Add Row

Add Element

update

Firearms news, training and
advocacy defending 2A rights.

update

Add Element

Home
Profiles
Categories

October 01.2025

2 Minutes Read

DOJ’s Lawsuit Against CCW Wait Times: A Game-Changer for Gun Owners

Symbolic notebook illustration depicting legal imagery for long CCW wait times California.

The DOJ Takes a Stand: A Landmark Lawsuit for Gun Owners

In an unprecedented move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, challenging the long wait times to obtain concealed carry permits (CCWs) in California. This action marks a significant moment for gun owners, as it is the first instance where the DOJ has actively supported their rights through legal measures.

A Struggle Against Long Wait Times

The lawsuit emerges from alarming statistics that reveal the scope of the issue: approximately 2,768 applications for new CCW licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as far out as November 2026. This delays applicants by more than two years on average, a situation the DOJ argues violates individuals' Second Amendment rights.

Support from the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which has filed similar challenges in the past, applauded the DOJ's lawsuit. SAF is notably joined by other pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, and several individuals. "We are thrilled to see the federal government step up and defend the Second Amendment rights of citizens and hope this pattern continues around the country,” said Adam Kraut, Executive Director of SAF.

The Broader Context: California's Gun Laws

This lawsuit is set against the backdrop of California's complicated history with gun rights. Many view the state as one that consistently implements restrictive measures that infringe upon constitutional rights. As SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb stated, "There is no doubt the DOJ’s lawsuit is a shot across the bow letting everyone know the federal government will not tolerate infringements on the Second Amendment rights of Americans." This sentiment resonates with ongoing struggles for gun owners across the state and highlights the necessity for advocacy and legal challenges.

What This Means for the Future of Gun Rights

Experts suggest that this lawsuit could signify a shift in how federal authorities interact with state laws concerning gun rights. As the precedent of DOJ involvement grows, the chances for federal support against state-level infringements might increase, paving the way for more significant changes in gun legislation through litigation.

A Call to Action for Gun Owners

As this legal battle progresses, it serves as a crucial reminder for gun owners to stay informed and engaged. Participating in advocacy, understanding one's rights under the Second Amendment, and supporting organizations that uphold these rights could prove vital during this pivotal time.

Gun Rights & 2A News

0 Views

0 Comments

Write A Comment

Related Posts All Posts

10.07.2025

Celebrating Heroes of Gun Rights: The 2025 SAF Award Winners

Update Recognizing Excellence in Gun Rights AdvocacyRecent events surrounding the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have put a spotlight on the individuals who tirelessly advocate for our constitutional rights. During the 40th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Salt Lake City, the SAF honored several individuals for their outstanding contributions to gun rights advocacy. This annual assembly not only celebrates achievements but also emphasizes the importance of active participation in preserving the rights protected by the Second Amendment.Key Award Winners and Their ContributionsThe Golden Bowtie Award, given to those making significant contributions to the SAF's mission, was awarded to Chris Cox, whose strategic influence in legislation has shaped the landscape of gun rights significantly. The Defender of Liberty award recognized notable figures like Edward Paltzik and Bryan Strawser, who have dedicated their careers to defending the Second Amendment in courtrooms and legislative halls across the country.Each award recipient embodies the commitment required to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not only preserved but also actively defended in the face of ongoing challenges. The Bill of Rights award was presented to Andrew Bailey, highlighting the continuous efforts in protecting civil liberties, while the Scholar of the Year accolade recognized David Kopel for his scholarly contributions to the understanding of gun rights.The Role of Media in Gun Rights AdvocacyOne of the most compelling recognitions of the evening was the Journalist of the Year award presented to AWR Hawkins. Media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception about gun rights and the ongoing legal battles in this arena. Hawkins, known for his critical insights and thorough reporting on Second Amendment issues, exemplifies how journalism can influence the debate around gun rights, bringing both clarity and urgency to the conversation.Cultural Significance and Future PerspectivesThe ongoing dialogue surrounding the Second Amendment is particularly significant at a time when various states are enacting stricter gun control measures. With the recent trends observed in places like Colorado and Washington, where new laws will require permits to purchase firearms, the voices of advocates recognized at the GRPC are more vital than ever. These shifts in legislation have sparked significant debates about rights versus regulations, making the work of organizations like SAF not just relevant but essential in the months and years to come.Actionable Insights for Supporters of Gun RightsFor those passionate about advocating for Second Amendment rights, getting involved with organizations such as SAF offers an excellent avenue. Attending policy conferences, engaging in discussions, and following the work of award winners can empower more citizens to become active participants in this vital cause. As advocates continue to push back against restrictive regulations, awareness and commitment to these principles are crucial for safeguarding constitutional freedoms.

10.07.2025

The Craziest Anti-Gun Lawsuit: Implications for Firearm Owners' Privacy

Update Exploring the Controversial Lawsuit Against the NSSF Recently, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) became embroiled in a contentious lawsuit that many are calling the "craziest anti-gun lawsuit seen in years." Filed by a relatively new attorney, Riley Breakell, the lawsuit alleges that the NSSF has violated the privacy of firearms buyers by compiling their personal information into a database for political purposes. This complaint has ignited passionate discourse among gun rights advocates as well as advocacy groups for gun control. Legal Background of the Case The lawsuit, Cocanour et al. v. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., claims that the NSSF received personal data from warranty cards filled out by gun buyers without compensating them. Proponents of the lawsuit argue that this constitutes a breach of privacy rights, while opponents maintain that such data collection is standard practice in many industries. According to the plaintiffs, Daniel Cocanour of Oklahoma and Dale Rimkus of Illinois, their rights were compromised when they filled out warranty cards after purchasing firearms. The suit alleges that the NSSF used their information for political gains without consent. However, critics argue that the lawsuit lacks substantive legal grounding, failing to cite a specific law barring such practices. It appears to distill down to one count: unjust enrichment, suggesting that the NSSF had gained benefits from information they received—information that is commonplace across various commercial transactions. The Outcry from Traditional Media As the lawsuit gained attention, traditional media outlets celebrated the legal action, framing it as a significant step toward accountability in the gun industry. According to ProPublica, the case mirrors findings from their investigative reporting, which accused the NSSF of engaging in decades-long practices that compromised the privacy of gun owners. Interestingly, the conventional press lauded the attorneys behind the lawsuit while largely neglecting to dissect the legal merits of the complaint itself. Counterarguments and Divided Perspectives Commentators on both sides of the aisle have robustly debated the implications of this lawsuit. Gun rights activists view the attempt to hold the NSSF accountable as yet another episode in an ongoing battle between gun ownership rights and regulations. On the other hand, gun control advocates perceive the lawsuit as a critical development in the fight for consumer protection, expressing concerns about the ethical implications of gun manufacturers handling of personal data. For instance, privacy experts highlight that many companies, including those in the firearms industry, are required under federal law to comply with their own privacy policies. With the NSSF allegedly profiting from the use of personal information without consent, critics claim it showcases a potential hypocrisy within the industry that touts individual privacy while violating that very principle. Future Implications and Industry Reactions The outcome of this lawsuit could set significant precedents on how the firearm industry handles personal data in the future. If the plaintiffs succeed in their claims, it would not only challenge existing norms around privacy within the gun industry but also encourage more vigorous scrutiny of how personal information is utilized across all consumer sectors. Furthermore, as attorneys prepare their arguments, onlookers are left to speculate whether this lawsuit is merely part of a broader trend of using litigation as a strategy to influence public policy in favor of gun control. The legal battles surrounding the NSSF illustrate a complex intersection of privacy rights, consumer protection, and political agendas that resonate deeply within American society today. Final Thoughts The complexity of this lawsuit illustrates the ongoing tensions surrounding gun rights and consumer privacy. As it develops further in the judicial system, it will undoubtedly draw attention from both proponents and opponents of gun control, each using this case to bolster their respective narratives. In light of the increasing interconnectedness between industries and privacy laws, the direction this lawsuit takes could have ramifications far beyond just the firearms sector.

10.04.2025

Challenge to Federal Switchblade Act: A Landmark Case for Gun Rights

Update The Fight Against the Federal Switchblade Act The ongoing debate over gun rights and the interpretation of the Second Amendment has taken a new turn as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) joins forces with several organizations in a legal challenge against the Federal Switchblade Act. This act, which imposes restrictions on the interstate commerce of switchblades, is under the microscope in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, a case that raises critical questions about the implications of federal law on personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Historical Context: What Does the Second Amendment Cover? According to the SAF and its allies, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center, the Federal Switchblade Act constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of citizens. SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, Kostas Moros, emphasizes that switchblades should be classified as ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment, aligning with definitions from the Founding era, which viewed arms as any weapons used for offense or defense. The argument points out that historical precedents established by the Supreme Court, notably in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, assert that any restrictions on arms must be justified by historical tradition. Notably, the SAF claims that no such tradition exists for the prohibition of switchblades, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the Act. Current Legal Landscape: Judicial Interpretations Matter Despite the apparent support for the argument against the Federal Switchblade Act, a recent ruling from a U.S. District Court may complicate matters. The lower court maintained that the plaintiffs only had standing to challenge the ban on interstate commerce of switchblades. It suggested that since the act does not impose a total ban, there was no significant infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment. This perspective raises concerns that the courts may not fully apply the rigorous historic test demanded by recent Supreme Court rulings. Indeed, the historical context of arms regulation often shapes how courts interpret contemporary cases. As such, groups like the SAF argue that any legislation must be consistent with the historical understanding of arms and cannot be modified or selectively enforced based on modern interpretations. Future Predictions: Implications for Self-Defense Rights The outcome of this case could have profound implications on the future of self-defense laws and our understanding of the Second Amendment. The SAF argues that millions of Americans utilize switchblades not just as weapons, but for utility purposes—in acting as tools in daily activities. This assertion challenges the perception of switchblades solely as dangerous arms. Alan Gottlieb, SAF's founder, reinforces the significance of this case for federal overreach in regulating personal defense mechanisms. The vital question at stake is whether federal law can undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry and employ switchblades for self-defense and other lawful purposes. If the Supreme Court maintains a consistent application of its previous rulings, it might signal a shift in how courts treat similar cases in the future. Why This Matters to Everyday Citizens For many individuals, the outcome of this case transpires beyond just legal rhetoric—it's about personal safety, rights, and freedoms. If the Federal Switchblade Act remains intact, it risks setting a precedent that could allow further encroachment on the rights of individuals to choose how they defend themselves. The authorities and courts must weigh the relevance of federal laws against the foundational rights granted by the Constitution. This case not only serves as a legal battle but also reflects the broader national conversation about the Second Amendment and the future of gun rights in America.