BREAKING: FPC, SAF Sue State of California Over One Gun a Month Limit

Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra gun control

(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Today, FPC announced the filing of a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit, Michelle Nguyen, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., challenging the State’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period. Plaintiffs in this action include Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, three individuals, and two licensed firearm retailers in San Diego County. The complaint can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The State of California “unconstitutionally prohibit[s]—under pain of criminal penalty—the average, adult individual who is not prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms— even those known to Defendants as such—from purchasing or receiving more than one handgun at a time,” the plaintiff’s complaint says. “And as of July of 2021, that prohibition will extend to all semiautomatic centerfire rifles, thus applying to two large categories of constitutionally protected firearms that are unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes.”

At the same time, “[d]efendants allow a dozen categories of government-favored people to freely exercise the right to acquire and take possession of arms without being subject to delays or subjecting the transferee or licensee to criminal liability or the risk of arrest and prosecution.” These exempt categories include the “Hollywood” exemption, whereby the State of California carves out an exemption for their wealthy and influential friends in the entertainment business.

“The State of California currently prevents law abiding individuals, even those known to be fully eligible to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, from acquiring more than one handgun within a thirty day period,” explained FPC Attorney Anthony Miranda. “This will soon apply to semi-automatic, centerfire rifles as well. The State’s ban on the number of firearms that can be acquired in a single transaction is a clear violation of the individual right to keep and bear arms as well as a burden on the exercise of the fundamental right at stake here.”

“California’s ban on multiple-firearm purchases in a thirty day period is without rhyme or reason, particularly when that prohibition is compared to those who are exempt from the ban,” explained Adam Kraut, FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy. “Such a restriction on the acquisition of arms plainly violates an individual’s Second Amendment rights. We look forward to challenging this ban and are cautiously optimistic that the Court will find, as the D.C. Circuit already has, that the restriction is unconstitutional.”

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

The Nguyen case is another important lawsuit that is part of FPC’s comprehensive strategy to defend freedom, advance individual liberty, and restore the Constitution and its guarantees for individuals throughout the United States. Individuals who wish to support the lawsuit can do so at JoinFPC.org and www.firearmspolicy.org/nguyen.

NOTICE — POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS NEEDED!

FPC is urgently seeking individual and FFL plaintiffs for a number of lawsuits that are being prepared to challenge laws and policies that infringe on fundamental rights, including (but not limited to):

  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from purchasing and/or possessing so-called “assault weapons” (semi-automatic firearms with standard characteristics) and “high-capacity” magazines (standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds)
  • Laws and policies that prevent 18-20-year-old young adults (under age 21) from obtaining handguns from FFLs and carry loaded, operable arms in public for self-defense
  • Laws and policies that prevent individual adults (over the age of 18) from carrying loaded handguns and other arms outside of their home
  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring and/or possessing handguns and other arms without first acquiring a “purchase permit”
  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring or possessing firearms due to a conviction for a non-violent crime, or mental health adjudication that did not involve an involuntary commitment
  • Laws that prevent honorably discharged veterans from acquiring or possessing firearms because they have been classified as “a mental defective” due to the agency’s determination that they “lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs” because they need assistance managing VA benefits and have a fiduciary

If someone you know meets the criteria above, or if you would be interested in participating in litigation as a supporting FFL, please contact us:

On the web at www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline
By email at potentialplaintiffs[at]fpchq.org
By phone at (855) 252-4510 (FPC Legal Action Hotline available 24/7/365)

comments

  1. avatar Nate in CA says:

    Noice!
    Looks to me like they really wanna make us pay the newly increased DROS fee for each purchase… I’m sure all that money goes somewhere important!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Sure it does. It goes to training new recruits for the job of seizing firearms from “prohibited persons”, most of whom immediately quit after they are trained and apply for a higher paying job elsewhere in state government. Which is why millions of dollars have gone to the seizure program but the number of persons allegedly possessing guns illegally remains unchanged. I also wonder how much money is being diverted to other DOJ programs under the table, and other fraud because the State knows that it cannot raise taxes so it raises fees on “the usual suspects.”

  2. avatar Zoomiez says:

    If the microstamping suit failed, this will fail too.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Has a microstamping challenge been submitted for consideration of cert. before the current SCOTUS makeup?

      No.

      When the court as it consists of today denies cert. on a microstamping challenge, then you can piss-and-moan to your heart’s content…

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    FPC and SAF seem to have filed more 2A defense law suits in twelve months than NRA in twelve years. A new 800lb gorilla growing?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I’m more inclined to consider them a 900 *ton* gorilla based on their recent efforts.

      We have to flood the pipeline with high-quality challenges with the Court before the make-up changes on us…

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup. I’ve started donating to 2AF. No bucks to the nra.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        FPC spends its money filing suits to regain our liberties. Donations to then are money well spent.

        NRA spends its millions on an outside lawyer with connections to a vendor they admitted using for kickbacks, and for defending the organisation and their officers for those kickbacks. They also admitted it was bad to have Hammer on the board and under contract, but they didn’t do anything about it. Donations here are less useful than just flushing it down the toilet.

      3. avatar FedUp says:

        “before the make-up changes on us”

        You mean, before March of 2021?

        Support the GOP in Georgia any way you can, folks.
        Joe Manchin is, AFAIK, the only Demoncrat who claims he won’t pack the court. And I wouldn’t want to bet my freedom on Manchin’s word of honor.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Did the math. If all other Trump voters donate to the GA Senators the same amount my wife and I did, they will each have a $7.5 billion campaign. But I can’t carry them alone. BTW, I get several requests per day from each of them for money on my phone, I seriously doubt either of them is soliciting in that way, fraud attempts are MASSIVE today. Go to the website, put down the damn phone.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    I wish them luck on this. If they manage to load a few more on the SCOTUS these cases could turn out the wrong way.

  5. avatar Huntmaster says:

    It would seem they are actually doing something other than stroking a guy with a two hundred thousand dollar wardrobe.

  6. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    Check this out –

    Interesting *BREAKING NEWS* :

    The President of the Federal, CCI, Speer And Remington ammunition company is pissed-off that people are bad-mouthing them, and even showing up at the factories to complain.

    I shit you not :

    1. avatar Scott C. says:

      He’s right but he’s way off on his ammo count for new shooters. And what he doesn’t mention (it’s not his fault either) are the bots and assholes who’s sole purpose is to buy ammo by the case and try to flip it for double or triple what they paid for it. I truly hope every person who has done that chokes on their ammo. They are not being a capitalist, they are not price gouging, they are simply the ones keeping these prices sky high, supply low and being pieces of shit.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Agreed…he’s correct, and I see nothing at all wrong with his video. As someone who has worked in manufacturing (management level) most of my adult life and dealing with the fluid changes in global demand for product, dealing with spikes such as this can be very challenging. But it’s my understanding that they’ve permanently added to their production equipment this time and are doing their best.

        Unfortunately, we’re in a classic “scarcity effect” situation in which all ammo is being snapped up as soon as it hits the retail shelf due to the belief that “I’d better buy this no matter what the price is because it may not be available for me tomorrow”.

        It’s not the manufacturers…it’s the end consumers creating this situation.

    2. avatar TheDottedLine says:

      He needs to fire whoever advised him to make this video

    3. avatar Debbie W. says:

      That’s why I love you so. Marry me and help me turn this sawdust to velvet.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        The real Deborah already has someone who gets her nice things like vintage Detroit muscle cars, little imposter fuckwit.

        By the way, instead of obsessing about Deborah’s love-life, if you focused on getting a woman for yourself, you might be less of a complete asshole… 😉

  7. avatar Darkman says:

    Screw the Courts…It’s just another Long Game tactic used by Politicians to subvert Laws. They know (both sides) it’s just a ploy for slowly stealing Our Freedoms. While We sit around with baited breath waiting for our side to win this time and yet we still loose. It may take a little longer, but still we loose. Trusting the Courts to Preserve and Protect Our Rights is a stupid as trusting politicians. Where has it gotten Us the last 100 years. Especially with the 2nd Amendment. The one thing that is the sole responsibility of “We the People” is our Freedoms. To trust in anyone who wishes to control Us is ludicrous as history is showing. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  8. avatar Shawn says:

    Another lawsuit they will lose. Could be one gun a year, one gun in there lifetime or just go for the complete and total shutdown of all gun sales and transfers in the state and every single court with side with California. After all when biden signs an executive order banning the sale and possession of all semi-auto rifles combined with an executive order claiming guns to be a “public health crisis” and suspend the sale of guns and ammo nationwide which will last as long as the “public health crisis” last which will be forever plus mandated turn in of all those guns do t expect t su court including the Supreme Court to stop it. EVERY court and EVERY judge wants the complete and total ban of all private gun ownership and most want the United States government to round up and exterminate every single solitary United stars citizen that owns guns.

    Or the democrats take the senate and pass legislation doing the same thing the Supreme Court will not stop it. They will either not take the case involving legislation banning the ownership of guns or they will side with the democrats.

    The complete and total ban of all private gun ownership with the door to door confiscation a d execution of all gun owners is coming. And no court, not even the Supreme Court will do a damn thing either out of cowardice or there shared desire of the democrats to ban all guns and kill every single solitary United States citizen that owns a gun.

    One would think it would fail due to sheer numbers. With 400 million guns and 1/3rd of the population being gun owners. However the democrats have one thing we don’t: 6,000 nukes. And if you think that that sounds insane I have one name for you: Eric Swalwell.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      They’d kill more of their own than they would us if they used nukes. They’re welcome to it.

      But they’re not going to do it because they’re not insane. Evil, yes, and possibly genocidal, but not suicidal.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Ing, little ‘shawn’ copy-pastes the same tripe over and over again. But it is fun to give him a swift and vicious kick to the nads anyways… 😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email