by Dave Workman | Senior Editor
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) was rightfully pleased after scoring two small but significant victories in California in December, settling one case and getting another remanded back to a lower court for hearing of arguments.
It amounted to a couple on the chin for Golden State anti-gunners.
The first case saw an NSSF lawsuit challenging the state’s 2007 microstamping requirement remanded by the state appeals court back to superior court in Fresno. The Fresno court had originally dismissed the lawsuit, which also involves the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. They had filed the lawsuit on behalf of members against the State of California, seeking an injunction against the microstamping law that would block its enforcement.
The microstamping law was supposed to take effect in January 2010, or whenever the stat’s attorney general certified that the microstamping technology was reliable. Years later, Attorney General Kemala Harris issued the certification which activated the law.
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, the City of Pleasant Hill has agreed to settle a lawsuit with a payment of $400,000 to NSSF and City Arms East to cover legal expenses. Their lawsuit 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 by SAF and TGM, 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.
