“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts,” Second Amendment Foundation

STATEMENT FROM ALAN GOTTLIEB, SAF
ON SUPREME COURT

The following is a statement from Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to accept a Second Amendment case for review.



“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts.

“He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the high court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases.

“Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms.

“There is still one more case pending cert before the high court that was filed by the SAF. It is known as Rodriguez v. San Jose, a firearms confiscation case out of the State of California.”

SAF PETITIONS SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF RODRIGUEZ CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of their case challenging the City of San Jose and its police department in a case involving the seizure of legally-owned firearms and refusal to return them.

This makes the fourth SAF case now awaiting action by the high court. No other gun rights organization has ever had this many pending cases submitted to the Supreme Court at the same time, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF is joined by the California Gun Rights Foundation on behalf of plaintiff Lori Rodriguez. Her firearms were seized in 2013 after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue. A San Jose police officer at the time advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her, which were all locked in a California-approved safe. The guns were seized without a warrant, and over Rodriguez’s objection.

The case has been making its way through the lower courts for seven years, even though the courts recognize that Lori Rodriguez could legally purchase new firearms. San Jose authorities simply refuse to return the guns she already legally owns. Last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants, ruling the defendants were allowed to seize her guns under a concept called “community caretaking.”

“This case is a travesty,” Gottlieb stated. “Lori Rodriguez is not a criminal, nor is she prohibited by law from owning firearms. Yet she’s essentially been robbed by the City of San Jose and its police department, with the cooperation of lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“When a municipal government agency can seize property without a warrant,” he added, “and be protected by the lower courts in so doing, it is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and right this dangerously tilted ship before it capsizes.”

“Mrs. Rodriguez has at all times complied with California’s many gun control laws, including those requiring locked storage,” said plaintiff’s noted civil rights attorney Don Kilmer. “But the City of San Jose outrageously continues to refuse to return the constitutionally protected property they unlawfully took from her years ago. Governments have no reason and no right to take guns from law-abiding people who are legally eligible to keep and bear arms, full stop. The Constitution does not have a ‘gun’ exception to fundamental Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit’s dangerous decision means. We hope the Supreme Court will vindicate our clients’ rights and restore the rule of law in the Ninth Circuit.”

Highly-respected appellate attorney Erik Jaffe in Washington, D.C., who also represents the plaintiffs, added, “In the United States, governments cannot take a law-abiding woman’s property, without a warrant, and refuse to give it back. And not only are the City of San Jose and its police department doing just that, they also violated her fundamental Second Amendment rights in the process. Constitutional amendments are not mere suggestions. This case offers a vehicle for the Supreme Court to remind lower courts and government agencies that constitutional principles are not different or diminished in cases involving firearms.”

The three other SAF-related cases already submitted for Supreme Court review are Pena v. Cid, Mance v. Barr and Culp v. Madigan. The Mance case involves SAF’s sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a plaintiff.

“SAF has been winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb observed, “but now we hope to do it four lawsuits at a time.”

SAF SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW IN CHALLENGE OF CALIF. HANDGUN STATUTE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of their challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” a part of that state’s penal code that violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.

SAF and Calguns are joined by private citizens Ivan Pena, Dona Croston, Roy Vargas and Brett Thomas. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of California and Alan Gura of Virginia. The case is known as Pena v. Horan.

“Our challenge of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), if the high court accepts it for review, could be a critical wake-up call to lower federal courts that continue to employ what they call an ‘interest-balancing approach’ to deciding gun control cases because that strategy is forbidden by the 2008 Heller decision,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is time to bring a halt to what is essentially a revolt by the lower courts against the landmark Heller opinion, and the Pena case could provide that vehicle.”

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act generally prohibits the manufacture, import or distribution of handguns that do not meet the state’s extremely restrictive design requirements under the state penal code. The result, as the plaintiffs contend in their petition for high court review, is that the state is gradually achieving a handgun ban because they cannot meet the impossible requirements, which include microstamping. That technology is not offered by any handgun manufacturer because it cannot be practically implemented, the petition notes.

“The landmark Heller ruling cannot become just a footnote in history,” Gottlieb observed, “but that appears to be the ultimate goal if such laws as California’s are allowed to stand. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court, with the benefit of fresh perspectives from two recently-seated associate justices, agrees that it is time to once again visit the Second Amendment and further restore its rightful place as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.”

SAF SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW IN CHALLENGE OF CALIF. HANDGUN STATUTE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of their challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” a part of that state’s penal code that violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.

SAF and Calguns are joined by private citizens Ivan Pena, Dona Croston, Roy Vargas and Brett Thomas. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of California and Alan Gura of Virginia. The case is known as Pena v. Horan.

“Our challenge of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), if the high court accepts it for review, could be a critical wake-up call to lower federal courts that continue to employ what they call an ‘interest-balancing approach’ to deciding gun control cases because that strategy is forbidden by the 2008 Heller decision,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is time to bring a halt to what is essentially a revolt by the lower courts against the landmark Heller opinion, and the Pena case could provide that vehicle.”

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act generally prohibits the manufacture, import or distribution of handguns that do not meet the state’s extremely restrictive design requirements under the state penal code. The result, as the plaintiffs contend in their petition for high court review, is that the state is gradually achieving a handgun ban because they cannot meet the impossible requirements, which include microstamping. That technology is not offered by any handgun manufacturer because it cannot be practically implemented, the petition notes.

“The landmark Heller ruling cannot become just a footnote in history,” Gottlieb observed, “but that appears to be the ultimate goal if such laws as California’s are allowed to stand. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court, with the benefit of fresh perspectives from two recently-seated associate justices, agrees that it is time to once again visit the Second Amendment and further restore its rightful place as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.”