National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco


By Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry

Failed NRA Case

On August 31st, the National Rifle Association quietly asked Federal District Court Judge Richard Seeborg to dismiss its lawsuit against the city and county of San Francisco local ordinances which: 1) Ban the discharge of firearms with no exception for discharging a firearm for the purpose of self-defense, 2) Ban certain types of ammunition and 3) Require handguns to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock, apparently when not carried on one’s person.

The lawsuit was filed on May 5, 2009 but never made it past the denial of the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The NRA appealed the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction all the way up to the United States Supreme Court which denied its petition on June 8, 2015. Two months later, on August 14, 2015, the district court judge issued an Order instructing the parties to either issue a joint statement stating their views as to what remained to be decided in the case or for the Plaintiffs to file a dismissal of their case.

The NRA and the other plaintiffs filed a dismissal rather than continue to challenge the city and county of San Francisco local ordinances.

The National Rifle Association does not file very many lawsuits challenging gun laws. Indeed, if you were ever to read the briefs in the NRA funded lawsuit Peruta v. San Diego which is awaiting an en banc decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, you would discover that not only is the NRA emphasizing that it is not challenging any gun law, the NRA argued to uphold California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense and argued to uphold California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.

judge richard seeborg
Judge Richard Seeborg Wikipedia

Rogue Gun-Rights Groups

I wish the NRA were the only rogue “gun-rights” group arguing in the Federal courts in support of gun-control laws but it is not. Pretty much every so called “gun-rights” organization you have ever heard of, and many you haven’t, have either filed lawsuits in support of gun-control laws or have filed Amicus briefs in support of those lawsuits.

The briefs in these lawsuits are online and free for everyone to read. Unfortunately, it is easier for most people to believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts than finding out the truth for themselves by reading the legal briefs.

Lawyers for the NRA have now announced that they will be filing a brand new lawsuit against the recently enacted City of Los Angeles local ordinance banning most firearm magazines which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

The NRA lawyers used their San Francisco lawsuit as an excuse to solicit money from its members and supporters for over six years. One wonders how long they will use this new City of Los Angeles lawsuit to likewise solicit money for a lawsuit which will very likely lose.

Predicting The NRA Challenge

Having read so many of their briefs I can predict that one of the things the NRA lawyers will say in their challenge to the City of Los Angeles magazine ban is something along the lines of “Certainly the government can ban some types of magazines and magazines which hold a large number of rounds of ammunition, such as forty or more. But a ban on ammunition magazines which hold eleven rounds, or 16 rounds goes too far.”

Memo to the so called “gun-rights” lawyers. When you concede that the government can ban ammunition magazines based on their capacity then you have already lost your case.

But then I don’t think the NRA really cares if it loses the lawsuit. I think its lawsuits are simply propaganda for raising money from its gullible members and supporters.

Perhaps we should start a pool as to when the NRA throws in the towel on this latest lawsuit.

Charles Nichols is the President of California Right To Carry