California anti-gunners have taken a couple on the chin in recent days, first with an appeals court reverse and remand on a challenge to the state’s microstamping law, and the second with Tuesday’s settlement on the challenge of an anti-gun restriction in the City of Pleasant Hill.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation was involved in both cases.
Last week, the California Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the Superior Court of Fresno County to dismiss NSSF’s lawsuit challenging the state microstamping law, passed back in 2007. NSSF and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI) had filed the lawsuit on behalf of members against the State of California. They sought an injunction against the microstamping law that would block its enforcement.
Now the case will be heard.
Microstamping is one of the gun prohibition lobby’s pet programs, ostensibly aimed at semi-auto handguns and long guns that would leave a microscopic stamp on an expended shell casing, letting investigators track crimes to the owners of guns involved in crimes. That’s how it is supposed to work, in theory, anyway.
In the other case, Pleasant Hill has a lawsuit with a payment of $400,000 to NSSF and City Arms east, which challenged the city’s 2013 ordinance that placed “burdensome and unlawful firearms and ammunition sales restrictions on local firearms retailers.”
NSSF and City Arms East, according to an NSSF news release, “were able to provide concrete instances of Pleasant Hill’s own missteps and ‘hide the ball’ tactics that the city’s own planning commission had opposed.” To reach a settlement, the city modified its regulations.
NSSF is involved in a lawsuit in Washington State, challenging the City of Seattle’s “gun violence tax.” That tax was passed last year by the anti-gun rights Seattle City Council ostensibly to raise funds for “gun violence prevention” programs. However, many believe it was merely a ploy to push gun dealers out of the city.
Joining NSSF in that lawsuit are the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, and two local retailers. It is the first time all three organizations have partnered on a legal action.
A second lawsuit against the city related to the gun tax has also been filed. This one was brought independently in September by SAF and its monthly publication, TheGunMag.com, alleging the city has violated the Public Records Act by refusing to disclose the amount of tax revenue so far collected from gun dealers, based on a $25 fee for the sale of every firearm, plus an ammunition tax of five cents per round of centerfire ammunition and two cents for each round of rimfire ammunition.
When the city council originally pushed through the gun tax, proponents claimed it would raise between $300,000 and $500,000 annually, but critics think the actual amount is far lower. The city is arguing that disclosure would violate the privacy of gun retailers, but the magazine says it only is interested in the revenue total, not who paid how much.