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 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KUETSA

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!

BaitBoy

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… Read more »

BaitBoy

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.

Jim in Conroe

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

Jim S

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

Mark Are

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.