With passage of Gunpocalyse, this has been a dark summer for the Second Amendment movement.
But there is hope.
During these dog days of the summer of gun owners’ discontent, you may have forgotten among all the gloomy headlines that we have indeed scored a VICTORY for freedom.
This past May, the Ninth Circuit ruled in our favor in Teixeira vs. Alameda County, ruling that, in addition to your right to bear arms, you have a right to the commerce of firearms.
What makes this victory so pivotal is that the court made their ruling on Second Amendment grounds. Of all places, the Ninth Circuit decided that law-abiding gun owners are not the second class citizens Alameda County treated them as.
We have won and we should be emboldened. A U.S. Court of Appeals made a decision in favor of the Second Amendment. With this victory, one pro-gun decision can lead to two pro-gun decisions and so forth.
Of course, Alameda County is asking the Ninth Circuit to rehear the decision en banc to try to STEAL this victory away from us.
Our filings in opposition to the county’s motion are due in less than a month.
If we prevail and the court denies the county’s motion, the case goes back to the trial court, where we can finally have our day in court.
Fortunately, some of the best legal minds in the country are working for us on this case, including UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh.
But legal fees, expert witness fees, and research costs add up quickly.
That’s is why we need to be as united as ever. If the anti-gunners STEAL this from us, and with a Hillary Clinton presidency looming, it will be open season on your freedoms.
WE CAN’T LET THIS HAPPEN.
We have to FIERCELY PROTECT this victory. Chip in $10, $25, $50 today so we have the resources for the case we have to go to district court and fight this trial on the merits.
It is not over. Help us today.
[gravityform id=”21″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”true”]
CGF, FPC and FPCAF File Brief in Support of Challenge to Hawaii Public Handgun Carry Bans
“The locations Hawaii now hopes to treat as ‘sensitive’ cannot possibly be analogized to the core founding-era sensitive locations recognized in Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller,” argues the brief. “The historical record shows that, at the founding, carry restrictions were strictly limited to locations where the government provided comprehensive security, which stands in stark contrast to Hawaii’s sweeping restrictions.”
