allow special exemptions like this one, millions of law-abiding people will be disenfranchised from their Second Amendment rights and continuously face political attacks with the support of government employee special interest groups like those who supported California Senate Bill 707, including the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Fraternal Order of Police, California State Lodge, Peace Officers Research Association, Riverside Sheriffs’ Association, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Santa Ana Police Officers Association, and others.
According to institutional plaintiff Firearms Policy Foundation, the lawsuit’s purpose is to strike down as unconstitutional a number of exemptions that shield retired “peace officers” from the criminal provisions of California Penal Code Section 626.9, otherwise known as the “Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995”, because retired “peace officers” and regular law-abiding people should be treated the same under the Equal Protection Clause.
More information about Garcia v. Harris, including relevant case filings, can be viewed or downloaded on the lawsuit’s Web site at SB707lawsuit.com.

(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.
But, according to a scientific study conducted by the plaintiffs that included a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) study of the entirety of Alameda County, there are no parcels within the county that meet the ordinance’s requirements.
That, plaintiffs argued, effectively constitutes a ban on the opening of gun stores and an infringement of Second Amendment rights.
“We’re very happy to see the Court take a very principled and reasoned approach to protecting the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation.
“Given California’s legal requirements to use licensed dealers for firearm transfers and background checks, it’s important that retailers are able to open their doors—and keep them open.”
Today’s decision was clear that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights.
Writing for the majority, Judge O’Scannlain held that 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.”
In response to the decision, CAL-FFL President Michael Baryla noted that “the Second Amendment can only be exercised if law-abiding people are allowed access to firearms and ammunition. This win is one more reminder that access to firearms is, in fact, an integral part of the core right.”
Concluded Combs, “Today, the Court appropriately reminded the County that civil rights can’t be outlawed through piles of regulation. We look forward to securing Second Amendment rights through this case and many others to come.”
Plaintiffs on the case include three individuals who seek to open a new gun store in Alameda County. They were joined by gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

---

Help us fund this case!

Use the secure form below to help support Teixeira v. Alameda and many other pro-gun lawsuits:
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]

(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.

July 16, 2015 (SACRAMENTO, CA) – The State of California’s ban on handgun-related speech by licensed gun dealers likely violates their First Amendment speech rights, held a federal judge in Sacramento earlier this morning. The order, issued by District Court Judge Troy L. Nunley, found that the ban is probably unconstitutional, likely doesn’t materially reduce crime, and likely irreparably harms plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to express themselves the way they wish to.  Nonetheless, the judge allowed the restriction to temporarily stand, while the case progresses further.
The gun dealers argued that California Penal Code section 26820—first enacted in 1923—prevents them from displaying any “handgun or imitation handgun, or [a] placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof” anywhere that can be seen outside their stores and “unconstitutionally prevents firearms dealers from advertising even the most basic commercial information—‘Handguns for Sale’—at their places of business.”
In today’s order, Judge Nunley said that the State “does not meet its burden of showing that the Central Hudson elements, in tandem with the additional First Amendment principles discussed above, are met. Therefore, Plaintiffs raise serious questions going to the merits of their First Amendment challenge to section 26820.
“On balance – based on the arguments and evidence currently before the Court – the Court also finds it is more likely than not that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.”
While California Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued that the law was useful in preventing handgun-related crime, the Court held that “there is not adequate evidence produced by the Government showing how, specifically, limiting impulse buys from passersby helps to manage handgun crime and violence….the Government has not shown that the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective of managing handgun crime and violence.”
Drawing an inference that most prospective gun store customers would believe the dealers sell handguns in addition to other types of firearms, the Court said that common-sense understanding “perhaps shows the pointlessness of section 26820.”
In spite of the fact that the firearm dealer plaintiffs showed a “likelihood of irreparable harm” to their First Amendment rights, and Judge Nunley’s finding that Harris failed to show how the law actually advanced public safety, the Court said that the public interest is best served by allowing the California Department of Justice to continue enforcing the challenged law during the course of the lawsuit.
“Granting the injunction would alter the status quo by requiring California to alter its regulatory scheme and practices as they pertain to firearms. Therefore, the Court takes the requisite caution in deciding against altering the status quo. With due consideration to the free speech considerations raised by Plaintiffs, which are also of public interest, a cautionary approach that favors denial greater serves the public interest than granting the injunction.”
The gun dealers noted that judge’s arguments for a “cautionary approach” in denying the preliminary injunction are undermined by his conclusion that the law likely isn’t really reducing crime.
In response to today’s ruling, California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees (CAL-FFL) President Brandon Combs said that the firearm dealers are reviewing the decision and considering their options.
“While we are pleased that Judge Nunley agrees with us on the law’s likely unconstitutionality, it’s disappointing that he would allow the State of California to continue enforcing it during the balance of litigation.
“If this were a speech case about abortion providers rather than gun dealers, I doubt very seriously that the Court would have allowed the law to stand while it was being litigated. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine that Attorney General Harris would have bothered defending it.
“We look forward to the plaintiffs’ next steps and will continue to support the case until the law is overturned and our dealers’ First Amendment rights are restored.”
Today’s order in Tracy Rifle and Pistol, LLC, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris, et al. and other case documents can be viewed at calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/trap-v-harris.
The lawsuit is supported by CAL-FFL, California’s firearm industry association, as well as Second Amendment rights groups The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.
California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees (CAL-FFL) (www.calffl.org) is California’s most tenacious advocacy group for Second Amendment and related economic rights. CAL-FFL members include firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.
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 Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

 

February 26, 2015 (SACRAMENTO, CA) -- In response to a federal district court decision released today on the constitutionality of the State of California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” handgun roster and microstamping laws, The Calguns Foundation released the following statement:

“We are disappointed that the district court sidestepped a clear violation of Second Amendment civil rights in its decision today. However, we are absolutely committed to litigating this case as far as necessary to reverse this incorrect ruling and restore the right to keep and bear modern handguns in the Golden State.

It is difficult to understand how the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision could be so badly mis-applied. Laws that ban law-abiding people from acquiring virtually all modern handguns following a rigorous background check have no constitutional basis and must be overturned.

It is utterly preposterous that a Federal Court would rule that a ban on all new semi-automatic handguns does not burden Second Amendment rights. Such a decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent, much less the Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

Our counsel have already appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and will take every action necessary to create a successful outcome there.”

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.

###

Media Contact:

Brandon Combs
(800) 556-2109

[email protected]

ROSEVILLE, CA (December 24, 2014) – Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal Second Amendment "right-to-carry" lawsuit Richards v. Prieto filed a brief in the Peruta v. San Diego matter earlier today, responding to two orders issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 3.

Civil rights attorney Alan Gura, who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark cases D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, submitted the brief on behalf of the Richards amici, or "friends of the court." Co-counsel Donald Kilmer of San Jose appears on the brief as well.
In the court filing, Gura argues that California Attorney General Kamala Harris shouldn't be allowed to intervene in place of San Diego Sheriff Gore, who opted to concede the issue following the court's February decision that held his "good cause" policy unconstitutional. The brief also says that the case should not be re-heard by the full, or "en banc", court.
"This Court has enough material to consider in evaluating the constitutionality of handgun carry licensing policies, without adding peculiar procedural complications and jurisdictional doubts that would only jeopardize the validity of any en banc outcome. The panel correctly decided this case, and rehearing is unwarranted," concluded Gura. "But regardless of whether the panel’s legal conclusions should be reconsidered, this case should end here, without rehearing en banc."

The Richards plaintiffs' brief can be viewed or downloaded at http://old.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014_saf_peruta_en_banc_opp_amicus.pdf. The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Court order denying requests by California Attorney General Kamala Harris shows state's weak hand, reports The Calguns Foundation.
ROSEVILLE, CA / November 20, 2014 – California’s laws requiring gun purchasers to wait at least ten days before taking possession of their lawfully-acquired firearms are one step closer to being history, reports The Calguns Foundation, a gun rights group headquartered in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville.
In a new order released today, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii rejected two requests made by California Attorney General Kamala Harris in the dispute, captioned Silvester, et al. v. Harris, that was filed in Fresno nearly three years ago.
"Defendant [Harris] made various arguments to justify the waiting period, but the evidence did not actually support a 10-day waiting period,” today’s order noted. “The [state’s] arguments were more in line with rational basis scrutiny”– a weak form of judicial review that was expressly rejected in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision – “than with intermediate scrutiny,” which forces governments to prove how a law impinging on a constitutional right serves an important purpose.
In the case of the waiting period laws, Attorney General Harris couldn’t.
"The Court notes that Defendant has not identified any error of law or any erroneous factual finding,” Judge Ishii explained in his denial of Harris’ requests. “The Court stands by its analysis and its findings that the waiting period laws violate the Second Amendment” as applied to the three classes of individuals that, plaintiffs successfully argued, shouldn’t be subject to the laws.

Harris had moved for a modification of the original August court order – which gave the state Department of Justice six months to take whatever steps were necessary to bring the agency’s policies in line with civil rights standards – to allow it a year to comply with the ruling, and also to delay the court’s enforcement of the order entirely until the appeals process had concluded. Both motions were denied.
"A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list."
“We’re pleased that Judge Ishii saw right through the Attorney General’s acrimonious delay tactics and properly denied her the opportunity to infringe our fundamental Second Amendment rights even more than she already has,” said Brandon Combs, the executive director of The Calguns Foundation and a plaintiff in the case. “Today’s court order bodes well for justice and, especially, for law-abiding gun purchasers.”
Harris, who has already filed a notice with the district court that she intends to take the loss to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, will presumably argue against the court’s holding that “the 10-day waiting period violate[s] the Second Amendment as applied to three classes of individuals,” like those similarly situated to individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester and Combs.
Notably, the waiting period requirement was first passed in the same 1923 legislative act as California’s “may-issue” concealed carry laws and a ban on the public display of handguns by gun dealers. Both of those regulations are currently being challenged in federal lawsuits backed by The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, who are institutional plaintiffs in the Silvester case. The Ninth Circuit is currently considering Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto’s request for rehearing of a decision that found his carry license policies violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Meanwhile, four gun dealers seeking to strike down the ban on commercial speech filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Sacramento’s federal district court on Monday, arguing the handgun display ban violates the First Amendment.
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 defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

November 10, 2014 (SACRAMENTO, CA) — Four California gun dealers are filing a federal lawsuit today against California Attorney General Kamala Harris over what they say is a violation of their First Amendment civil rights. Stephen Lindley, who heads the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms, is named as a co-defendant in the case.
Tracy Rifle and Pistol, a firearm retailer and indoor shooting range located in San Joaquin County, was recently cited by Harris’ Department of Justice for having pictures of three handguns in window signs that can be seen outside the store. 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. An adjacent window image at Tracy Rifle, which shows a photograph of an AR-15 rifle, was not cited by the DOJ.
“I run one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,” explained Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle and Pistol. “That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.”
While California gun dealers cannot display even the word ‘handgun’ at their stores to passersby, adjacent businesses and anti-gun protesters are not prohibited from doing as much. The court filings argue that the law operates as unconstitutional speaker, content, and viewpoint-based discrimination, in addition to having other legal problems.
Similar statutes banning handgun displays can be found in places like Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington, D.C., but the California Department of Justice appears to be the only state agency enforcing provisions like the challenged ban.
The lawsuit claims that this restriction violates gun stores’ First Amendment rights, by severely restricting truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. Lead counsel Bradley Benbrook said about the lawsuit, “The First Amendment prevents the government from telling businesses it disfavors that they can’t engage in truthful advertising. This case follows a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting such disfavored businesses from that type of censorship.”
Though the case doesn’t claim a Second Amendment violation, plaintiffs do argue that commercial advertisement of constitutionally protected products and services — whether abortion, contraceptives, or guns — is especially clearly protected under the First Amendment.
The plaintiffs are also represented by Benbrook’s colleague Stephen Duvernay and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearm industry association, joined gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation in support of the case.
The lawsuit’s other plaintiffs include Sacramento Black Rifle of Rocklin, Ten Percent Firearms of Taft, and PRK Arms, a Fresno-based dealer that operates a chain of three stores in California’s Central San Joaquin Valley, as well as business owners Robert Adams, Wesley Morris, and Jeffrey Mullen, respectively.
A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/trap-v-harris.
California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees (www.calffl.org) is California’s most tenacious advocacy group for Second Amendment and related economic rights. CAL-FFL members include firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.
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 Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.