Lawsuit Against SB 707 Has Potential To Stop Anti-Gun Bills In Their Tracks

California State Flag
California
Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

Sacramento, CA -(AmmoLand.com)- When anti-gun legislators pass laws that strip Second Amendment rights, people are justifiably upset and wonder what recourse they have.

One way to fight back is in court, which is why Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) is actively engaged in this method of fighting for your Second Amendment rights – and other civil rights.

FPF filed suit challenging SB 707, which divides law-abiding gun owners into two classes – and an upcoming hearing could have huge ramifications on the legislature’s ability to pass discriminatory anti-gun laws in the future.

SB 707 banned law-abiding, CCW-licensed individuals from carrying handguns for self-defense on “school grounds.” However, the law created an exemption some former government employees.

FIGHT KAMALA HARRIS

One man, Dr. Ulisses Garcia, was issued a license to carry in response to a threat of violence from a former patient. Since the passage of SB 707, Dr. Garcia is unable to lawfully carry his handgun when he attends his children’s school events or simply drops them off in the morning.

But this law applies differently to people who have worked in different professions, and those people don’t have to make that choice.

This is a clear violation of civil rights.

On behalf of Dr. Garcia and others, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, arguing that all law-abiding people should have the same rules and that SB 707’s provisions violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The Ninth Circuit ruled on virtually identical facts the 2002 case of Silveira v. Lockyer, stating that favoring retired peace officers over similarly-situated civilians violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Interestingly, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown issued a legal opinion backing up the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Brown explained:

“Silveira teaches that it is…. a peace officer’s role as a law enforcement agent that provides a rational basis for distinguishing between a peace officer and a private citizen for purposes of possessing and using assault weapons. A retired officer is not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities.”

The same is true in the current case, no matter what the current Attorney General wants to argue.

But still, Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office has filed an outrageous Motion to Dismiss, using arguments directly contrary to the Silveira case.

RESTORE THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Far from bolstering her case, her Motion simply “lay[s] bare the disparate treatment that Plaintiffs now face.”

For example, Harris quotes opposition to from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Association, which argued:

“Forcing our retired members to choose between picking up their children or grandchildren form [sic] school or attending school events and ensuring their own ability to protect themselves or their loved ones is a decision they should not be required to make. Neither should retired officers be forced to jeopardize their safety in order to take college classes.”

While FPF does not disagree with that sentiment, why should the Plaintiffs be forced to make those same awful choices where others do not? Our brief states:

“Should Scott Dipman also be forced to forgo his right to self-defense while hand-delivering his sons to class? What about when Jordan Gallinger, an expert marksman in the United States Marine Corps, wants to go to school? Or when Lisa Jang walks across campus late at night—must she jeopardize her safety?”

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that creating divisions based on the political unpopularity of a group violates the Equal Protection Clause.

As our Opposition brief argues, “No one can deny that civilian gun owners are unpopular with the California Legislature—that is, unless those civilians are former ‘peace officers.’ The Legislature re-inserted the exemption here to avert opposition by favoring a politically powerful group—at the expense of a politically unpopular group.”

BEAT CALIFORNIA

But there’s only have one person to convince, and that is the presiding judge.

If Harris wins, we will have to appeal the decision to dismiss at the Ninth Circuit—and that could take years.

Even if we win that appeal, it would effectively put the lawsuit back where it is today.

In the meantime, special interest government employee lobbyists and unions would still be able to work with corrupt Sacramento politicians to destroy your Second Amendment rights.

That’s why this hearing is a MUST win.

If we win, the future of gun rights may just be saved by forcing special interests to align with you and your Second Amendment rights – they wouldn’t have the ability to carve out special exemptions in the law.

But again, that is only if we beat this motion to dismiss.

Help us beat Kamala Harris and save the future of gun rights today.

About Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):

Firearms Policy Coalition is a grassroots 501(c)4 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

More information about FPC can be found at www.firearmspolicy.org.

  • 12
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    7 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    9 Comment authors
    Marshall BuckB.ZerkerWild BillBazeJim in Conroe Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Baze
    Guest
    Baze

    You gun nuts aka terrorists lose and we win. Suck it

    Marshall Buck
    Guest
    Marshall Buck

    Baze

    Now that you’ve exhausted your vocabulaty, you can return to the basement.

    Jim in Conroe
    Guest
    Jim in Conroe

    Unfortunately, the courts are now a hostile environment for gun rights cases. If gun rights prevails, the case will be appealed by gun control groups until it gets to the Supreme Court, and you know how that will come out. If gun rights looses, will they then take the risk of appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, because you know how that will come out.

    B.Zerker
    Guest
    B.Zerker

    Jim, The great thing about Title 18, USC, Secs. 241 & 242, is that they apply to EVERYONE, even SCOTUS Justices. They were put into the Code to protect the Constitution’s absolute intent from modern day tyrants. They make it so that no one is above the supreme law (the U.S. Constitution) and immune from prosecution for violating the secured rights of someone else. There can be no civilized law without remedy and recourse. Title 18 provides the first needed element. Title 42, USC, Sec. 1983 provides the second.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @B.Z. I truly wish that you were right about applying 18USC241and 242 and 42 USC 1983 to legislators and judges. Do you know of any case where 18 USC 241 or 242 or 42 USC 1983 have been applied to a legislator performing his legislative function or a judge performing his judicial function?
    42 USC 1983 is civil and meant to compensate the subject of an unlawful arrest by a police entity of one of the various States.

    B.Zerker
    Guest
    B.Zerker

    No Wild Bill, I don’t personally know anyone that has used Title 18 or Title 42 to their benefit. But do you actually think the media, who are in the pockets of the politicians, would advertise it if someone had? Hell, I’ve only known about ’em for about 2-3 years because they’re pretty much hidden from the public unless someone’s interested in this kinda stuff. More likely, what happens when/if someone uses them successfully, is that courts simply dismisses the charges, for whatever, against the person doing the charging and the person that is charged. Either that or the govt.,… Read more »

    James
    Guest
    James

    Cal don’t care about whore rights

    TEX
    Guest
    TEX

    @B.Zerker,how about charging the scum with high treason ?

    B.Zerker
    Guest
    B.Zerker

    TEX, Technically, that could be done if the people of the State were defined as sovereign. Anywhere in the world, when militarized personnel rise against a sovereign (a coup de tat), it is considered an act of levying war on the sovereign which is high treason. The problem we face here is that the people’s sovereignty is only implied in the U.S. Constitution and not stated outright. The people’s sovereignty is however stated in most States’ constitutions making them sovereign. Sadly, CA’s State constitution is not one of them, so the people there can not legally claim sovereignty. This makes… Read more »

    B.Zerker
    Guest
    B.Zerker

    Someone should grow a pair and have both Kamala Harris and Gerry Brown arrested on the charge of DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS (Title 18, USC, Sec. 242) which makes it a federal felony for ANYONE that deprives anyone else of a right that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. After that, charge and every Assembly and Senate member that voted to pass any unconstitutional gun-control laws with Conspiracy Against Rights (Title 18, USC, Sec. 241) because by voting for such bills, they conspired against you and a right that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Sleazy politicians are what these laws… Read more »

    FB
    Guest
    FB

    Not going to happen. CA is rigged.

    Maluka
    Guest
    Maluka

    The best thing that could happen in Khalifornia would be the voters rid the state of all DEMOCRAT politicians. I don’t believe they are smart enough to do that. The idiots elected them but everyone now suffers with these DEMOCRAPS. (misspell intended)