Success Stories: When Safety Wins
Despite the gun lobby's ability to win some legislative battles that result in enactment of dangerous laws like those allowing guns into bars (see Extremism in Action for more examples), leaders and activists working to advance the majority opinion--that smart gun laws make our communities safer--are winning significant victories in legislatures and courts across the country. In Success Stories, we highlight some of the recent examples where safety wins.
Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Illinois Law that Prohibits the Carrying of Firearms in Public
WHAT HAPPENED?
 Illinois state law generally prohibits individuals from carrying firearms in public. Several individuals who sought to carry firearms in public filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the Illinois law violates the Second Amendment in Moore v. Madigan.
HOW SAFETY WINS
The Illinois judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that there is no Second Amendment right to possess a firearm outside of the home. The court said that the Illinois law helps promote public safety and does not prohibit a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing a firearm in his or her home for self-defense. This decision is particularly important because Illinois has the strongest laws in the country regulating the carrying of firearms in public.
Nevada’s Highest Court Upholds State Law Prohibiting Felons from Possessing Firearms
WHAT HAPPENED?
In an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, a convicted felon argued that the Nevada law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment in Pohlabel v. Nevada.
HOW SAFETY WINS
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state law. It explained that convicted felons do not have Second Amendment rights, and therefore, that laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms do not violate the Second Amendment. This decision is particularly significant for its strong language confirming that felons are entirely excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection.
Federal Court Upholds Texas’ Age Restriction for Carrying Concealed Weapons
WHAT HAPPENED?
Under Texas law, an individual must be 21-years-old in order to obtain a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun outside of the home. Several individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 who wanted to carry concealed weapons in Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the age restriction violated the Second Amendment in Jennings v. McCraw.
HOW SAFETY WINS
A judge in Texas upheld the challenged law. He found that the Second Amendment is limited to allowing an individual to keep a firearm at home for the purpose of self-defense, and therefore, that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a firearm outside of the home, regardless of one’s age. Thus, the judge did not need to consider the appropriateness of the age restriction. The ruling is particularly significant for its strong, definitive language finding that the Second Amendment does not extend outside of the home.
ATF Regulation to Fight Trafficking of Guns into Mexico Upheld
 WHAT HAPPENED?
Wielding high-powered semiautomatic weapons that have been purchased legally in the United States, drug cartels have caused an epidemic of violence in Mexico. In an effort to reduce the flow of weapons across the border, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule requiring federally licensed firearms dealers in the four U.S. states bordering Mexico to report sales of more than one semiautomatic rifle to the same person during five consecutive business days. Because purchasing multiple firearms is a key indicator of illegal trafficking, reporting can help investigators to identify the sources of guns that are being trafficked into Mexico. Nonetheless, firearms dealers filed suit in the District of Columbia, arguing that ATF had overstepped its authority under federal law in Nat’l Shooting Sports Found. v. Jones.
HOW SAFETY WINS
A district court judge ruled for ATF, upholding its authority to require the reporting of multiple rifle sales. With this important decision, ATF will be better equipped to combat the funneling of guns to Mexican cartels.
Courts Uphold Strong Laws Limiting Carrying of Concealed Weapons
 WHAT HAPPENED?
While a majority of states require an individual to meet only minimal requirements to acquire a license to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public, California and New Jersey both require an individual to show a justifiable need to acquire such a license. Individuals in both states who were denied licenses argued that these requirements violated the Second Amendment in Piszczatoski v. Filko and Birdt v. Beck.
HOW SAFETY WINS
The federal courts in New Jersey and California found these state laws constitutional, concluding that the use of standards in limiting who may carry concealed handguns helps protect law enforcement officers and members of the public from the dangers posed by guns in public places. As these cases and others have repeatedly shown, the Second Amendment is consistent with a wide variety of sensible gun laws that help protect public safety.
No Guns Permitted in University of Idaho Campus Housing
WHAT HAPPENED?
A law student at the University of Idaho challenged a provision in his housing agreement that prohibited him from possessing a firearm in his campus housing unit. He sued the University and the State Board of Education arguing that the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Idaho and U.S. constitutions in Tribble v. State Bd. Of Educ.
HOW SAFETY WINS
A state court judge in Idaho ruled that the housing provision did not violate the law student’s right to bear arms. The judge stated that the University’s “important interest of ensuring that the University campus remains a safe educational and learning environment” outweighed the student’s interest in having a gun. This decision is particularly significant in light of the gun lobby’s recent push to introduce bills around the country that would restrict universities from prohibiting guns on their campuses.
California Enacts Three Strong Gun Laws
 Three important legislative victories were won in California in October 2011:
WHAT HAPPENED?
Thanks to an irresponsible law pushed through by the gun lobby many years ago, the California Department of Justice has been forced to destroy long gun sales records. This requirement has hampered law enforcement efforts to investigate gun crimes and disarm dangerous criminals. The requirement to destroy long gun records was repealed by LCAV-sponsored bill AB 809 (Feuer).
HOW SAFETY WINS
Long gun sales records will now be maintained in a database, like handgun sales records, and will provide a useful tool for law enforcement. Sales records contain important information about a firearm, who purchased it, and who sold it. This information is critical to law enforcement charged with tracing the ownership of firearms recovered in crimes.
WHAT HAPPENED?
After members of California’s open carry movement began staging public gatherings at which groups of gun owners carried unloaded handguns openly in public, Californians became alarmed. The California Police Chiefs Association, concerned about the risk to public safety, sponsored AB 144 (Portantino). The newly enacted law bans open carrying of unloaded handguns in a public place or on a public street.
HOW SAFETY WINS
Openly carrying handguns in public — intimidating behavior that puts the public at risk — is no longer permitted in California.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is tasked with disarming persons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. SB 819 (Leno), allows DOJ to pay for this effort by using funds generated when firearms are sold.
HOW SAFETY WINS
This will greatly enhance DOJ’s ability to take guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill. DOJ has already identified over 18,000 individuals in California who are recorded owners of handguns and also legally prohibited from possessing firearms. This additional funding will help DOJ take action to disarm these individuals.
District of Columbia Circuit Court Rejects Second Amendment
Challenge to Comprehensive District of Columbia Laws
WHAT HAPPENED?
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (striking down the District’s decades-old ban on handgun possession and storage requirement), a flood of litigants have attempted to expand the limited right to self-defense in the home provided by the Heller Court. After the District of Columbia repealed the laws struck down in Heller, the District, with help from LCAV, enacted a set of firearms laws that are among the strongest in the nation. The lead Heller plaintiff immediately challenged the laws.
HOW SAFETY WINS
The Circuit Court upheld important firearms and ammunition safety laws. In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court held that D.C.’s assault weapon ban, large capacity ammunition magazine ban, and handgun registration requirement are consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller v. District of Columbia, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130. For more information about the nationwide trend rejecting expansion of the basic right to a handgun in the home for self-defense, see LCAV’s latest Post-Heller Litigation Summary.
City Adopts Important Regulations to Fight Violence and Gun Trafficking
WHAT HAPPENED?
 Campbell, California, a city with the highest crime rate in the county in which it is located, recently sought ways to help law enforcement fight gun violence and gun trafficking in the community. With LCAV’s help, the City pursued two regulatory approaches:
1) requiring firearms dealers and ammunition sellers to obtain a local license and fulfill other basic safety requirements; and,
2) requiring firearms owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to local law enforcement.
Law enforcement supported these measures and, despite the threat of lawsuits from the gun lobby, the City Council adopted them in September 2011.
HOW SAFETY WINS
Law enforcement officers now have a tool to ensure that firearms dealers and ammunition sellers in the city are complying with relevant laws. Campbell now requires a firearm owner to report the loss or theft of a firearm he or she possesses or owns to law enforcement. These types of laws make gun owners more accountable for their weapons and help law enforcement stop gun trafficking. A reporting requirement makes it more difficult for a gun trafficker to whom a crime gun has been traced to falsely claim the gun was lost or stolen in order to hide involvement in a crime. Reporting laws also help disarm persons who are ineligible to possess firearms by deterring a person who has fallen into a prohibited category from falsely claiming he or she no longer has the gun because it was lost or stolen. In addition, these laws help law enforcement return lost or stolen firearms to their law abiding owners.
American Bar Association Adopts Resolution
Supporting Common Sense Concealed Carry Laws
WHAT HAPPENED?
The American Bar Association ̶ representing nearly 400,000 attorneys nationwide ̶ adopted a resolution in July 2011 expressing support for laws that provide broad discretion for law enforcement to approve or deny applications for concealed carry licenses. The resolution further states the ABA's opposition to laws that limit discretion in concealed carry licensing, as well as to federal legislation that would require states to recognize licenses issues by other states.
HOW SAFETY WINS
An influential, national organization took a stand against laws that put the public at risk by allowing dangerous individuals to carry concealed weapons in public places. The ABA’s resolution is especially critical now that a dangerous federal bill (H.R. 822), has passed the House of Representatives and is headed to the Senate. This legislation would force states like California, which has enacted safeguards to keep dangerous individuals from obtaining permits to carry concealed weapons, to recognize permits from other states no matter how lax their permitting laws are.
|
Banning Open Carry