FPC Sues U.S. Government in Lawsuit Challenging Gun Denials, ‘Burden-Shifting’

Second Amendment Courts Judges Strict Scrutiny
FPC Sues U.S. Government in Lawsuit Challenging Gun Denials, ‘Burden-Shifting’

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a new lawsuit that challenges the federal government’s wrongful denial of an application to purchase a firearm, as well as burden-shifting policies and practices that force gun buyers to prove they are not prohibited persons under the law. The complaint for Newton v. United States, along with additional case information and documents, can be found at FPCLaw.org.

In 1981, Ralph Newton was convicted of two federal misdemeanors (disorderly conduct and assault) for his role in a bar fight in the Yosemite Valley. As a result, he paid a $50 fine, was sentenced to six days in jail, and placed on one year’s probation. Nearly four decades later, Newton was denied the purchase of a firearm for self-defense by the federal government. The government claims Newton’s convictions could have been crimes of domestic violence, despite no supporting evidence. However, the government has long since destroyed the 40-year-old records, and unconstitutionally placed Newton in its ‘prohibited persons’ list. The government further enforced its policy and practice of shifting the burden of proof, requiring Newton to prove—with the court documents the government itself had destroyed—that he is not prohibited, rather than the government proving that Newton is prohibited with sufficient evidence and due process.

“Law-abiding, responsible citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms unless and until the government establishes that an individual is prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” the complaint says. “By requiring instead that Newton demonstrate that he is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, Defendants inverted the constitutional framework and violated the Second Amendment.”

“It is the government’s burden to prove that a person may not exercise their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. But in its policies and practices, the federal government flips that rule on its head, instead requiring that people prove that they are not prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms. That is not only unconscionable under our system of law, it’s unconstitutional,” said attorney Adam Kraut, FPC’s vice president of programs. “Through this lawsuit we seek to vindicate the rights of Mr. Newton and force the government to stop its unlawful and unconstitutional policies and practices that force people to jump through unconstitutional hoops before exercising their rights.”

FPC and Mr. Newton are represented in the lawsuit by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC, of Sacramento, and Mike McLane of Bend, Oregon-based law firm Lynch Murphy McLane LLP.

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army or donate to support pro-Second Amendment programs to protect and restore the right to keep and bear arms should visit JoinFPC.org. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLaw.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.


About FPC

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org), is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.Firearms Policy Coalition

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arizona

“The citizen has, at all times, the right to keep the arms of modern warfare, and to use them in such manner as they may be capable of being used, without annoyance and hurt to others, in order that he may be trained and efficient in their use.” Andrew v State

Tionico

How conveient. they “lost the records”. Yet they have “enough” to form a flimsy basis for his denial. Let me guess.. the bar was in some sort of Federal managed land, thus springing the “federal” charges, right? US Gummit shuod NOT be owning or controlling any land anywhere except for the DC Swamp, military bases, post offices, and federal level curt facilities, and some naval ports. End of list.
The burden shifting here is the real crime. Will anyone be punished for that? Yeh, right.

swmft

they took the land from the natives that was supposed to be protected FOR them and abuse at will. the rules and treaties have never stopped greedy sleazy government people

Tank

Chipping away at original US Constitution since 1876 when Jesuit’s – Sabbatean Frankist’s – Rothschild Clan galere’/coterie began to continually moving Overton Window Goal Posts controlling the narrative using word lexicon, sociocultural interception, Poly-Tics, Movies/TV, Education, MSM, Sectarian Religions, fake fact checkers, ambiguous polls, controlled metrics, polls not asking specific questions to the problem they created etc. Nihilism, loss of liberties, freedoms since then. Mental health, SSRI drugs pushed by GubMINT programs altering citizen’s brains & perception’s etc. all Contributing to the deterioration of the human condition. But let’s stay positive & not look into the reality of the situation.… Read more »

Tionico

you’ve managed to string together a pile of ten dollar words and have said nothing important. Drop all the phoney jesuit, sabbatean, overton window…. what ARE you trying to say?

Vince

While a travesty of justice, the use of legal resources are better spend on the big fight affecting millions.

swmft

if they win it sets precedent, so then the burden shifts back to them in all cases, they dont have proof must issue green light

Cam

Good luck, hope they win. My cousin’s boss who had a arrested from getting caught with a joint in the 80’s. Plead to what he thought was a misdemeanor. He has been voting and buying guns with no problem for 40+ years. He went to buy a ppk and suddenly he gets denied. When he looked into it the said he had plead to felony drug possession and was not legal to buy or own guns.
It’s so old he can’t clear it up cause the files are gone.

musicman44mag

How convenient that they no longer have the paperwork.

swmft

who is to say they ever did; simple check mark in wrong place, or pen drop marks paper hanging chad anyone