Thread: GOA CHALLENGING NJ LAW BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WAKE OF HUGE LEGAL VICTORY

GOA CHALLENGING NJ LAW BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WAKE OF HUGE LEGAL VICTORY

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show "good cause" were unconstitutional under the Heller decision.
"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain.
Gun Owners of America is pursuing an almost identical challenge to New Jersey's onerous and restrictive concealed carry law. GOA (and its foundation) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court just one day prior to last week’s Ninth Circuit decision, challenging the New Jersey control scheme that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In several instances, the Ninth Circuit opinion critiques the Third Circuit’s opinion by using arguments very similar to the ones GOA presented in our amicus brief. Overall the opinion is a refreshing change from most lower federal court decisions, which have refused to engage in the textual and historical analysis required by Heller and McDonald.
As we see it, the Ninth Circuit decision should add weight in favor of the Supreme Court hearing one of these cases to resolve the circuit split. And hopefully the five justice majority from Heller will seize on these two cases because of the Ninth Circuit's detailed and careful review of the history that supports public carry of weapons for self-defense.
Go here to read more about this case -- including the GOA/GOF brief.


John Drake v. Edward Jerejian

February 12, 2014
Gun Owners Foundation (along with GOA) filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging New Jersey’s concealed carry laws. Click here to read the brief.
In New Jersey, it is a crime to possess a firearm unless you can prove that you fit within one or more tightly-drawn statutory exemptions. One exemption allows a person to have a handgun on his own property, but he may not step one foot beyond unless the gun is fully disabled and he is heading to an approved destination.
New Jersey carry permits are like honest politicians -- they are rumored to exist, but few have ever actually seen one. As one State legislator observed: “It is virtually never done.” An ordinary person may be granted a permit only if he can prove to the satisfaction of a judge that his life is in grave danger. Certain members of the privileged class of government workers are permitted to carry firearms; they need only prove that they are currently or were formerly employed in law enforcement.
GOF filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of John M. Drake and several other ordinary New Jersey citizens who applied for but were denied permits to carry their handguns in public, because they could not prove that their lives were in imminent danger. Our brief makes three arguments.
First, the federal judges below simply refused to analyze the New Jersey gun control scheme according to the original meaning of the Second Amendment and established constitutional norms. Instead, judges in both courts substituted their own ideas about gun control in disregard of America’s founders.
Read more: Drake v. Jerejian

• 
• 

John Quinn v. Texas
January 27, 2014
Every day we read about SWAT teams serving arrest warrants or search warrants at people’s homes, using no-knock raids in the middle of the night. Many of these police home invasions go wrong, with innocent people being shot, and sometimes killed, just because they were trying to defend themselves. Even criminals have learned to claim that they are the police while breaking into homes, to discourage resistance.
The Quinn v. Texas case now presents the significant legal issue of whether police are justified in using no-knock home invasions simply because they know the occupants own a firearm. On January 27, 2014, Gun Owners Foundation helped file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Quinn v. Texas, in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari, to obtain a review of this issue.http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13-765.htm
John Quinn was asleep in his bed when Texas police broke down his door in the middle of the night, and shot him when he reached for a weapon, thinking his home was being invaded. The police were there to serve a search warrant for his son, Brian, who they suspected of dealing drugs.
The only justification for the no-knock raid that police gave was that John Quinn owned a firearm. The police claimed that firearms ownership was enough to present a danger to law enforcement, even though they knew John Quinn had a concealed carry permit — meaning the state of Texas had pronounced him to be a safe, law-abiding citizen.
Read more: Quinn v. Texas

• 
• 

Chris Hedges v. Barack Obama
January 23, 2014
Gun Owners Foundation helped file our third amicus brief in support of Chris Hedges and the other journalists and political activists who are challenging Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf), and its authorization of the military detention of civilians based on vague standards of providing "support" for an adversary of the United States.
These NDAA standards were so vague that when asked, the U.S. Justice Department refused to say that Chris Hedges and the other plaintiffs could not be arrested by the military, e.g., for their reporting on middle eastern affairs, which includes interviews with, and even embeds with, foreign organizations.
This brief (in conjunction with other plaintiffs) was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging that it grant certiorari and review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge detention, as the NDAA statute did not really say what it appeared to say, and that it was a nullity as to American Citizens. The Second Circuit left unaddressed whether American citizens could be detained by the military under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23) passed hurriedly after the events of September 11, 2001.
Our brief explained why the Court needs to address the issue of military detention of civilians. It explained that NDAA 2012 was fundamentally different from the AUMF. It explains that laws are often written in an ambiguous manner to give politicians deniability when called to account by their constituents. And it discussed how why NDAA 2012 eliminated the protections of the U.S. Constitution's treason clause.
Read more: Chris Hedges v. Barack Obama

• 
• 

U.S. v. James Castleman
December 23, 2013
Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Castleman, in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari. This case involves the meaning of the term “physical force” contained in the federal law defining misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (“MCDV”), popularly known as the Lautenberg Amendment. Click here to read the brief.
Passed in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment makes it a federal crime for a person to acquire or possess a firearm after he has been convicted of a MCDV. An MCDV is defined as a crime that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.”
In this case, the government argued that “physical force” should be read as simply requiring “force,” of any sort. Once the statute is watered down in that way, the government argued that the statute should be read as invoking the common law meaning of assault and battery, which includes any nonconsensual, minor, slight offensive touching. But Congress expressed its desire to penalize violent men who beat their wives -- not anyone who might push, touch or spit on a family member. Our amicus curiae brief points out that the word “physical” cannot be read out of the statute, based on the principle that each word in a statute must have its ordinary meaning.
Read more: U.S. v. Castleman

• 
• 

Bruce Abramski v. United States
December 3, 2013
On December 23, 2013, Gun Owners Foundation helped file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Abramski v. United States, in a case challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ (ATF) definition of what constitutes an illegal “straw purchase” of a firearm. This case involves one of the greatest instances of regulatory and prosecutorial abuse that we have ever seen.
The concept of a “straw purchase” is a “doctrine” created by ATF and the courts, rather than a “crime” enacted by Congress. Indeed, as pointed out in our brief, in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings, Senators Leahy and Schumer introduced a bill (that was not enacted) to outlaw straw purchases. If straw purchases were already illegal, then there would have been no need for such a bill to be introduced.
In this case, Petitioner Abramski, a former police officer who was eligible to own firearms, bought a handgun for his elderly uncle who was also eligible to own firearms. Both men passed a NICS background check, yet ATF claimed that Abramski lied on his Form 4473 when he claimed he was the “actual buyer” of the firearm. ATF argued that Abramski’s statement was “intended or likely to deceive” the Federal Firearms Licensee (“FFL”), even though he specifically asked two FFLs who both told him that he was following the law.
Read more: Abramski v. United States

• 
• 

ATF on NFA Weapons
December 3, 2013
Gun Owners Foundation (along with GOA) submitted comments to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) opposing an ATF Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
ATF’s proposed rule PR would change the requirements for applications to make or transfer certain National Firearms Act firearms and devices. Many Chief Law Enforcement Officers (or CLEOs) are opposed to an armed citizenry and, for that reason alone, simply refuse to sign NFA paperwork for any persons in their jurisdiction.
However, under current rules, a person can still obtain an NFA weapon by using a trust or corporation. Under proposed rulemaking, though, the Obama ATF would require trusts and corporations to submit photographs, fingerprints and CLEO approval for every “responsible person” connected with the trust or corporation.
GOF’s comments pointed out that ATF does not have the statutory authority to require photographs and fingerprints from trusts and corporations, since the statute only requires fingerprints and photographs if the applicant is “an individual.” Indeed, based on our research, our comments explain why ATF has no authority to require CLEO signoff from anyone — even for individuals. The purpose of the National Firearms Act was taxation, and identification of the person and gun taxed, rather than regulation, and determination of the eligibility of the buyer.
Read more: ATF on NFA Weapons

• 
• 

Raymond Woollard, et al. v. Denis Gallagher, et al.
August 12, 2013
Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court
On August 12, 2013, Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in Woollard v. Gallagher in support of a petition asking the Court to strike down Maryland’s ban on the carrying of handguns by ordinary citizens unless they first demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to law enforcement.
While the federal district court in Maryland had decided the case in Mr. Woollard’s favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, using a “balancing test” to come to conclude that Maryland may override the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the name of public safety.
Both lower courts used a judicially-created balancing test, coming to opposite conclusions, thus demonstrating the illegitimacy of subjective, judge-made tests. GOF’s position is simple: the founding fathers determined that Americans have the right to bear arms both inside the home and out, regardless of how “compelling” the state’s desire to infringe their right.
As the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case, the Second Amendment means what it says — the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our brief reminds the Court of the absolute nature of the right, leaving no room for federal judges to “balance” away the guarantee, no matter how strict or loose the test may be.
Click here to view the Amicus Brief (pdf)
Read more: Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court

• 
• 

GOF Sues ATF to Produce Documents

On June 6, 2012, Gun Owners Foundation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. to compel the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to produce thousands of documents related to Operation Fast & Furious.
Depending upon the outcome of this case, Justice Department officials could spend time in jail.
Last year, GOF submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which -- not surprisingly -- has virtually been ignored by the ATF. Although the agency has told GOF several times that it would comply with the FOIA request, the ATF has violated each and every one of its self-imposed deadlines.
On March 16, 2011, Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to ATF requiring production of records related to their involvement in Operation Fast & Furious -- where thousands of firearms were smuggled from the United States to Mexico.
On April 21, 2011, Gun Owners Foundation submitted its own FOIA request to the ATF, to which the ATF has responded in various ways. The agency has sometimes ignored our requests entirely. Several times, ATF has promised (but failed) to produce information by a certain date. And at least once, the ATF suggested we were mistaken, claiming that they had already given us the requested information -- only to follow up that communication with a new promise and new deadline for producing the requested documents.
If the court finds in favor of the GOF complaint, the ATF will have to produce the requested documents or face “contempt of court” charges. Given that media reports indicate the House of Representatives may decline to press contempt charges, Gun Owners Foundation remains committed to pressing this case until justice is realized.
Please help Gun Owners Foundation to continue doing this important work.
You may contribute to GOF by clicking here
Thank you.

---

Gun Owners Foundation Legal Activities And Projects

---

United States v. Antoine Jones

GOF has filed an amicus brief in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones in the United States Supreme Court in support of respondent, Antoine Jones. Our amicus brief argues that the government's extreme position that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to GPS surveillance on public roadways is insupportable.

The government’s extreme view that the Fourth Amendment is completely irrelevant is made possible only by the Supreme Court’s mistaken jurisprudence that the Fourth Amendment only applies to situations wherein persons have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The "expectation of privacy" test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government.

Click here to read the Bried Amicus Curiae (pdf)

---

The Fourth Amendment has been whittled away and courts have allowed random gun sweeps, among other warrantless searches. If the court agrees with the GOF brief, the Fourth Amendment will be restored to its original meaning.

Click here to read a brief tutorial on the Fourth Amendment (pdf)

---

April 13, 2011 - Connecticut versus Walter Reddy and the Second Amendment

Click here to read more

---

April 4, 2011 - GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation's friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down anti-gun Obamacare.

Click here to read the Brief (pdf)

---

Gun Owners Foundation offers arguements on the Heller II case

Click here to read the Amicus Brief (pdf)

---

Gun Owners Foundation argues that the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the popular election of senators necessarily permits recall of those same officials.

Click here to Read the the brief (pdf)

---

Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League filed a brief on April 13, 2010 in support of the MT Firearms Freedom Act. The brief argues that there is no authority for federal gun controls, and that also, even federal law recognizes that MT can have a Firearms Freedom Act.

Click here to Read the brief (pdf)

---

In U.S. v. Skoien Gun Owners Foundation argues that removing the right to keep and bear arms from felons is not constitutional.

Click here to Read the brief (pdf)

Gun Owners Foundation filed a friend of the court brief on April 2, 2010 in support of an appeal by Steven Skoien arguing that his firearm disability for a domestic violence conviction (a Lautenberg conviction) unconstitutionally violates Mr. Skoien's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That may not be impaired unless he voluntarily relinquishes his citizenship.

Click here to Read the brief (pdf)

GOF & NRA positions on the Second Amendment as revealed in the Skoien amicus briefs.
.

Click here to Read the comparison (pdf)

---

GOF/GOA File Amicus Brief in Support in Nordyke v. King in Support of Gun Shows

On August 18, 2010, GOF filed an amicus curiae brief filed supporting petitioner’s challenge to Alameda County, California’s ban on firearms possession on county property, effectively ending gun shows in the county.

The ordinance was introduced by a county Supervisor who, in her own words, wanted to “ban gun shows.” The county claims it was responding to gun violence, but the reality is that the county was simply trying to keep peaceful gun owners from gathering to buy and sell firearms.

GOF’s brief argues that the Second Amendment implicitly protects a private property right to acquire, possess, use and dispose of firearms. Thus, the Second Amendment protects unimpaired commerce in firearms of the kind that takes place at gun shows. California law already heavily regulates firearms, and gun shows are one of the only constitutionally-protected sources of arms.

GOF’s brief then explains the difference between “sensitive places” like courthouses and schools, compared to places like the county fairgrounds. Whereas a courthouse is not open to the public for public use, Alameda County has designated the fairgrounds to be open to the public, including for use in lawful commercial enterprise. Since the County has given everyone a right to use the fairgrounds, the County Commissioners cannot now decide that they do not like gun owners, and prohibit them from using the fairgrounds for gun shows.

Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America were joined by Gun Owners of California, Inc. in filing the amicus brief in the case Nordyke v. King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 07-15763.

Click here to Read the brief (pdf)

---

Chicago gun ban
McDonald v Chicago

On Monday, November 23, 2009, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of four Chicago residents who are seeking to invalidate a city ordinance prohibiting them from owning or possessing a handgun in their own home. The GOA/GOF brief argues that the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment is the correct basis for ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of all Americans, not just those living in Washington, DC. This brief also points out the pitfalls of using the due process clause to reach this conclusion.

Click here form more infomation on the McDonald v Chicago Case

See Justice Thomas' concurring opionion starting on page 67 (pdf)

---

David Olofson Case

---

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE FREE
SPEECH DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND,
INC., FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., ET AL. (pdf)

What To Do
During a BATF Visit

Copyright 2014 Gun Owners Foundation

https://www.gunowners.com/

BLOOMBERG DEFEATED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE


Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had intended to turn New Hampshire into his most recent "victory for gun control" -- joining a handful of states that enacted stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newton school yard tragedy.

Bloomberg figured that New Hampshire would be easy pickings. After all, the "Granite State" had a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic anti-gun governor.

Gun Owners of America countered Bloomberg’s muscle by aiding several local gun groups in the state to rally grassroots gun owners in opposition to the bill.

Well, the final shootout occurred last Wednesday. And after the smoke cleared, Bloomberg and his "human props" were sent packing, with their tails between their legs. After a series of votes -- and an hour and a half of parliamentary wrangling -- the Democratic House declared that a Manchin-Toomey-type universal gun registry bill was "inexpedient to legislate."

Having failed to buy Congress with his billions of anti-gun dollars, Bloomberg has attempted to buy the legislatures of states like New Hampshire. But, with the exception of seven states with legislatures dominated by anti-gun legislators and governors, Bloomberg has been humiliated.

And "red state Democrats" running for reelection in the Senate are running from Bloomberg even faster than they're running from Obama.

As a result, Bloomberg has now modified his strategy to turn the country blue by legalizing millions of anti-gun voters who broke the law to get here. And to that end, Bloomberg has announced that he will use his billions to support "red state Democrats" who opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment -- language imposing universal background checks around the nation -- so long as such Senators agree to support the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.

SCHUMER REELS AFTER AMNESTY BILL IS SHELVED

Three weeks ago, it looked like an immigration amnesty bill to create 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters was on the "fast track" in the U.S. House.

That was before you burned up the telephone lines and internet accounts of House Republicans. At a Republican "retreat," dozens of congressmen lined up to oppose the bill. And Speaker John Boehner was forced to concede that Republicans could not "trust" Obama to implement the enforcement provisions of the bill.

Now, reeling from another defeat, New York Senator Charles Schumer has threatened to file a "discharge petition" to force the House to consider the anti-gun bill, over Republican objections.

The problem is that Schumer, to be successful, would have to convince over a dozen Republicans to openly betray their colleagues, in order to garner the necessary 217 or 218 signatures (depending on the number of House vacancies). For this reason, discharge petitions almost never succeed.

THE IRS BACKS OFF FROM ANTI-GUN REGS

Fresh from a scandal in which it tried to harass conservatives applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, the IRS has spent the last several months trying to put GOA out of business.

It did this by threatening regulations which would define a broad range of policy activities (including voting guides) as political activities.

But, in its arrogance, the IRS overstepped its bounds. So many policy-related activities would be limited under the IRS rules that a broad range of both conservative and liberal 501(c)(4)'s blasted the proposals. In addition, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) which would prohibit the IRS regs from being issued. Given the broad support from both ends of the political spectrum, the Camp bill would surely be passed overwhelmingly.

As a result, the IRS has now meekly testified that it will not push its proposals in 2014.

DON’T FORGET: Go here to read more about Gun Owner’s NJ case -- including the actual GOA/GOF brief.