Federal Court: California Handgun Roster Does Not Violate Second Amendment Rights

 

February 26, 2015 (SACRAMENTO, CA) — In response to a federal district court decision released today on the constitutionality of the State of California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” handgun roster and microstamping laws, The Calguns Foundation released the following statement:

“We are disappointed that the district court sidestepped a clear violation of Second Amendment civil rights in its decision today. However, we are absolutely committed to litigating this case as far as necessary to reverse this incorrect ruling and restore the right to keep and bear modern handguns in the Golden State.

It is difficult to understand how the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision could be so badly mis-applied. Laws that ban law-abiding people from acquiring virtually all modern handguns following a rigorous background check have no constitutional basis and must be overturned.

It is utterly preposterous that a Federal Court would rule that a ban on all new semi-automatic handguns does not burden Second Amendment rights. Such a decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent, much less the Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

Our counsel have already appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and will take every action necessary to create a successful outcome there.”

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.

###

Media Contact:

Brandon Combs
(800) 556-2109

media@calgunsfoundation.org

Share the Post:

Related Posts

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.”

Read More