FPC Sues San Diego in 2A Lawsuit Challenging Ban on Home-Building Firearms, Precursor Parts
SAN DIEGO, CA (September 24, 2021) — Mere hours after San Diego, California Mayor Todd Gloria signed Ordinance no. O-2022-7 into law, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) last night filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the new ban that prohibits individuals in the City from home-building firearms, including the possession of parts and materials necessary to self-manufacture constitutionally protected arms. The confiscatory terms of the Ordinance additionally require that all persons who have any of the banned items dispossess themselves of the items within 30 days. FPC Law also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction today to block enforcement of the law. The complaint and application for temporary restraining order in Fahr v. San Diego can be found at FPCLegal.org.
“The right of individuals to self-manufacture arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes is part and parcel of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and an important front in the battle to secure fundamental rights against abusive government regulations, like San Diego’s unconstitutional ban,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “FPC will continue to aggressively work to defend the People’s rights and property in this case and dozens of others throughout the United States.”
“Throughout American history and our nation’s traditions of robustly exercising the right to keep and bear arms, people have been free to personally manufacture, construct, or otherwise assemble arms in common use for lawful purposes, including lawful self-defense and defense of others,” the complaint begins. “The Second Amendment right necessarily includes and thus guarantees the ability of ordinary law-abiding citizens to self-manufacture firearms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.” The complaint also details founding-era examples where “many colonies relied on and incentivized people outside of the firearms industry to produce firearms,” including ones from New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina.
“Indeed, based on the Ordinance’s expansive definitions, even raw materials, such as a uniform block of metal or plastic, would be [banned] by the Ordinance,” the filing notes. “Despite the City’s contention that it ‘is intended to be applied and interpreted consistent with state and federal law,’… the Ban’s very text effectively precludes any path for any San Diego resident to self-manufacture her own firearm under either state or federal law.”
“The Ban must be enjoined, immediately, because it is inflicting irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of law-abiding San Diegans every moment it remains in effect. Under the Ban, these responsible citizens are being forced to dispossess themselves of constitutionally protected property that they lawfully acquired before the Ban for constitutionally protected purposes, and they are being barred from ever again acquiring or using any such property for these protected purposes. Such a broad prohibition against the exercise of constitutional rights, untailored in any way and untethered from any legitimate interest that could be achieved, wouldn’t be tolerated for a moment if the rights being targeted were secured under the First Amendment. Just the same, it cannot be tolerated here, where it targets rights of equal importance secured under the Second Amendment—specifically, the right to keep and bear arms,” the request for injunction argues.
Moreover, the “Ban effectively mandates that all ordinary law-abiding San Diego residents dispossess themselves of all their unserialized ‘unfinished frames’ or ‘unfinished receivers’,” the brief says. “Such a taking is plainly unconstitutional and cannot be permitted.”
FPC is joined in the case by three individuals who wish to maintain possession of parts now banned under the City’s ordinance, as well as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the area’s Second Amendment rights advocacy organization. The parties are represented by Raymond DiGuiseppe, John Dillon, and FPC attorney William Sack.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
For more on FPC cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. FPC and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:
- A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
- A merits-stage Supreme Court brief providing the justices with the English history of the right to bear arms in support of a challenge to New York’s unconstitutional “may issue” scheme
- A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
- A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
- A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
- A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
- A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
- A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
- A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
- A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
- A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
- A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
- A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)