Supreme Court Urged to Take Up San Francisco Gun Control Case

ROSEVILLE, CA / January 15, 2015 – No less than 12 state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.

According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual–rather than a collective–right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.”

While some Second Amendment lawsuits have been decided based on the “text, history, and tradition” standard used in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that applied the Second Amendment to states and local governments, many lower courts have since applied weaker standards that lets most gun control laws stand.

“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”

“The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”

Parties to the amicus brief (in order of appearance) are:

  • Firearms Policy Coalition
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • The Calguns Foundation
  • Firearms Policy Foundation
  • California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
  • The Madison Society
  • Florida Carry
  • Hawaii Defense Foundation
  • Illinois Carry
  • Maryland Shall Issue
  • Commonwealth Second Amendment
  • Virginia Citizens Defense League
  • West Virginia Citizens Defense League

The brief can be viewed at

Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., was filed in 2009 by lawyers for 6 San Francisco residents, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association.

Je suis… désarmé

January 7th, 2015 was only a week after the fresh and happy beginning of the new year celebration; however it might be a day that millions people will unfortunately remember for ever like we still all do for 9/11.

I know, “Je suis désarmé” (I am unarmed) is a very poor title choice but it could mean different things in French such: (of course) “I’m unarmed” or “I’m giving up”, but also “I’m soften” or even “I’m emotionally touched”… and obviously it does refer to the now popular “I am charlie”.

Generally, I don’t like to react immediately to comment any recent event without enough time to analyze it. We often don’t really know what’s exactly going on, why it’s happening, how it happens, who did it, all social, religious and geopolitical reasons behind it, etc… So don’t try to look too much into it that way.

What would be more interesting for me to observe here is not really the event per se and all geopolitics it could involve, but actually, to have a take on it only from a “Gun Control” politics point of view…

As some might remember, not too long ago I wrote an article about the French Gun laws to demonstrate that It’s not about safety, it’s all about control and confiscation purpose…

And even if French gun laws are not as drastic as the ones we can find in Australia or the UK, they’re still pretty strong when it comes down to semi-auto rifles or pistols, and they’re a pure and simple ban when it comes down to heavier artillery such, full auto rifles, grenade lunchers, RPGs, explosives, etc… However Wednesday, the people who did the attack against the French satirical newspaper “Charlie Hebdo”, did have this kind of heavy equipment. So, how could it be possible?Well, I guess it just proves it, unfortunately, once again, that criminals don’t obey the laws and no stricter gun control laws would have prevent them to have this kind of equipment that is already banned to law abiding French civilians.

One must fool himself very deeply to believe that criminals who attacked Charlie Hebdo went through the whole process to join a sport shooting club for at least 6 months to receive some safety instructions and shooting test controls to get their approval to request an “authorization” that will eventually need the approval of the government services after a background check, a medical exam, and no criminal records at all (not even a DUI). A few weeks later you get a visit at home from the police to check your home and your safe where you will store your requested gun.  Then you wait another 6 to 8 months to receive the authorization that is only valid for 3 months to buy the requested gun from an official gun store. The purchase will require all proper paperwork which requires the store to immediately send the registration, with the serial number and your info, to the government. Of course you still won’t be able to purchase a full auto AK, grenade launcher or RPG. You are only able to buy a semi-auto AK and that’s about it… and you won’t be able to have more than 12 of them total.

Everytime a tragic event involving guns happens, we can see the same thing in the media, the politicians, and all anti-gun associations. They’re asking for more “Gun Sense” to stop “Gun Violence”, but what could have been done Wednesday to prevent this tragic event?

French people were already unarmed (since conceal carry is not allowed for 99.99% of the population). The French are so used to being disarmed that some neighbors didn’t even realize what the “loud noises” were at first when they heard the gunshots. Actually, even the police officers that arrived first by bicycles were unarmed and they had to leave the scene quickly, unable to provide any response and protection to the victims.

So, what “Gun Sense” would have prevented this? Unarmed people with unarmed police officers… the only way would have been to have “unarmed criminals”, right? I believe we must to come to the conclusion that criminals don’t play by the rules and antigun laws have no effect. A few weeks ago before Christmas, the laws didn’t stop another man from getting a car and running down 13 people in the French city of Dijon. But we didn’t hear a cry for “Car Sense” by organizations against “Car Violence”.

Wednesday, two of the people killed were police officers. There’s a very graphic video that has been circulating on the net showing how organized and brutal the criminals were when shooting down a unarmed police officer. Does it mean it mean this tragedy wouldn’t have happened if everyone had guns? I don’t know , however I’m quite sure some people would have shot back and would have put of a fight.

Wednesday, no gun laws and no “gun sense” could have prevented the “gun violence” in Paris, like no “car sense” could prevent the “car violence” in Dijon few weeks ago.

Being able to call Fire fighters is not a reason for you to not have and use your own fire extinguishers in case of emergency.
Being able to call Armed Police officers is not a reason for you to not have and use your own firearms in case of emergency.

Without firearms you’re only option is to try to run away from the threat as you won’t have the power to stop armed attackers. At that point it will be too late and you will realize you won’t be able to fight back and you’ll keep saying to yourself: Je suis désarmé…

by Phil January 10, 2015, (The Bangswitch)

Another lawsuit filed challenging federal ban on new machine guns

In a law suit supported by Freedom Fighters Foundation, a complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Friday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Ryan S. Watson, acting individually and as trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

Attorney David R. Scott is joined in the lawsuit by Stephen D. Stamboulieh, the Mississippi attorney who filed a similar action in Texas on October 30 in the case of Hollis v. Holder. This latest action differs from the first in that Watson is subject to an actual taking resulting from actions performed under authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for which approval was later revoked.

Following an ATF Firearms Industry Programs Branch determination that “unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of ‘person,’” Watson, acting as an authorized official of the Watson Family Gun Trust, electronically submitted an ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” in May. In August, he received ATF approval along with its stamp evidencing payment of the tax affixed to the form, and based on that authorization, he manufactured a machine gun.

Watson had also submitted an earlier Form 1 in April in paper form, and while that one was later returned disapproved, the signature box, date box and approval box had been “whited out” by ATF. In both cases ATF processed and retained the $200 “tax.”

As for the approved machine gun, ATF reneged after the fact and advised Watson it had erroneously approved his application, despite, per Stamboulieh, the agency having no statutory authority to revoke an approval. ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division ordered Watson to surrender the manufactured machine gun, reminding him that “possession of this unregistered machine gun is a Federal felony.”

The complaint asks for judgment along several grounds, including that existing statutes barring private ownership of machine guns exceed the authority of Congress and violate the Second Amendment. It additionally seeks declarations that such statutes cannot be applied individually or against trustees, that the defendants are enjoined from enforcement and that they have no authority to revoke tax stamps. Alternatively, the complaint asks that “unincorporated trusts are not prohibited from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.” It also seeks to recover costs of the suit and attorney fees, as well as “any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.”