dead goose AK receiver
JWT for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation is seeking a federal court injunction against enforcement of a California law restricting people from manufacturing their own firearms, which is an American tradition dating back to colonial times, and another statute written to discourage court challenges.

Joining SAF is Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company that sells a product called the “Ghost Gunner,” a general-purpose Computerized Numerical Code (CNC) milling machine that allows a home gunsmith to complete unfinished frames and receivers for various types of firearms, including the AR-15, AR-308, M1911 and AK-47.

Defendants in the case are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, director of the California Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities. The case is known as Defense Distributed v. Bonta.

“What we’re talking about is a milling process,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “which is common in modern manufacturing of a wide range of products, including firearm frames and receivers. Despite the long standing tradition of personal firearms manufacture by private citizens, California has now criminalized the process.

“What’s worse,” he continued, “is that the state has enacted legislation that could financially penalize anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm, if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance, or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win in all respects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.”

“Under the law,” Gottlieb added, “the government is considered the ‘prevailing party’ if a court either dismisses any part of a claim or cause of action brought by a plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, regardless the reason for dismissal, or if the court enters a judgment in favor of the party opposing the declaratory or injunctive relief on any claim or cause of action.

The federal complaint alleges depravation of rights “under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of California, of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.” Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Brett W. Johnson, Michael Reynolds and Derek C. Flint with national firm of Snell & Wilmer, LLP.

Previous Post
Next Post

24 COMMENTS

  1. Anyone making their own guns is a stochastic terrorist. We are tired of all the cisgender heteronormative straight white bigoted christians out there, making a world of terror for us, while calling it “free-dumb.”

    • Cisgender, heteronormative, straight white Christian here.

      I noticed that you didn’t mention any other group. Not Al Qaida, the Taliban, the former IRA, Hezbollah, Boko Hatam, Hitler, the PLA, et al. Nope…just white Christians.

      Explain, Micro D.

        • The big clue is in the clever intelligent use of the English language to make a joke. The other dacian isn’t that intelligent or clever

        • I find it hysterical that we can no longer distinguish between lil’d and someone punking him. This shows us that lil’d has literally become a parody of himself.

          If lil’d isn’t on meds, he needs to be.
          If he’s on them, he needs to take them as prescribed.
          If he’s taking them as prescribed, they need to adjust his dosage.

      • ARE HEZBOLLAH the IRA [ Americans GAVE proper guns to the iRA so why would they make their own?], BOKO-HARAM [ in NIGERIA for flocks sake!] HITLER [HITLER?? I very much doubt HITLER Made his own bloody guns] ALI-Q etc. making their own arms in the USA? I’d have thought that availoable evidence would suggest that they are too blood clever to do that kind of thing when they can access far better firearms so easily in the USA.
        If they are making their own firearms in their own countries because legal ones are NOT easily available than that’s got SWEET FA to do with the US gun owners. Strangely enough the AFGHANS did make their own copies of the LE-ENFIELD, the HENRY MARTINI and the AK 47.
        The PAKISTANIS still have a considerable Back -Street illegal gunmaking culture but it is highy technical and hardly Home Made

    • darcydodo…you sound very bigoted about guns and guns in the hands of citizens. Citizens who can legally use those guns to stop sick perverts like you from abucting children, etc. Your slander and libel make it easy to see how frustrated you and your tiny peepee are. Just go play in the freeway, those oncoming diesels will wash your worries away.

    • dacian the demented dips***,

      “. . . stochastic terrorist . . . ”

      We get it. You got your Soros talking points. They are stupid. Blow it out your @$$.

    • dancian the Dunderhead. It seems that it is you Lefties who are the real terrorists. Do you remember the Summer of 2020 when your ANTIFA & BLM hoards attacked, looted burned and murdered and even seized parts of cities (insurrection)? Very few is any were even prosecuted.

  2. Once again Jim Crow Gun Control zealots threw the first punch. And anyone who responds on the behalf of freedom are on the line for all fees, etc. And that’s providing some kangaroo court does not side in any way with deep pocket tyrants. Tyrants who think they can continue to treat law abiding citizens as dirt beneath their feet.

    Since the lame defense wants to argue on the behalf of a “tradition” and not a word against Gun Control which is a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide then win or lose Gun Control gets away again with all its filth. Case Closed.

      • “What in God’s name are you blathering about again?”

        The implication is, “You get the government you deserve, good and hard”, you nattering nit-wit.

        Do everyone a solid and ventilate you cranium, please?

        • “you cranium” ???

          Is that a new element that has been discovered?

          NTexas is an illiterate, incompetent troll. We mock him on the regular, particularly his inability to use his “caps lock” key.

          Lighten up, Francis.

  3. “Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win in all respects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.”

    Sounds like ‘Job 1’ is attacking that violation of free speech law they have penalizing lawsuits…

  4. Hypothetical question: You can mow your own lawn, you can repair your own car, you can repair your own light switches, so what is the issue with making your own gun?? Americans have been doing it for damn near 400 years.

    Oh, if they don’t know about it, and don’t have you in a database, it is harder to control you.

    Once again, it is ALL about “control”. T. Jefferson gave us the concept – individual human liberty is the highest value. And that purely chaps the @$$ of every control freak fascist in the world – these days, almost exclusively Leftist/fascists, like dacian the demented dips*** and MajorStupidity.

    As “Sean Connery” (Norm McDonald) said to “Alex Trebek” (Will Farrell), “Suck it, Trebek! Suck it long, and suck it hard!!”

    • “Hypothetical question: You can mow your own lawn, you can repair your own car,…”

      There are some Satan-worshipping HOAs out there that expressly forbid you from wrench-turning in your own driveway…

  5. ““What’s worse,” he continued, “is that the state has enacted legislation that could financially penalize anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm, if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance, or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.”

    What are the realistic chances a law like that successfully passes constitutional muster?

    More to the point, in order to get ‘standing’, does someone have to had a financial liability in order to get such standing?

    And, are the firearm rights organizations busy right now crafting lawsuits to challenge it?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here