SAF and Defense Distributed ghost gun ban busters

SAF and Defense Distributed ghost gun ban busters
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File

Between the new rule change and states that have taken on the topic of so-called ghost guns, liberty is being limited. States like California and New Jersey have virtual bans on people’s ability to home manufacture firearms. The tradition of being able to build one’s own firearm dates back to the beginning of American history, and without that liberty, many would have went defenseless, starved, and certainly we would not have had a chance to kick England to the curb – lock, stock, and barrel. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed have teamed up and are seeking for a federal court to put a stop to the enforcement of California’s unconstitutional law.

The Second Amendment Foundation is seeking a federal court injunction against enforcement of a California law restricting people from manufacturing their own firearms, which is an American tradition dating back to Colonial times, and another statute written to discourage court challenges.

Joining SAF is Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company that sells a product called the “Ghost Gunner,” a general-purpose Computerized Numerical Code (CNC) milling machine that allows a home gunsmith to complete unfinished frames and receivers for various types of firearms, including the AR-15, AR-308, M1911 and AK-47.

Defendants in the case are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, director of the California Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities. The case is known as Defense Distributed v. Bonta.

I recently had a conversation with a colleague of mine about so-called ghost guns, and the biggest problem that I see which we discussed, is that many governmental agencies are being very inauthentic in their reporting. There are agencies and police forces that are saying our streets are being flooded with so-called ghost guns, but many of those firearms include conventionally made firearms that simply have an obliterated serial number. Politicians and members of the executive branch use that rhetoric to push for more limitations on our civil liberties (like everything else).

Aside from the fact that such prohibitions on the self manufacture of firearms being unconstitutional, conversations on the topic can’t even begin when one side is blatantly lying about their findings and data. We’d be kidding ourselves if we took the bait given to us by some in the establishment that criminals and criminal activity can flourish in the world of kit firearms, when in reality we’re dealing with the same issues we’ve had since the beginning of time…the matter of proper execution of the laws already on the books and just doing police work (which includes prosecutions and imprisonment of bad actors).

Alan Gottlieb, the SAF Founder and Executive Vice President takes a moment to explain how far out the California law goes concerning overreach. There’s the industry, manufacturing, corporal portion of where this goes awry; the constitutional elements; and some really murky legal pitfalls the cretins of Sacramento wrote into the law which gets explored.

“What we’re talking about is a milling process,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “which is common in modern manufacturing of a wide range of products, including firearm frames and receivers. Despite the long standing tradition of personal firearms manufacture by private citizens, California has now criminalized the process.

“What’s worse,” he continued, “is that the state has enacted legislation that could financially penalize anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm, if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance, or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win in all respects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.”

“Under the law,” Gottlieb added, “the government is considered the ‘prevailing party’ if a court either dismisses any part of a claim or cause of action brought by a plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, regardless the reason for dismissal, or if the court enters a judgment in favor of the party opposing the declaratory or injunctive relief on any claim or cause of action.

As noted, this is a complex web of entrapment that lawmakers known for usurping rights and cavalierly ignoring what’s constitutional versus what’s unconstitutional, wrote into the law.

The federal complaint alleges depravation of rights “under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of California, of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.” Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Brett W. Johnson, Michael Reynolds and Derek C. Flint with national firm of Snell & Wilmer, LLP.

Hearing about challenges to these kinds of laws is promising. While many might not care about being able to manufacture their own firearm(s), it’s an act protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, there are plenty of hobbyists and enthusiasts that very much so enjoy being able to create their own builds, whether from scratch, 80% frames, or 3D printing, we’re talking about a rather technical hobby. The criminal flim-flam talk about the proliferation of firearms that were home manufactured, that conversation can start when our public masters actually begin to be honest.