Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Washington, challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted House Bill 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, import, and distribution of many semi-automatic firearms.

SAF claims the new law — which took effect immediately — infringes on Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights and is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions from the court.

The lawsuit, named Hartford v. Ferguson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Hazel Dell retailer Sporting Systems, and three private citizens, Brett Bass, Douglas Mitchell, and Lawrence Hartford. The plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Joel Ard.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and several county sheriffs and prosecutors are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb criticized the state for putting politics above constitutional rights.

SEE ALSO: Viral Video: Tuber Almost Blows Out Eye in Tannerite Accident

“The State has enacted a flat prohibition on the manufacture, sale, import and distribution of many types of firearms, inaccurately labeled as ‘assault weapons,’ which are owned by millions of ordinary citizens across the country,” said Gottlieb in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica.

“In the process, the state has criminalized a common and important means of self-defense, the modern semiautomatic rifle,” he continued. “The state has put politics ahead of constitutional rights, and is penalizing law-abiding citizens while this legislation does nothing to arrest and prosecute criminals who misuse firearms in defiance of all existing gun control laws. It is absurd.”

HB 1240 has exemptions for law enforcement and members of the military. Existing owners of black rifles are also grandfathered in — at least for now.

HB 1240 is part of a broader gun reform package signed into law that includes a 10-day waiting period, mandatory firearms training for prospective gun buyers, and a new legal pathway for the attorney general and family members of shooting victims to sue gun makers who market their products to prohibited persons.

These additional provisions take effect this summer.

Rep. Strom Peterson (D-Edmonds), who sponsored House Bill 1240, stated, “Gun violence rips loved ones from their families, devastates our communities, and traumatizes our children again and again.”

“Students everywhere have been speaking up, demanding we do something to protect them,” he continued. “We’ve stepped up to answer them. With the Governor’s signature today, we’re sending a clear message to our kids: we hear you and we are acting to keep you safe.”

Gottlieb also highlighted two ongoing legal actions challenging Washington gun laws, one addressing the magazine ban and another contesting the ban on sales of semi-automatic rifles to young adults.

SEE ALSO: Washington State Democrats Force Partisan ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Through Senate

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called out the authors and supporters of the legislation for their “hysteria” and “false characterization” of the banned firearms as “weapons of war.”

“As we note in our complaint, the firearms that Washington bans as ‘assault weapons’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic rifles. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic rifles, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use,” observed Kraut.

“But even if they are considered as a separate group of ‘assault weapons,’ they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual,” he concluded.

Rep. Liz Berry (D-Seattle), who sponsored House Bill 1143, the waiting period measure, commented, “Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in our country. As a mom of two little ones and as a person who has lost someone who I love to gun violence, this is devastating to me. It’s simple: these bills will save lives.”

Rep. Berry is wrong. Guns ARE NOT the leading cause of death for children in the U.S., as GunsAmerica recently pointed out. There’s also no hard evidence that waiting periods or black rifle bans or frivolous lawsuits against gun makers will “save lives.”

Let us all hope that SAF prevails in court.

Steve Dettelbach, the Director of the Biden Administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), told Congress that he’s “not a firearms expert” during a House Appropriations subcommittee meeting last Tuesday.

Dettelbach was responding to Texas Rep. Jake Ellzey (R) who asked him, “In 15 seconds, would you define an ‘assault weapon’ for me?”

Dettelbach would not define what an “assault weapon” is, despite indicating that he would support a sweeping ban on them.

“I’ll go shorter than that, because honestly, if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work,” Dettelbach replied, punting on the question.

“But we would be there to provide technical assistance. I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert to the same extent as you maybe, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause… so whatever determination you make would be an informed one,” he added.

Dettelbach’s admission of his own ignorance is nothing new. He unsuccessfully ran for the Attorney General of Ohio in 2018, discussing gun control during campaign events without defining the term even then.

Reactions to Dettelbach’s statements were, understandably, met with incredulity.

Attorney Kostas Moras wrote on Twitter, “He admits he isn’t a firearms expert, and I appreciate that honesty. But then, why is he head of the ATF? Does he know a lot about alcohol or tobacco or something?”

Townhall.com writer Derek Hunter also joked, “’If it looks like anything Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Statham or Willis ever held in a movie it is scary and needs to be banned.’”

Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, agreed, “Joe Biden’s ATF Director just testified in a Congressional hearing that he’s not a firearms expert. Wow. Maybe the ATF shouldn’t be regulating your firearms then.”

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.  With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Footnote 11 reads: “The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.