Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
looks like we are having some success here but we still have around 47 new bills coming up this year . keep writing the letters and calling .
The NRA has been fighting for your right to keep and bear arms in California courts for decades. Below is a list of some of the recent cases that the NRA is supporting. Several other potential lawsuits are pending, including one against Glendale for a gun show ban, a case against Los Angeles for a proposed ban on possession of magazines that hold over ten rounds, a case against San Francisco for a potential hollow-point ammunition possession ban and a case against California DOJ for unjustifiably delaying lawful firearm purchases. In addition to these cases in California courts, NRA has dozens of other cases in courts throughout the country that may be used as precedent in California, including several attacking the constitutionality of “assault weapon” bans. For more information on these suits visit NRAILA.org/legalupdate.
Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully striking down main portions of California’s AB 962, that would have banned mail order ammunition purchases and required registration and thumbprinting for in-store purchases. The State’s appeal of the 2011 decision is now fully briefed before the California Court of Appeals and we are waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the Court.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. This ban was rescinded and the NRA negotiated a formal settlement agreement to prevent adoption of similar restrictions in the future. This case has recently been used as precedent to help NRA lawyers fight similar bans in Washington, D.C. and in Delaware.
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Lawsuit challenges San Diego County’s requirement of a special need (i.e. "good cause") for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public. Though the trial court did not grant plaintiffs the specific relief they sought, the court’s opinion was the first to recognize post-Heller that the Second Amendment right "to bear arms" secures a right to carry arms in public for self-defense -- not a complete victory yet, but positive progress in Second Amendment jurisprudence. Plaintiffs have fully briefed and argued their appeal. We are currently awaiting a decision that could come any day.
McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens - Lawsuit challenges Orange County’s requirement of a special need for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public. This case was filed after the California legislature banned the "unloaded open carry" of firearms. This case is a follow-up to the Peruta and Richards cases which relied (partially) on the plaintiffs’ ability to openly carry an unloaded firearm -- an option that is no longer available under state law. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction is fully briefed before the Ninth Circuit. We are currently waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the court.
Assenza v. City of Los Angeles - Successfully enforced an 18-year old consent decree against the LAPD and Police Chief Beck to ensure that all members of the public were properly receiving the requisite CCW application and CCW policy upon request at station houses. Each LAPD station must now conspicuously post a sign explaining where the application and policy can be found.
Davis v. City of Los Angeles - Lawsuit challenges Police Chief Beck’s failure to adhere to an 18-year old consent decree in processing CCW applications and determining what constitutes good cause to issue CCWs to LA residents.
Bauer v. Harris - Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the fees the California DOJ requires in order to purchase firearms in California and the use of those fees’ revenues for purposes unrelated to lawful firearm purchasers exercising their right to acquire a firearm.
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco- Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring that handguns be locked up while in the home, banning the discharge of firearms (lawsuit already forced amendment authorizing lawful defensive discharges), and prohibiting sales of common self-defense ammunition. Plaintiffs (including NRA) received a favorable published opinion in opposing the City’s challenge to their standing, paving the way for other plaintiffs to bring Second Amendment challenges in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs are currently appealing denial of their preliminary injunction and have filed their opening brief before the Ninth Circuit.
Pizzo v. Newsom - Obtained amicus status and defeated ill-conceived and poorly prepared claims threatening to undermine efforts in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco. In dismissing those claims on legal "standing" (and avoiding a damaging merits ruling), the district court followed the favorable standing analysis suggested by NRA attorneys in their amicus brief and disregarded the watered-down standing argument pushed for by the City.
Mehl v. Blanas - Submitted an amicus brief and participated in oral argument in Ninth Circuit review of this ill-conceived and poorly prepared case challenging CCW laws and policies. Explained defects in the case and that better cases existed for deciding the CCW issues, in an attempt to avoid bad case law that would impact other better prepared CCW cases.
Richards v. Prieto - Filed amicus brief in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting appellants who sued Yolo County, challenging CCW issuance laws and policies.
People v. Nguyen - Filed a request for depublication with the California Supreme Court of a decision that is currently dangerous binding legal precedent for California firearm owners. The current opinion opens the door to prosecutions for possession of mere firearm parts. If the request is granted, the misguided and dangerous decision could not be cited as legal precedent.
Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources
Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not! Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:
NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update, CalNRA.com, CRPA.org, CalGunLaws.com, HuntforTruth.org
Facebook Pages: NRA’s Facebook page, CalGunLaws.com Facebook page, NRA Members' Councils' Facebook page, Hunt for Truth Facebook page
LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page, YouTube: NRA YouTube, Twitter: NRA Twitter, NRA-ILA Twitter, CalNRATwitter, CalGunLaws Twitter
The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx
To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.
Why do I carry a 45 ? because they don't make a 46