Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Firearms Policy Coalition]]>

Firearms Policy Coalition to challenge non-violent firearm disqualifiers

by Leave a Comment

In 1991 anti-civil rights activist Josh Sugarmann made it his goal to completely scuttle the ability for individuals to get disqualifiers lifted from their records. Sugarmann did not like the idea that people could petition the Federal Government to have their gun rights restored if they were deemed no longer a threat to the public at large. The recidivist statistics around who fell back into the hands of the law were something like 3%, not a bad percentage. That number isn’t that bad, especially when comparing to 2022 America, where complete and totally violent criminals are constantly released on their own recognizance, and further not even prosecuted in many cases. Sugarmann created a problem where there was none, and saw that the program for disqualifier removal be defunded by pressuring Congress. The Firearms Policy Coalition just filed an en banc petition in a case dealing with a non-violent person having had their gun rights stripped. In the petition, they go after the specific law.

Philadelphia, PA (July 18, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an en banc petition in Williams v. Garland, which challenges the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights due to a single misdemeanor conviction for a crime that did not involve violence, physical harm, or a firearm. The filing can be found at FPCLegal.org.

Following a 2005 trial, Edward Williams was convicted of driving under the influence, in violation of Pennsylvania law. Because he had a previous DUI non-conviction in 2001, that was later expunged, the 2005 conviction qualified as a first-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. However, he was never imprisoned, and was instead placed under house arrest for 90 days, ordered to pay costs, a fine of $1,500, and to complete any recommended drug and alcohol treatment under the mandatory minimum sentence.

In May, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the Government, saying that the case “must meet the same fate” as a previous one due to circuit precedent. Because the decision came before the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, today’s petition argues that “[r]ehearing en banc is appropriate because the panel opinion contradicts Bruen, which mandates a historical test based on dangerousness and thus forbids the disarmament of peaceable persons like Williams.”

And a rehearing is in order. Given Williams’s conviction for a non-violent offense, there’s no reason why he should be disbarred from firearm ownership. I am, and have been a firm believer that if someone has paid their debt to society, there should be a realistic and viable mechanism to reinvest people with all of their civil liberties, especially the right to keep and bear arms.

We are in a different time now, and who would or would not fall into the category of people disbarred from exercising their Second Amendment right needs to be revisited. The 1938 Federal Firearms Act is what brought about the concept of disbarring violent offenders from firearm ownership. It was not until April 6, 1961 when then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy petitioned to have the Federal Firearms Act changed, affecting non-violent offenders.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Washington , D.C. , April 6 , 1961 

The VICE PRESIDENT
U.S. Senate , Washington , D.C. 

DEAR MR . VICE PRESIDENT:

The Department of Justice recommends the enactment of legislation to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act. 

The Federal Firearms Act ( 52 Stat. 1250; 15 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) prohibits the shipment of any firearms in interstate or foreign commerce to or by a person who is under indictment or has been convicted of certain specified crimes of violence such as murder, kidnaping, robbery, rape, mayhem, etc. It further prohibits a person who has been convicted of such a crime or is a fugitive from justice from receiving such firearms. The proposed legislation would amend these provisions to bring within their scope any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. 

It is the view of the Department that this legislation would aid Federal law enforcement officers in their assault on organized crime. The Department of Justice therefore urges its early introduction and enactment.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this recommendation.

The Firearms Policy Coalition points to the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. Kennedy’s urging for the law to be changed, which subsequent to him writing the Vice President and Congress it was, did not stop organized crime nor his own assassination. Regardless, the history dating back to 1961, 1938, or 1934 for that matter, wouldn’t necessarily be considered constitutionally sound when viewed through the proper lens.

“The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that any firearm restriction must be consistent with the original understanding of the Second Amendment,” said FPCAF’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “At no point throughout American history, until just recently, would a peaceable person like Mr. Williams forfeit his right to keep and bear arms. We hope that the Third Circuit will use this opportunity to bring its test for Second Amendment challenges into line with Supreme Court precedent and American history.”

I’ve covered the topic of rights restoration quite a few times over the years, and this is an exciting big step in the right direction. Not only is this a step in the right direction, the en banc petition filed, if it’s successful, will cut out a vast pile of disqualified persons who would no longer be disqualified.

Should non-violent persons be disbarred from exercising a fundamental right? The answer to that is “no”. As for other persons who no longer have their Second Amendment right, that’s another story for another day, and a conversation I’m willing to have. While what I have to say might not appease the “shall not be infringed” crowd, I do believe the 1990’s defunding of the relief from disabilities provisions in our law need to be refunded. We’ll be watching this case closely, as the results will have a profound and resounding effect on people across the nation.

Firearms Policy Coalition provides legal ammunition for those applying for carry license in hostile lands

by Leave a Comment

I haven’t seen similar celebrations like these post NYSRPA v. Bruen rejoicings since the Ewoks tore up Endor, playing glockenspiels made of stormtrooper helmets, and danced around the un-environmentally friendly mostly plastic and electronics fueled funeral pyre. It did not take long for the jubilation to end for many of the oppressed, finding that they’re back in the bondage of so-called “gun control”. The assaults on liberties not only persisted, in many ways they were exacerbated by the high court telling New York “not in my house”, with the Empire State doubling and tripling down. Honestly, New York politicians, and the un-elected Governor who took over since disgraced Governor Nipple Rings resigned, are all disgusting. “Okay google…define filth.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has a message for New York, et.al. on the antics that are occuring. There’s nothing in their message to make anyone find what they say to be idle; they put their moolah where their pie hole is.

Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to reports of multiple carry permit issuing authorities across the country refusing to comply with the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry firearms in public:

Quoting the plurality opinion from McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court held in Bruen that “[t]he constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

To those authorities that process or issue permits to carry concealed weapons that are abrogating the People’s right to carry: Obstructing the People’s fundamental right to an effective self-defense is not an option.

It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the recent United States Supreme Court opinion. It doesn’t matter if there are a lot of applicants. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feel like spending time processing them. You are required to objectively process a carry permit application submitted to you without burdensome fees, delays, flaming hoops, and other games. The deluge of applications you’re now experiencing could have been avoided if you simply respected the People’s right to bear arms from the start and not treated it as a second class right.

FPC refuses to stand idly by while the issuing authorities—who are often law enforcement agencies—delay and deny the People’s right to the peaceable conduct they are entitled to. Your agencies must know that FPC will utilize every available instrument to remedy this ongoing and historic wrong.

The letter, which in my opinion should be downloadable as a PDF on FPC letterhead, with someone’s signature in blue ink on it, to allow applicants to print and include with their permit to carry applications in any hostile territory (just a note to ya FPC). Regardless of the lack of a fancy download, this message can be printed off their site directly and sent to issuing authorities who might need a reminder of what they may attempt to do (or are doing) is unconstitutional. A print out of the list of FPC’s litigation could also be a friendly reminder that FPC means business.

The Firearms Policy Coalition is one of several groups that have been and continue to challenge the assaults we suffer from the anti-freedom caucus. This succinct open missive to the gun-ban lobby should spark a small amount of reflection in decision makers, at a minimum get them thinking that they’re actually subject to personal liability when usurping civil rights of the people.

Will this work in all cases? Absolutely not. If I’ve learned something in this game about the gun-grabbers, we’re dealing with some of the most hubris and pompous power hungry political elites in the United States, and they want a disarmed population. The progressive anti-freedom caucus loathes freedom, and maybe they’ll wise up if a few judges or politicians end up being found guilty of malfeasance or civil rights violations. Bring on the litigation I say! They’ve all been warned.

“FPC will utilize every available instrument to remedy this ongoing and historic wrong.”

Firearms Policy Coalition launches attack on NY’s “assault weapons” ban

by Leave a Comment

The war on America’s rifle might be coming to an end sooner than later. At least the viable war. We’ve already reported about the GVR on the Maryland case, with the Supreme Court telling the lower court they need to do a do-over on the so-called “assault weapons” prohibitions there. We’ve also discussed two recently filed cases in New Jersey, the Rogers case, backed by Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and the Cheeseman case, backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition. All of these suits take aim at the silly restrictions placed on normal semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic features, or ones that actually make them safer. The Firearms Policy Coalition recently announced that they’ve launched a new suit in New York, attacking their prohibitions on the AR Variant firearms.

The case is Vanchoff_v_James and was filed on July 12, 2022.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The complaint in Vanchoff v. James, along with other case information, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

 “Enough is enough,” said FPC policy counsel Matthew Larosiere “the people of New York have suffered this abuse for far too long. The arms targeted by New York’s ban are ordinary arms, kept by ordinary people for ordinary–but extremely important–purposes, including the fundamental right to an effective self-defense. There is no justification for threatening peaceable people with long stints in a government cage for merely possessing a firearm, regardless of what that particular firearm looks like. With this suit, we hope to end this injustice that has for too long imperiled New Yorkers.”

 “There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semi-automatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle,” the brief explains. “While some exterior physical attributes may differ—wood vs. metal stocks and furniture, the number and/or location of grips, having a bare muzzle vs. having muzzle devices, different barrel lengths, etc.—they are, in all relevant respects, the same.”

Adding this suit to the other three east coast filings is undoubtedly going to contribute to the stress put on the progressives to defend this nonsense. Paired with the California case currently in limbo over at the 9th circuit, it’s quite possible we’ll be seeing the complete dismantling of prohibitions on most hardware related laws. The complaint points at the the absurdity of these kinds of bans.

Rifles built on an AR-style platform are a paradigmatic example of the type of arm New York bans. AR-15 rifles are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans. A recent survey of gun owners indicates that about 24.6 million Americans have owned up to 44 million AR-15 or similar rifles. See William English, 2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned at 1 (May 13,
2022), https://bit.ly/3yPfoHw. And according to industry sources, more than one out of every five firearms sold in recent years were rifles of the type banned by New York. Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc., Firearms Retailer Survey Report, 2013 at 11.

While we all know that the anti-gun politicians and elitist pigs of New York, New Jersey, California, etc. will do everything in their power to continue to restrict the Second Amendment, they’ll eventually have to give up when normal Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmo America says they’re tired of paying for losing lawsuits in their respective states. For advocates, they pay either way, in the way of supporting these organizations and through their tax dollars, so we lose when we win. But when we win, we sure do win!

Firearms Policy Coalition targets “assault weapons” bans in California, New Jersey

by Leave a Comment

While blue state legislators in places like New York, California, and Delaware are busy imposing new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in response (and defiance) to the Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen last week, Second Amendment organizations have been hard at work in courts across the country seeking to use the Bruen decision to their full advantage and strike down a number of anti-gun laws currently on the books.

The Firearms Policy Coalition on Thursday filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a stay imposed by the court last year after a federal judge struck down California’s ban on so-called assault weapons as a violation of the Second Amendment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “eliminates any plausible argument for a stay in this case.” The group also filed a brand new federal lawsuit taking on New Jersey’s ban on modern sporting rifles, arguing that ban cannot stand in light of the Bruen decision.

“AR-15 rifles are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans,” the complaint says. “New Jersey’s Ban unconstitutionally infringes upon Plaintiffs’ fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” “New Jersey’s Ban and Defendants’ actual and threatened enforcement of the same must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined under the Second Amendment’s text, informed by relevant history, and the Supreme Court’s precedents so that Plaintiffs Cheeseman and Connolly, all similarly situated members of Plaintiff FPC, and non-prohibited individuals like them can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear these common firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

“There’s no question here,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere. “New Jersey’s ban spits in the face of not only the constitution, but all the peaceable people of New Jersey. The type of arms targeted by New Jersey’s ban are both constitutionally protected and dearly needed by the People. We are excited to help vindicate the rights of New Jersians and put an end to this immoral overreach on the part of the government.”

The FPC is also involved in Bianchi v. Frosh; a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons that the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded back to the Fourth Circuit for review yesterday. Larosiere says the decision to re-hear the case in light of the Bruen decision is an “important moment,” adding that gun owners “have suffered at the hands of government actors who felt empowered by a lack of clear standards from the Supreme Court. All too often, horrible restrictions which threaten jail time for simply owning a common type of arm–one the people have an undeniable right to–were allowed to stand. This case presents one of the first opportunities to give force to our right to these common firearms, and we intend to see it through.”

We’re going to be seeing a frenzy of activity in the courts over the next few weeks as both existing gun restrictions and new laws imposed in the wake of the Bruen decision come under fire from Second Amendment organizations, and while it will take some time for these cases to develop, the anti-gun lawmakers who put these infringements in place aren’t going to be able to avoid the legal reckoning that is coming. The Bruen decision not only struck down New York’s “may issue” law, but laid out in very specific terms the proper test that courts should be using to determine the constitutionality of gun laws; considering the text of the Second Amendment along with the history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. That test is going to prove challenging (to say the least) for those hoping to keep these bans on modern sporting rifles in place because until the last few decades we simply haven’t seen the types of sweeping gun bans favored by the gun prohibitionists. There is simply no historical analogue for defenders of these bans to point to, and that’s a key component of upholding the constitutionality of any gun control law.

I look forward to seeing the developments in each of these cases, though I’m paying extra-close attention to Bianchi v. Frosh because it will likely be the first “assault weapons” ban challenge to be taken up by SCOTUS once the Fourth Circuit re-hears the case. Every one of these cases is important in their own right, however, and taken together they represent a wave of pro-2A litigation that will hopefully sweep away many of the onerous and unconstitutional gun control measures that are currently on the books.

SAF, FPC file for injunction to block NYC permitting rules

by Leave a Comment

Following the Bruen decision, we now know that New York City’s permitting requirements are officially unconstitutional. The decision doesn’t just apply to the Big Apple, it was specifically about the city’s rules.

And yet, it seems New York City is still enforcing that particular law.

So, it’s unsurprising that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have gone to court over it.

They’ve filed a motion for injunction to block the enforcement of the unconstitutional rules.

The two groups released separate statements about the motion.

From the SAF:

BELLEVUE, WA – Based on the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York State’s unconstitutional “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit applicants, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the City of New York from further enforcement of its long-standing permit regulations.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and five private citizens. The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen of Beacon, N.Y. In addition to the City of New York, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea is named as a defendant in his official capacity.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that New York State’s ‘good cause’ mandate is unconstitutional, we felt compelled to file this action because the city’s ‘proper cause’ requirement is just as bad if not worse,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Two of our plaintiffs previously held carry licenses in New York City for decades, but in 2020, both were denied renewal on the grounds they lacked ‘proper cause’.”

Gottlieb said the perpetuation of this requirement in the aftermath of the high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is an affront to the Constitution and an insult to the Court, not to mention the good citizens of New York City who should no longer need to demonstrate some special need in order to exercise a fundamental right.

“The City adopted this restrictive and completely arbitrary regulation more than a hundred years ago,” Gottlieb observed, “and we should not have to drag the city kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and into compliance with the Second Amendment and the recent Supreme Court ruling.

“After all,” he noted, “within 24 hours of the high court ruling, both New Jersey and California, which have similar requirements to the New York ‘good cause’ restriction, issued directives to law enforcement to stop enforcing those provisions. If states can immediately comply with the Supreme Court, New York City has absolutely no excuse for ignoring the Bruen ruling. We promised to take action if we found local governments refusing to comply with the court’s decision. We meant it.”

And now a word from the FPC:

NEW YORK, NY (June 29, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for preliminary injunction in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the laws that prevent individuals from carrying a loaded handgun on their person for self-defense in New York City. The motion, along with other case documents in Greco v. City of New York, can be viewed atFPCLegal.org.

“The Supreme Court has now explicitly held that the Second Amendment ‘protect[s] an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,’ and it has further ruled that the ‘proper cause’ requirement is unconstitutional ‘in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.’,” the motion says. “The short of it is that, but for Defendants’ use of the unconstitutional ‘proper cause’ standard, each Plaintiff would have a valid license to carry handguns in New York City right now.”

“It’s high time the people have their rights respected,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere, “New Yorkers have been suffering second-class treatment at the hands of an oppressive government for too long. With the Supreme Court pointing to the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’ we hope to finally liberate the people from these absurd restrictions on their natural right to keep and bear arms.”

The truth of the matter is that, as SAF noted, states like California and New Jersey were quick to state that the “good cause” requirement can no longer be enforced. They didn’t want to, I’m sure, but if we are to even pretend to be a nation of laws rather than a nation of men, then the Court’s ruling must be respected.

New York City isn’t respecting it.

They can’t even pretend that the ruling didn’t apply to them since the entire case was about their law in particular.

So why are they not doing what they’re supposed to do? Honestly, I don’t see what their endgame here is. There isn’t an avenue to appeal the ruling. They can’t hope federal lawmakers will pass something that will allow them to continue enforcing the regulation. There’s absolutely nothing for them to gain here. Nothing at all.

I have little doubt that an injunction will be granted. How could it not? The ruling was quite specific that a “good cause” requirement is unconstitutional. Even if the judge doesn’t want to grant the injunction, he either follows the law or he doesn’t. If he decides to ignore the court’s decision, I have little doubt the SAF and FPC will be happy to take it to the next court up the chain.

There’s no version of this that doesn’t end up in an injunction.

New York City doesn’t have to do this. The city is choosing to do this, and that should tell you all you need to know about how they view your Second Amendment rights.