Category: Legal

The California DOJ recently withdrew a proposed set of regulations to enforce the State’s new “bullet button” ban. This ban redefines an “assault weapon” to mean any detachable magazine centerfire rifle with two or more features from the naughty list; such as an adjustable stock or a pistol grip on the forearm. While the proposed regulation were an overreach of the law’s intent, they were still rules that could be followed.

The firearms manufacturing community has been introducing new products that would allow Californians to comply with the terms of the law without having to register their rifles as “assault weapons”. (Remember: Registration == Confiscation!) But, by delaying their new rules, the CA-DOJ makes it uncertain which of these new products would actually pass the department’s legal tests. Thus we cannot say with certainty that a “featureless” rifle configuration is really featureless under the law. Nor can we say that a particular magazine release system truly satisfies the requirement that the action of the gun be disassembled to remove the magazine.

One does have to wonder: Is this delay deliberate? Is its purpose to prevent manufacturers from introducing legal products for California gun owners ahead of the ban’s January 1, 2018 enforcement date? Without these products, Californians would be forced to register their legally owned firearms with the State to stay compliant. Or…

Legal News

So speaking of confirmation bias, this leaked ATF whitepaper is a fine example of something that needed to be slow-rolled before we shouted it from the rooftops. It’s not that it’s too-good-to-be-true. In fact, it seems to be legit. (Someone at ATF needs to be taught that “reply all” is not your friend.) So now, after a little time to let things settle, it appears that the time is ripe to discuss the leaked memo.

The whitepaper is a call to reevaluate some longstanding rules and policies at the ATF. Among these are an acceptance of “Modern Sporting Rifles” as soundly falling within the scope of the GCA‘s “Sporting purposes” requirements for legal importation. Included is an admission that these firearms are indeed used in sports such as hunting and 3-gun competitions. (Mind you, this doesn’t mean that we’re accepting “sporting purposes” as a legitimate, constitutional restraint on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about sporting goods! However, the GCA is part of the current legal paradigm that we need to work within.) There is also a call to loosen, or eliminate restrictions on silencers (and their parts) as NFA items. Silencers are legal in most States and the ATF’s inboxes are clogged with the  backlog of NFA applications for them.

The big take-away from the whitepaper is that there are reams of ATF regulations that do not advance public safety. Taking silencers as an example, there are almost no prosecutions for the illegal use of these devices in a typical year. (44 per year on average in a nation of 300,000,000 people; 0.0000147%.) These unnecessary, ineffectual rules only serve to erode our freedoms. How? A law or regulation that sits and gathers dust today could be “weaponized” in the future by some clever bureaucrat. Rather than wait for the threat to emerge, it’s better to clear the books of these useless regulations.

Kinda nice seeing the ATF under new management, isn’t it?

Legal News

Following through on a campaign promise, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch. Trump promised a strict Constitutionalist would fill the seat left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch interprets the Constitution and its language as that language was understood at the time of a passage’s adoption. For our proposes here on these pages, that means that “militia” means, as it did in c. 1788, “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, and not the National Guard; a 20th Century invention.

Predictably, the wingnut left has retired to their fainting couches. Gorsuch, who was approved by the Senate in 2006 on a voice vote, is suddenly an outrageous, “extremist” pick for the Supreme Court. (And keep in mind who was part of that Senate which approved Judge Gorsuch that day!)

Leading the howls of outrage is the Old Grey Lady. The NY Times editorial board refers to Judge Gorsuch as the “Nominee for a Stolen Seat“. Let me say from the start that I didn’t read the entire OP-ED piece. There quickly came a point where I just couldn’t stop laughing. It was probably this part…

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.

Those, by the way, were the 1st two paragraphs.

Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? The “constitutional duty” the Times refers to is to provide “advice and consent” to a President’s picks for positions such as Supreme Court justice. This would be Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. This is not, however, an obligation to rubber-stamp whatever picks the President may make. Indeed, the last Senate opted to abide by the Biden Rule and abstained from a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination.

Some of the “damage” the Times mentions is spelled out later; namely the toxic political environment that the Times and others like them created following President Trump’s election! Apparently, Trump should have nominated a “moderate” (i.e. a barking mad liberal) because Muslims or some such. Maybe it has something to do with vagina hats. I don’t know. It’s hard to read while I’m laughing.

That last line, however, is a ringing endorsement of Judge Gorsuch. Anyone who compares to the late Justice Scalia is a fine pick for the high court.

Legal News

…they aren’t wrong to be crazy about what they’re getting crazy about.

Perhaps I should explain the cray-cray.

The anti-gun left are losing their minds now that the only way they’ll keep President Trump from getting sworn in would be to steal every Bible within 200 miles of Washington D.C.. But let’s be honest, they have some very good reasons to be blowing a collective gasket. Let’s start with reason number 1:


This brings us to reason number 2: Hillary Clinton will not be picking the next three or four Supreme Court justices. Why not? See reason number 1. This is a solid justification for them to be having a Chernobyl-sized meltdown. Why? Reasons 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3:

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83
  • Stephen Breyer, age 78
  • Anthony Kennedy, age 80

So not only will President Trump be appointing Justice Scalia’s replacement, he may be in a position to turn the 5-4 court into a 7-2 court; and, to do so for a generation.

Our 2nd Amendment freedoms have been hanging by a thread ever since the landmark Heller ruling. The anti-gun left has been looking forward to snipping that thread. The passing of Justice Scalia earlier this year looked like their opportunity to do so. They would finally be able to rule the 2nd Amendment out of existence.

But that didn’t happen.

Shockingly, the Senate GOP held the line against Merrick Garland‘s appointment to the Court. In fact, they will be holding pro forma sessions until Donald Trump is actually sworn in to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. President Trump has promised to appoint a strict constructionist to fill the Scalia seat. In other words, a justice who won’t assign different meanings to the phrase “the people” in different parts of the Bill Of Rights. If it means individuals in the 4th Amendment, then it means individuals in the 2nd. It also means a justice who won’t creatively redefine “arms” to mean something other than weapons. Or one who won’t mistake the “militia” with the Army Reserve. These were the routes the anti-gun left intended to use to make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant. They know they can’t amend it away, so they’d simply rule it away.

And now that won’t happen. And that’s making them crazy; sensibly crazy.

Legal News Politics

I guess that they have a reputation to uphold…

The assembled clowns of the aptly named 9th Circus have had one last temper tantrum before President Trump takes office. A court panel has overturned a lower court ruling that the California 10-day waiting period for current gun owners to purchase another firearm is unconstitutional. The panel’s ruling, based on “intermediate scrutiny” rather than “strict scrutiny”, holds that the superfluous waiting period is “reasonable safety precaution”.

Anti-gun screwballs argue that current gun owners may have snapped between their last purchase and a new purchase and thus the “cooling off period” is necessary. They ignore the laws that they cried for in this State that create a mechanism to confiscate weapons from those who become “prohibited persons”. For those wanting an example of “doublethink”, this is a fine one; they simultaneously support and forget a law that they wanted.

So here’s a thought: What if the new Congress and the new President passed a Federal law prohibiting waiting periods? That could prove interesting.

Legal News

The effort to qualify ballot initiatives to overturn the “gunmageddon” bills appears to have fallen short. However, our gun-hating betters in Sacramento shouldn’t pop those corks just yet. NRA, CRPA, and other groups are moving forward with legal actions to overturn these unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Thank you to all of those who put in the sweat equity (And I mean that literally. Do you know how freakin’ hot it gets in places like Reseda?!?)  to gather signatures. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the rest of us. Please don’t let this news dishearten you. The fight isn’t over yet and you’re still needed.

Legal News Politics


MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016

The Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold an informational hearing tomorrow, Tuesday May 3, at 9:30am in hearing room 4203, on Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s gun control initiative, “The Safety for All Act of 2016.”  A vote will not be taken at this hearing however members are encourage to contact members of the committee with their opposition to the initiative and similar legislation that is currently moving through the Legislature.  Assembly Public Safety Committee contact information can be found hereand the Senate Public Safety Committee contact information can be found here or you can click the take action button below.

The NRA is joined by a growing number of diverse organizations that have publicly come out in opposition to Newsom’s gun control imitative. These groups include: the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Congress of Racial Equality, Women Against Gun Control, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, just to name a few.  These are all reputable organizations opposing this misguided initiative that recognize “The Safety for All Act of 2016” will do nothing to criminals, nothing to stop gun crimes and will only harm the law-abiding citizens of California.

According to the official language submitted to the Attorney General, Newsom’s intiative includes a laundry list of proposals that restrict, complicate and increase the cost of exercising your Second Amendment rights. Notable provisions include:

House-to-House Confiscation of Private Property – Millions of legal magazines will need to be sold out-of-state, taken out-of-state, or seized by law enforcement.  Many legal firearms are designed around magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, making them effectively useless for self-defense, competitive shooting, and hunting.  This backdoor gun ban is not just on future sales, but forces you to surrender your existing private property to law enforcement.

Restricting Legal Ammunition Vendors – Thousands of ammunition retailers will be prohibited from selling ammunition in California.  Vendors will be required to pay additional fees to have their employees authorized as a seller of ammunition.  Out-of-state ammunition vendors will be prohibited from directly selling ammunition into California.  Because of its ineffectiveness, in 1986, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported repeal of a similar federal ammunition record-keeping requirement: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.”  These ammunition restrictions will severely curtail the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct while providing no law enforcement value.

Leaving the Range With Ammunition – By criminalizing the private sale or transfer of ammunition, it will be a crime to share ammunition with a friend or family member to finish up a hunting trip or day at the range. The initiative would even prohibit leaving the range with any unused ammunition purchased at the range.

Costly Fees & Long Waits Just to Acquire Lawful Ammunition – This latest attempt to reduce the exercise of Second Amendment rights includes yet another excessive fee under the guise of more background checks.  Newsom wants you to pay another $50 fee and wait 30 days for authorization to purchase ammunition.  Law-abiding gun owners who have already gone through the burdensome firearm safety certificate procedures would not be exempt from the new ammunition authorization requirement.  The authorization would be added on top of California’s already complicated regime of firearm and ammunition regulations.

Lost and Stolen Reporting – This requirement would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals should they fail to report lost or stolen firearms to police within a limited amount of time after they “should have known” the firearm was missing.  Governor Brown has already vetoed similar legislation twice because it would do nothing to improve public safety in California.

Defeating Newsom’s gun control initiative will be a fight through November and it’s imperative that you help educate your family, friends and other Californians. Newsom is operating under the guise of “safety” to mislead citizens into somehow thinking restricting and creating new crimes against law-abiding citizens will curb criminal activity. The truth is, this initiative creates new crimes for the law-abiding while ignoring the acts of criminals.  Don’t let Newsom’s propaganda fool you because he has never met a gun control measure he doesn’t like including pushing for a complete handgun ban while serving as the Mayor of San Francisco.

Anti-gun Legal Legislation News Privacy State

From NRA News:

It should be noted that the Senate has done its Constitutional duty with regard to the nomination of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court. They’ve said “no”. One would expect that a con-law professor to know that the Senate’s duty is to provide advice and consent before the President may appoint someone to the high court. Its job is not to rubberstamp whatever choice the executive makes. The Senate has opted to not consent.

Legal News

There isn’t a law abiding gun owner alive who doesn’t feel for the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook elementary. On that horrible day, Adam Lanza used an illegally obtained firearm to commit an act of indescribable evil.

But let’s repeat that: Adam Lanza committed the crime.

No other person bears the responsibility for Lanza’s crime. Not you. Not me. And certainly not the Remington Arms Company. And just as you or I could not be made to pay for Lanza’s crimes, Congress made certain that lawful manufacturers of firearms could not be held liable for the evil acts of others.

But no matter what the Empress Dowager may want you to believe, Congress did not grant the firearms industry blanket immunity for any and all liability. They’re still liable for defective products, for example. What they are not liable for are the acts of others. No one, whether an individual or a company, should ever be made to answer for the crimes of another. Any other position is grossly unjust. It’s a pity that Congress had to pass a law to stop some States and cities from attempting to do just that to gun manufacturers.

However clear the law may be, anti-gun extremists are still attempting to exploit tragedy in violation of the law. They’ve tricked some of the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook into filing just the type of lawsuit the PLCAA forbids. This is a suit doomed to failure. None of the claims made by the parents are based upon the PLCAA’s explicit exceptions. Instead, they’re based on the same flawed arguments that the PLCAA was crafted to halt. Ultimately, Remington will prevail. The parents will lose. But it won’t stop there. They will be forced to pay Remington’s legal bills.

And it just got worse for them.

A Connecticut judge decided to make a political statement rather than rule on a point of law. Instead of dismissing the suit, with relatively minimal costs for the parents, Judge Barbara Bellis has decided to let the case more forward. And the further it progresses, the more legal bills will pile up.

The anti-gun extremists who pushed the case are celebrating, of course. But then again, they won’t have to pay the bills when this is all over. Neither will Judge Bellis, nor will the Empress Dowager. Only parents who have already lost children will be forced to pay for this judge’s actions.

Legal News




Yesterday, Wednesday, March 30, 2016, the Coalition for Civil Liberties announced that The Western State Sheriffs’ Association and the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN) have officially opposed Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative misnamed the “Safety for All Act of 2016.”  The Coalition for Civil Liberties Official announcement is below.  The two organizations should be commended for taking this position.


Gavin Newsom is looking to give criminals a break and people are taking notice.  Last week, the editorial board of the Orange County Register wrote about his “fancifully titled” proposition, and the next day, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee (a co-chair for the Coalition for Civil Liberties).

Today, two more important organizations voiced their opposition to Newsom’s ballot initiative.  The Western State Sheriffs’ Association represents Sheriffs and their command staff across 15 states.  It’s a big deal to see an organization with such a huge constituency paying close attention to what happens in one state, and it says a lot about the danger our law enforcement officials see in Newsom’s plan.

Also critical of Newsom’s initiative is the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), a national non-profit organization that fights against policies that favor criminals at the expense of the police and the public.  LEAN’s advocacy on behalf of our police officers ensures critical decisions affecting our safety are made by frontline officers and prosecutors – not self-serving politicians like Newsom.

Newsom’s campaign continues to use scare tactics to confuse well-intentioned Californians into gun control measures that don’t do anything to stop crime or terrorism.  We need your help to set the record straight.  Please join us by:

  • Donating to the campaign.  Newsom is collecting checks from his Hollywood celebrity friends, some as big as $250,000.  Help us catch up with a donation.
  • Following us on social media.  Share our content and engage every gun owner you know before it is too late.  We’re on Facebook and Twitter.
  • Spreading the word at your local clubs, ranges, stories and places of worship.  There are excellent resources on our website at  Print them out and share them wherever you can.
  • Registering to vote for the June primary and November general elections.  Make it easy and vote by mail.  Learn more about the requirements here.
  • Reporting fraud by signature gatherers.  We’ve heard some of the people collecting signatures for Newsom’s proposition are distorting the truth.  If you see fraud, report it to Secretary of State’s Elections Division at(916) 657-2166 or email us at

Thank you for your support!

You can also report signature gatherer fraud to or to the CRPA. If possible, include video of the signature gatherer. Specifically, look out for mischaracterizations of the initiative; such as claims that it bans “assault weapons” or “requires background checks for all gun buyers”. (It does neither!)



Anti-gun Legal Legislation News State