Cato Institute Files Brief Supporting Lawsuit Challenging Special Gun Privileges

Lawsuit
Cato Institute Files Brief Supporting Lawsuit Challenging Special Gun Privileges
Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

SAN FRANCISCO, CA —-(Ammoland.com)- Today, the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ulises Garcia, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the State of California’s special statutory exemptions to gun laws for retired law enforcement officers as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The Cato Institute’s brief, authored by legal scholars Ilya Shapiro—a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review—and Thomas Berry—a legal associate in the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies and graduate of Stanford Law School—argues that:

“In this case, an examination of the full factual circumstances proves fatal to the differing treatment contained in the amendment. Both the effects of the amendment itself and the history of lobbying from which the differing treatment arose show that no serious policy concern was on the minds of legislators. Instead, the amendment was enacted purely to advantage one politically powerful class at the advantage of a less powerful and less popular class. Such a motivation is impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause, and for that reason the differing treatment contained in the amendment must be struck down.”

“We are very grateful to the Cato Institute, Mr. Shapiro, and Mr. Berry for their excellent brief in support of this case,” said Craig DeLuz, an individual plaintiff in the case and a spokesperson for the appellants. “We cannot thank them enough for their hard work and tireless efforts to promote individual liberty.”

Cato Institute
Cato Institute

The case was filed after California enacted Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) in 2015, which was originally written to eliminate all civilian exemptions to the Gun-Free School Zone Act—including those for both retired law enforcement officers and CCW licensees—but was later amended to re-include the exemption for government retirees following significant lobbying by law enforcement associations and government employee special interest groups.

Civil rights groups Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation are organizational plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Key filings, including the Cato Institute’s amicus brief, can be viewed or downloaded at www.firearmsfoundation.org/sb707.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

Madison Society Foundation (www.madison-society.org) was founded in 2001 as a tax exempt (501)(c)(3) organization. The mission and objective of the foundation is to serve and protect citizens of the United States their constitutional and civil rights as defined in the Bill of Rights Second Amendment.

  • 25 thoughts on “Cato Institute Files Brief Supporting Lawsuit Challenging Special Gun Privileges

        1. I definitely will not call the police for a burglary. Let them in your house and you are opening the door to more thieves.

          1. @Andy — You really need to give up the Kool-Aid and get a grip on reality. You are so far out there I don’t know how you get out of bed each morning (or maybe you don’t). I’m curious to know how many times the police have burglarized your home.

    1. Why are legal briefs (or anything “legal” in print) so damn difficult to understand? I would love to have had this stated in common language. I’ve read this twice, and still do not understand what it means.

      1. Exactly why the law schools are still cranking out liars er um lawyers as fast as they can. The use of ‘professional’ language ensures that us common folks have to ‘rely’ on their ‘expertise’. Remember a few years back the insurance company made some progress with using plain old ordinary language to entice customers?

      2. This is due to the usage of the ADMIRALTY COURT SYSTEM. COMMON LAW COURT SYSTEM is what America was and IS based on. When you go into a court room, look at the flag with stripes and stars on it. If is is “fringed in gold/yellow”, you are looking at an ADMIRALTY FLAG. The American Flag has no “fringe” on it. It IS time to remove the Admiralty Court System and use the Common Law System. IF you ever “plead” in an Admiralty court, you just surrendered your Civil Rights as an American. BE CAREFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Research the two court systems on the internet by extinguished lawyers.

        1. @Laddyboy, I never even heard the words “Admiralty Court” when I went to law school. The gold fringe on the American flag in every court room is there because the court administrator thought that it looked cooler than the American flag without the fringe, and they had to spend the budget money before 1 October began the new fiscal year. The fringe does not signify anything to those judicial bureaucrats.

          1. This Awareness* wishes briefly to remind entities that the admiralty court is the court in which the gold braid goes around the American Flag which indicates the court is under martial law, or under admiralty law, from the martial law since Abraham Lincoln’s executive order putting it under martial law, and in order to continue staying under martial law, the country has to have some kind of war every two years. Thus, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, et cetera, and the admiralty laws are used in the courts in such a way that they are not necessarily tied to the Constitution, although the Constitution is said to be the law of the land.
            The Admiralty Court Exists Because the U.S. is Under Martial law

      3. This is the first time I wrote this comment. This is due to the usage of the ADMIRALTY COURT SYSTEM. COMMON LAW COURT SYSTEM is what America was and IS based on. When you go into a court room, look at the flag with stripes and stars on it. If is is “fringed in gold/yellow”, you are looking at an ADMIRALTY FLAG. The American Flag has no “fringe” on it. It IS time to remove the Admiralty Court System and use the Common Law System. IF you ever “plead” in an Admiralty court, you just surrendered your Civil Rights as an American. BE CAREFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Research the two court systems on the internet by extinguished lawyers.

    2. Great news on this brief, but even better would be if the law did not exist in the first place or could just be deemed null and void so that nobody would have to blow endless amounts of money on lawyers to fight it.

      Good news is, that actually can happen. (Not the blowing of endless amounts of money on lawyers, that’s already happening, I’m talking about how to deem the unconstitutional laws null and void, before they even have to be challenged in court.)

      See: https://www.facebook.com/repealunconstitutionallaws
      Discussion: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?742770-The-Persistent-Problem-of-Pesky-Liberal-States-amp-What-To-Do-About-It

    3. Gee, as we all know the “legislators” of California are functionally illiterate because it really isn’t too hard to understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    4. This is typical California politics and its preferential treatment of classes of people. Pass a law that applies to everyone, then amend it to include a special group. San Francisco county has issued a total of four conceal carry permits, Diane Feinstein has one. California wants an elite class to rule the peasants, and for some reason, the peasants are happy with that. It takes these terrific organizations to fight these corruptions of justice. Please think about sending them a donation if you live in this wacko state

      1. It is a shame that it costs SOOOO much to get our peon’s day in court. The COST is the reason most cases are NEVER heard in court.

    5. I believe that members of the state legislature, both houses, are also exempt recently passed gun control measures.

    6. If such regulations/laws are allowed to stand, then they should be expanded to include citizens who have provided testimony that resulted in incarceration for any amount of time. You know when the lowlife scum exits prison, a large percentage of them will be seeking retribution. Otherwise, why would retired LEOs be worried about their self defense in retirement? Additionally, the released inmate knows exacty who provided what testimony that sunk their boat.

    7. If such regulations/laws are allowed to stand, then they should be expanded to include citizens who have provided testimony that resulted in incarceration for any amount of time. You know when the lowlife scum exits prison, a large percentage of them will be seeking retribution. Otherwise, why would retired LEOs be worried about their self defense in retirement? Additionally, the released inmate knows exacty who provided what testimony that sunk their boat.

      I write this in support of no laws to differentiate me and you and the guys & gals in blue. Shall not be infringed means ALL citizens of this nation who have not abrogated their constitutional rights. Older retired folks are natural targets already, as evidence bears out. Why should they be restricted. Haters gonna hate, deviates gonna deviate.

    8. Well it’s not as if California is unique in this exemption – THE NY SAFE ACT exempts active and retired law enforcement officials from firearm and magazine capacity restrictions. The way I see it, if a restriction puts their lives in danger to the point of requiring an exemption – IT PUTS MY LIFE IN DANGER AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There can be no double standard in Second Amendment rights!

    9. Wasn’t the second amendment included in the Bill of Rights to insure that American citizens were never put in a position of vulnerability to government tyranny and atrocity through firearms restrictions? Outlawing “EFFECTIVE” arms and magazine capacities for American citizens – and exempting government enforcement officials so that they remain EFFECTIVELY armed – creates the exact situation the second amendment is in place to PROHIBIT! This is the situation we would end up in IF THERE WERE NO SECOND AMENDMENT!
      These laws are unconstitutional and must be overturned!
      ARE YOU LISTENING GORSUCH!???!

      1. @Kuetsa, Yes, to your first part. As to Gorsuch, once appointed, S.Ct. justices have the freedom to decide as they will. So waste no time worrying about him. Use your time on the propagandists and misinformation campaigners like the ones that show up on this site for the sole purpose of lying. I need not name names.

    10. This is another example of why you folks keep losing. The opening paragraph of the Amicus brief states that no concealed carry license holder can carry his or her weapon within 1,000 feet of a school.

      That is flat out wrong. The California Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 removed the automatic exemption for carrying in schools and on school grounds. It is still legal for permit holders to carry a handgun within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school and it is still legal to carry on the grounds of a K-12 public or private school and on the grounds of a state college or university with the permission of the school.

      Such a glaring mistake and one made in the very first paragraph.

      And a mistake nobody here noticed. Tsk tsk.

    Leave a Reply

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