NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

ANNUAL REPORT 2019 The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) fund founded by former NRA Director George S. Knight, has supported more than 1,000 cases involving the civil rights of firearm owners, including New Orleans’ gun confiscations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; and the landmark Second Amendment cases, D.C. v. Heller; and McDonald v. Chicago on whether the Second Amendment applies to the state and its local government.

If you would like more information about CRDF legal activities, contact NRA CRDF, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030-9400 or call 703-267-1250.

To make your tax-deductible contribution, please make checks payable to NRA CRDF. Mail your tax-deductible contribution to NRA CRDF, P.O. Box 1884, Merrifield, VA 22116-9717 or make an online contribution through our secure server by visiting us online at www.nradefensefund.org. NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND

2 From the Chairman 2 Board Members 3 Statement of Purpose 4 Litigation Activities 27 Research & Grants 28 Ways of Giving 29 Leave a Legacy 30 Financial Statements

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

ANNUAL REPORT 2019 The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund works diligently to secure justice for law-abiding gun owners all across America. As a supporter of the Fund, you have our deep gratitude for making this precedential work possible. The activities of the Fund speak clearly to the dedication of the Fund Trustees in answering the mandate of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America when it created the Fund in 1978.

In the Litigation Activities section of this report, review the dozens of cases supported by the Fund in 2019 to correct the injustice that exists in our laws today.

In addition to our case law work, we continue to reach citizens in all walks of life with the help of our research programs, grants and writing contest awards. Each year, our writing contests are held at junior and senior high school levels. Additionally, we distribute thousands of pertinent books and articles to libraries and individuals. Through these ongoing efforts we educate and help shape the opinions of students, lawyers, legislators and everyday citizens. FROM THE CHAIRMAN

The Fund must continue to meet the present and future challenges certain to rise threatening our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You can support the Fund’s work through direct donations, estate planning, or through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) or United Way payroll deductions. Our CFC number is 10006.

Please take the time to share this 2019 annual report with your friends and family. Ask them to step forward and make a commitment to secure their civil right to keep and bear arms across America.

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, and the millions of law-abiding gun owners across America, thank you for your support of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.

Sincerely,

James W. Porter, II Chairman

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

James W. Porter, II, Chairman The Honorable Robert K. Corbin, Robert J. Cottrol, Trustee BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA Trustee ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA PHOENIX, ARIZONA Carol Bambery Frampton, Robert J. Dowlut, Trustee 2 Vice Chair Charles L. Cotton, Trustee WASHINGTON, D.C. DEWITT, MICHIGAN FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was established by the NRA Board of Directors in 1978 to become involved in court cases establishing legal Among the Fund’s precedents in favor of gun owners. To accomplish this, the Fund provides legal and financial assistance to selected activities are: individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the Fund sponsors legal research and education on a wide variety Defense of persons charged with criminal violations of federal, state, and of gun-related issues, including the meaning of the Second Amendment and local laws that prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms by peaceful nature of the right to keep and bear arms provisions in state constitutions. and honest Americans;

to federal, state, and local laws that prohibit a law-abiding Tax-Exempt Status The Fund is a charitable/educational entity which has Civil challenges been granted tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue citizen or class of citizens from possessing or using firearms; Code. Donations are tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. Opposition to unlawful forfeitures of firearms seized by federal, state or local authorities in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments; Financial Information The financial records of the Fund are audited OF STATEMENT PURPOSE annually by a Certified Public Accountant as required by the Bylaws of the Fund. Civil actions against federal, state, and local authorities who, while RSM US performed the audit for the year ended December 31, 2018. enforcing unfair gun laws, violate citizens’ rights under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; Which Cases are Accepted? The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund supports litigation involving significant legal issues relating to the right to keep Challenges to administrative interpretations of federal, state and local laws and bear arms. that infringe the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Common Law, the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutions of various states;

Challenges to administrative actions denying or restricting a citizen’s right to possess or carry firearms.

Graham Hill, Trustee Robert E. Sanders, Trustee Craig B. Spray, Treasurer ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

The Honorable Curtis S. Jenkins, William H. Satterfield, Trustee Stefan B. Tahmassebi, Secretary Trustee BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 3 FORSYTH, GEORGIA CASES RECENTLY SUPPORTED. STATUS OF CASES THE FUND HAS AGREED TO SUPPORT.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund makes numerous grants for legal assistance While the National Park Service did not initially appear to contest such an throughout the year for the representation of individuals and organizations where interpretation after the passage of the ANILCA in 1980, the National Park Service issues in litigation are directly related to the preservation of the human, civil, revised its regulations concerning non-federal waters within the boundaries of and constitutional rights of the individual to keep or bear arms. The attorneys National Park lands in 1996. The revised regulations covered all waters within the representing the applicants for funding provided the below summarized information boundaries of the National Park system in Alaska, irrespective of other ownership regarding these cases. Some of the cases granted money in 2019 include: interests. 36 C.F.R.§1.2(a)(3). This revision resulted in the federal government’s ban on hovercraft use within National Parks being extended to the section of the Nation River in question. Mr. Sturgeon filed a lawsuit seeking to have the above regulation declared invalid in Alaska, alleging that it violates the ANILCA prohibition on the National Park ALASKA Service subjecting non-federal lands within Alaska to federal regulation. The case was litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, where

LITIGATION LITIGATION ACTIVITIES John Sturgeon v. Bert Frost, in His Official Capacity as Alaska Mr. Sturgeon lost. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Regional Director of the National Park Service, et al The applicant, Mr. John Sturgeon, has sued the National Park Service in Alaska to prevent it Appeals also ruled against Mr. Sturgeon. Certiorari was granted by the United States from imposing restrictive federal regulations on lands and waters not owned by the Supreme Court in October 2015, and the case was briefed and argued on January 20, federal government. The applicant has used a hovercraft to traverse the Nation 2016. In June 2016, this matter was remanded to the Ninth Circuit. River—a navigable river where the State of Alaska owns the submerged lands and On October 25, 2016, oral argument on remand was held before the United waters—as a part of his moose hunts in Alaska since 1990. In 2007, Mr. Sturgeon States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. The State of Alaska was also granted was using a small hovercraft to traverse the waters of the Nation River on a moose argument time as an amicus. On October 2, 2017, the United States Court of Appeal hunting trip in the Alaska wilderness, and was on an area of the Nation River for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the applicant. On January 2, 2018, the applicant surrounded by the federal Yukon-Charley National Preserve. Mr. Sturgeon was file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Certiorari was stopped by two National Park Service rangers and notified that federal regulations granted by the United States Supreme Court. On March 26, 2019, the United States prohibited the use of hovercrafts on federal land. Mr. Sturgeon argues that since Supreme Court, reversed and remanded, holding that: (1) The Nation River is not the Nation River is navigable, it is state land, and per the Alaska National Interest public land for purposes of ANILCA; (2) Non-public lands within Alaska’s national Land Conservation Act of 1980 (“ANILCA”), it is not subject to federal regulation. parks are exempt from the Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority, and that the According to the applicant’s attorney, this was a…compromise [which] effect of that exclusion is to exempt non-public lands, including waters, from Park addressed land owned by the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations, or Service regulations; (3) Navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks are exempt private individuals, that was about to be surrounded by the new ANILCA parks and from the Park Service’s normal regulatory authority. preserves. The agreement was that these non-federal lands would not be part of the ANILCA, like much legislation, was a settlement. The statute set aside more new ANILCA parks and in no way would be subject to federal regulation....The than a hundred million acres of Alaska for conservation. In so doing, it enabled Federal Government did not keep its side of the bargain. the Park Service to protect—if need be, through expansive regulation—“the This prohibition on NPS regulating non-federal lands within national parks national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on the and preserves in Alaska was set forth in ANILCA Section 103(c) which provides: public lands in Alaska.” 16 U. S. C. §3101(d). But public lands (and waters) was Only those lands within the boundaries of any conservation system unit which are where it drew the line—or, at any rate, the legal one. ANILCA changed nothing public lands (as such term is defined in this Act) shall be deemed to be included for all the state, Native, and private lands (and waters) swept within the new as a portion of such unit. No lands which, before, on, or after December 2, 1980, parks’ boundaries. Those lands, of course, remain subject to all the regulatory are conveyed to the State, to any Native Corporation, or to any private party shall powers they were before, exercised by the EPA, Coast Guard, and the like. But be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within such units. If they did not become subject to new regulation by the happenstance of ending up the State, a Native Corporation, or other owner desires to convey any such lands, within a national park. In those areas, Section 103(c) makes clear, Park Service the Secretary may acquire such lands in accordance with applicable law (including administration does not replace local control. For that reason, park rangers cannot this Act), and any such lands shall become part of the unit, and be administered enforce the Service’s hovercraft rule on the Nation River. And John Sturgeon can accordingly. 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c). once again drive his hovercraft up that river to Moose Meadows. This matter may 4 now be considered closed. City ofNewYork, et al.case. stayed pendingadecisionintheNewYork StateRifleandPistolAssociation,etal v. banc review. ItwasthenstayedpendingtheYoung v. Hawaiiappeal,whichcaseis Plaintiffs appealedthecasetoNinthCircuit.Thewaspetitioned foren May of2018,theDistrictCourtgrantedState’s motionforsummaryjudgment. briefs onNovember6,2017.Thosewerefiled 13,2017.In argued onNovember6,2017.TheCourtorderedsupplementalsummary judgment by thelowercourt.Bothpartiesfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment, whichwere continued, butonlytheSecondAmendmentopencarryclaimswere considered were filed.ThecourtgrantedthemotionstodismissinlightofPeruta. The case (but notopen)carryandtheEqualProtectionclaims.Oppositions tothemotions State andSheriffbothfiledmotionstodismisstheclaimsconcerning concealed prohibiting bothopenandconcealedcarryviolatestheSecondAmendment. The to forcethecourtdecidewhetherornotCalifornia’s entireregulatoryscheme Court fortheCentralDistrict,Western Division,ofCalifornia.Thelawsuitseeks Ninth CircuitCourtofAppeals,alawsuitwasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrict sells firearms related parts and accessories. Among other firearms-related goods, sells firearmsrelatedpartsandaccessories. Amongotherfirearms-related goods, et al.) Corporations 1-20 d/b/a U.S.PatriotArmory, JaneandJohnDoes1-20,XYZ Gurbir S.GrewalandPaul R.Rodríguezv.JamesTromblee,Jr. Flanagan, etal.v.Becerra,( Duncan v.Becerra Duncan, etal.v.Becerra CALIFORNIA fully briefed.Oralargumenthasnotyetbeenscheduled. appealed totheUnitedStatesCircuitCourtforNinthCircuit.Thecaseisnow of theplaintiffsandpermanentlyenjoinedCaliforniamagazineban. on May10,2018.OnMarch29,2019,theDistrictCourtissuedarulinginfavor District Court,plaintiffsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,whichwasargued On July17,2018,theNinthCircuitaffirmedtemporaryinjunctionorder. Inthe Briefing oftheappealwascompletedandoralargumentheardonMay14,2018. but theDistrictCourtrejectedState’s requesttostaythecasependingappeal. litigated. TheStateappealedthepreliminaryinjunctionordertoNinthCircuit, issued anorderstayingenforcementofthepossessionbanwhilecaseisbeing Takings ClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.InJune2017,trialcourt the groundsthatitviolatesSecondAmendment,DueProcessClause,and challenges California’s regulatoryschemeagainststandardcapacitymagazineson of magazinesthathaveacapacitymorethanten(10)rounds.Thelawsuit to bothastatebillandProposition63thatplacedbanonthepossession Please seecasedescriptionabove. American GunAssociation,Inc.andPinkPistolswasfiledonSeptember20,2019. On August17,2016,intheaftermathofPerutaenbancdecisionby The applicantisasmallbusiness ownerinCaliforniawho An amicusbriefonbehalfoftheNationalAfrican This casewasfiledinMay2017,response formerly Flanagan,etal.v.Harris, currently onappealtotheUnitedStatesCircuitCourtforNinth Circuit. A responsefromthecourttothoserequestsisexpectedanyday. This case is allowing theStateanopportunitytorespondplaintiffs’supplemental brief. motion andthatthecourtrulewithoutholdinganevidentiaryhearing after all discoverydeadlinesbepostponeduntilarulingonthepreliminary injunction injunction motion.Thepartieshavesincefiledajointstatusreport requestingthat reported problemswiththebackgroundchecksystem,plaintiffs filed apreliminary motion todismissonallbuttheEqualProtectionclaim.OnJuly22,2019,due the SecondAmendmentclaim.InJune2018,trialjudgedeniedState’s the CommerceClause,EqualProtection,andfederalpreemptionclaims;butnot Clause, andfederalpreemptiongrounds.Californiabroughtamotiontodismiss these restrictionsonSecondAmendment,CommerceClause,EqualProtection the UnitedStatesDistrictCourtforSouthernofCaliforniachallenging purchasers undergoabackgroundcheck.OnApril26,2018,lawsuitwasfiledin all ammunitionsalesberecordedwithCalifornia’s DepartmentofJustice,and including requirementsthatallsalesbeconductedviaface-to-facetransactions, permit discovery.” Discoveryisproceeding. cease allsalestoNewJersey)butdeniedthemotionwithoutprejudiceinorder to beproceedingpurelyvindictivelyagainstadefendantthathadalreadyagreed concern overthebreadthoftheorycase(andalsothatAGappeared the complaintforfailuretostateaclaim.“Inanoralopinion,Courtexpressed New Jersey’s ‘assaultfirearms’law. Theapplicantrecentlyfiledamotiontodismiss that itisunlawfultoassemblethereceiverintoaconfigurationwouldviolate 80% Receiverwiththepurposeoffinishingitintoacompletedfirearmand(2) constituted consumerfraud:(1)thatitisunlawfulinNewJerseytopurchasean The NewJerseyAttorneyGeneralallegesthatthefailuretodisclosefollowing applicant allegingthattheviolatedNewJerseyConsumerFraudAct. of 80%receivers.TheNewJerseyAttorneyGeneralfiledalawsuitagainstthe a manufacturinglicense,however, theapplicablelawdoesnotregulatesale the onlystatethatprohibitsmanufactureofafirearmforpersonalusewithout kits arelegaltopurchaseandsellunderfederallawinall50states.NewJerseyis a purchasertofinishthe80%receiverintoanunserializedfirearm.Theseparts the applicantadvertisesandsells80%receivers,aswellpartskitswhichenable Rupp, etal.v.Becerra Rhode, etal.v.Becerra Circuit. Theplaintiffs’openingbrief wasdueDecember5,2019. The plaintiffs’appealedtotheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinth United StatesDistrictCourtgranted California’s motionforsummary judgment. by March25,2019andahearing occurredMay31,2019.OnJuly22,2019,the Clause oftheUnitedStatesConstitution. Summaryjudgmentmotionswerefiled as aviolationoftheSecondAmendment, DueProcessClause,andTakings buttons.” ThelawsuitchallengesCalifornia’s “assaultweapon”regulatoryscheme include certainfirearmsthatwerepreviouslyrequiredtobeequipped with“bullet to twobills,bothofwhichredefineCalifornia’s “assaultweapon”restrictionsto This suitwasfiledinAprilof2017,response California enactedammunitionsalesrestrictions,

5 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 6 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES awaiting thecourt’s ruling. compel. Theapplicanthasfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment andthepartiesare counsel.Theapplicantwillfileamotionto but hasbeenpostponedbyplaintiff’s depositionwasscheduledforJuly22,2019, set fortrialsometimein2020.Plaintiff’s mandatory settlementconference,thepartiesfailedtosettle matter. Thecaseis rights. Nationwidehasappointedtheapplicant’s attorneyasCoomiscounsel.At a Nationwide Insurance,hasagreedtoprovidecoverageunderareservation of relief isnotavailableinajurytrial.Theapplicant’s homeowner’s insurance, applicant’s attorneypreparedamotioninlimineonthegroundsthatdeclaratory 2018, theplaintifffiledastatementofdamagesinexcess$5 million. The distress, negligentinflictionofemotionalandnegligence. OnMarch5, extra hazardousactivities,privatenuisance,intentionalinfliction ofemotional publicnuisanceperse,trespass, andthezoningcode, of theSacramentocountycode complaint withvariouscountsallegingtheapplicant’s violationofvarioussections doctrine ofexhaustionadministrativeremedies. presented inthiscaseincludethedoctrineofcomingtonuisanceand law isnotapplicablebecausetherangeopentopublic.Thelegalissues berm andrange.Theapplicant’s attorneybelievesthatthestate’s rangeprotection has offeredtosettlefor$1.00,ontheconditionthatapplicantteardownhis in violationofanyzoningordinances.Theplaintiffisrunningoutfundsand applicant willneedtohireanexpertwitnesstestifywhethertheis applicant’s property. Theapplicantfiledademurrer, whichwasdenied. a permanentinjunctionprohibitingtheapplicantfromshootingfirearmson ordinances. Thecomplaintseekscompensatorydamages,punitiveand lawsuit allegingthattheapplicantisnotincompliancewithcountyzoning violations ontheapplicant’s property. Theplaintiffthenfiledaprivatenuisance property. TheSacramentoCountyZoningDepartmenthasfoundnozoning However, departmenthasfoundnoviolations ontheapplicant’s thesheriff’s of hisproperty. department. Theplaintiffhasfiledcomplaintswiththesheriff’s within 150yardsofhisdwellingandthattherangedeniesplaintifffullenjoyment single familydwellingnexttotheapplicant.Theplaintiffclaimsthatrangeis moved intotheadjacentproperty, andintendstoopenarehab/detoxcenterinhis range onhisproperty, whichiszonedA/R,formanyyears.Theplaintiffrecently Ukiah RifleandPistolClub Mark Townsv.RaymondHarrell Rupp, etal.v.Becerra applicant. OnFebruary20,2018, theMateelEnvironmentJusticeFoundation on landownedbytheCityofUkiah. In2018,twolawsuitswerefiledagainstthe range facilitiesandservicesforboth lawenforcementandthelocalcommunity a members-onlynonprofitcorporation locatedinUkiah,Calif.Itprovidesshooting description above. American GunAssociation,Inc.andPinkPistolswasfiled.Pleaseseecase Discovery is ongoing. On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended Discovery isongoing.OnMarch1,2018,theplaintifffiledasecondamended The applicant’s attorneyanticipatesthatthismatterwillgotojurytrial.The An amicusbriefonbehalfoftheNationalAfrican Ukiah RifleandPistolClub,founded in1945,is The applicanthashadaprivateshooting than 10employees).”Theapplicantexpectstheplaintifftoappeal. an all-volunteerorganization,itqualifiedfortheexemptionunderProp65(i.e.less claims standasdismissedatthetriallevel.ThegroundswerethatinsofarURPCis on itsmotionforsummaryjudgmentagainstMateel,and…asaresultallProp65 a shootingrangewaslegalnon-conforminguse.Theapplicant“recentlyprevailed construction invalidatestheCounty’s priordeterminationthattheuseoflandas predetermining thepotentialenvironmentalimpactofadditions,andthatsaid The plaintiffsallegethattheapplicantbuiltanewrangesoundwallwithout lead fromthepremises,contaminatingneighboringpropertiesandnearbywaterways. the applicantallegingthathasallowedreleaseand/ordischargeof privacy protectagainstsuchdisclosure. the applicant’s membershiplistorwhetherthefreedomofassociationandrightto Another legalissuethathasarisenindiscoveryiswhethertheplaintiffcanobtain employees. Theapplicanthasnoemployeesandoperateswithanall-volunteerstaff. Environment Actof1986.Thisactregulatesbusinesseswithten(10)ormore California’s Proposition65,alsoknownastheSafeDrinkingWater andToxic legal issuepresentedinthecaseiswhetheranonprofitprivateclubsubjectto for violationsofCalifornia’s Proposition65,allegingleadcontamination.One filed acivilsuitagainsttheapplicantseekinginjunctivereliefandpenalties Chambers, etal.v.CityofBoulder COLORADO argument occurredApril30,2019. Thecaseiscurrentlyindiscovery. local law. Boulder moved todismiss.Themotionhasbeenfullybriefed,andoral an amendedcomplainttoaddthis additionalpointofconflictbetweenstateand law, furtherexacerbatingtheconflictbetweenstate andlocallaw. Plaintiffsfiled an exemptionfromtheordinanceforhandgunmagazinesthatare legalunderstate 18 yearsofage.OnJune19,2018,theBoulderOrdinancewasamended toremove of ammunition,andtheagemajorityforpurchasingpossessing firearmsis capacity magazines”aredefinedasthosewhichholdmorethan fifteen (15)rounds because, underColoradolaw, thepossessionof“assaultweapons” islegal,“large- ordinance conflictswithcontrollingColoradostatelawonseveral materialpoints was filedchallengingtheordinanceonstate-lawpreemptiongrounds. Boulder’s with statelawispreemptedandmaynotbeenforced.OnJune14, 2018,alawsuit municipal ordinancethatregulatesfirearmsownershipandpossession andconflicts and possessingfirearmsto21yearsofage.Coloradohasenacted preemption.A ten (10)roundsofammunition,andraisestheagemajorityfor purchasing The ordinancealsoprohibits“large-capacitymagazines”thatholdmorethan they obtainapprovalfrommunicipalauthoritiesthroughacertificationprocess. ordinance whichprohibitsthepossessionof“assaultweapons”bycitizensunless Separately, Vichy SpringsResort,Inc.,anditsowner, GilbertAshoff,havesued The CityofBoulderenactedan Gilchrist CountySheriff’sOfficev.DeputyJeffersonDavis Florida City ofWestonv.Scott;DaleyFloridaBrowardCounty FLORIDA 2019. Thecaseisstillbeingbriefedandnoargumentshavebeenscheduled. judgment bytheState.TheCourtacceptedNRA’s amicusbriefonDecember5, January 21,2019.TheNRAfiledanamicusbriefinsupportofamotionforsummary court deniedthemotiontodismiss.Motionsforsummaryjudgmentweredueon September 10,2018andoralargumentoccurred28,2018.Thetrial Circuit, LeonCounty, Fla.Briefingonthemotiontodismisswascompletedby the provisions.ThecaseispendinginCircuitCourtofSecondJudicial provisions, andthelackofanylegislativeorsovereignimmunityproblemwith over municipalities,thelackofanyFirstAmendmentproblemwithpenalty the righttokeepandbeararms,traditionalpowerthatstatelegislatureshave the reasoningbehindpenaltyprovisionsandtheirimportanceforsafeguarding amicus briefinsupportoftheState’s motiontodismiss.Theamicusbriefexplained claims failforvariousotherproceduralreasons.OnJuly19,2018,theNRAfiledan complaints onJuly9,2018,arguingthattheplaintiffslackstandingandtheir and afterobtainingconsolidationofthethreecases,Floridamovedtodismiss law. Theplaintiffsfiledtheircomplaintsatvariouspointsduringlatespring2018, by localofficialsandmunicipalitieschallengingthepenaltyprovisionsofFlorida who violatethepreemptionstatute.Thesethreeconsolidatedcasesarebrought by municipalities,anditimposespenaltiesonlocalofficialsmunicipalities and magazines were surrendered to the Sheriff’s Office. and magazinesweresurrendered to theSheriff’s Court. PertheCourt’s ex-parteorder, alloftheapplicant’s weapons,ammunition, protection order. Thepetitionforex-parterisk protectionorderwasgrantedbythe Officealsofiled apetitionforrisk an InternalAffairsinvestigation. TheSheriff’s was administrativelysuspendedfromdutyasalawenforcementofficer pending indicating hecouldreturntoworkasalawenforcementofficer. Davis,however, not meetBakerActcriteria.Daviswasreleasedandgivena discharge letter facility, andafterabriefinterviewwithpsychiatrist, wasinformedthathedid holding anindividualforupto72hours.Daviswastransported thementalhealth committed forpsychiatricevaluationundertheFloridaBakerAct, whichallows co-worker whohadbeenhavingand[sic]affairwithhisgirlfriend.” kicked adoorinatheadquarters,andmadestatementsthathewanted toshootthe discovering thisinformation,Davis“becamehighlyupset,punched afilecabinet, was havinganaffairwithanotherlawenforcementofficerattheir agency. Upon Davis wasoffdutyandunarmed.Duringthevisit,learned that hisgirlfriend Officetoseehisgirlfriendwhowasworkingasadispatcher.County Sheriff’s March 9,2018.On18,2018,DeputyJeffersonDavisvisitedtheGilchrist is oneofthefirstcasestoarisefromanewFloridalaw, whichcameintoeffecton Supervisory personnel met with Davis and decided to have him involuntarily Supervisory personnelmetwithDavisanddecidedtohavehiminvoluntarily Florida law broadly preempts the regulation of firearms and ammunition Florida lawbroadlypreemptstheregulationoffirearmsandammunition This case Rifle AssociationofAmericav.Bondi) Nicholas Lionv.ThomasE. Brandon IDAHO National RifleAssociationofAmericav.Moody( the BATFE inNovember2014.InlateMarch2016,theapplication totransfer purchase afirearmsilencerfrom alicenseddealer. TheForm4was submittedto transfer ofasilencer. Mr. Lion,whoresidesnearSandpoint,Idaho,sought to the BureauofAlcohol,Tabaco, FirearmsandExplosives(“BATFE”) ofaproposed there isnoevidenceofcurrentorfuturethreat. weapons. Anappealwasfiledonthestandardtomaintainarestrainingorderwhen a licensinghearing—becausetheredflagpreventshimfrombeinginpossessionof employment andcannotgainasapoliceofficer—eventhoughhewon firearm forwork,andhadaccesstofirearmsoffduty. Asaresult,Davishaslosthis others, statingtheyareawareofhisoccupationandtrainingthathecarrieda psychiatrist statementsthattheapplicantdidnotposeariskofharmtohimselfor was noevidenceofprospectiveharmtoselforothersinevidence.Therewerethree Officeemployees. and permitteddiscoverydepositionstobetakenoffiveSheriff’s discovery. TheCourtruledinDavis’s favor, ofdocuments, orderedsomeproduction submitted undertheFloridaSunshineLaw. Davis’s attorneyfiledamotiontocompel pertaining tothismatter, includingallrelatedpublicrecordsrequestproperly Officeemployees,aswellblockingDavisfromaccessinginformation are Sherriff’s negotiated outandthecaseisproceedingatDistrictCourtlevel. pending resolutionofinterlocutoryappeal.Theanonymityissues weresuccessfully filed August15,2018.BriefingwascompletedonOctober19, 2018. Thecaseis on July16,2018,theCourtnotedprobablejurisdiction.Theappellees’ briefwas jurisdiction toentertaintheappeal.Bothpartiesagreedthat exists,and Eleventh Circuitinitiallyissuedajurisdictionalquestionquerying whetherithad the EleventhCircuit.Theappellants’openingbriefwasfiledJune 27,2018.The An interlocutoryappealwasfiledwiththeUnitedStatesCourt of Appealsfor States DistrictCourtissuedanorderdenyingtherequesttoproceed anonymously. under pseudonyms.TheStateopposedthisrequest.OnMay13,2018,theUnited simultaneously movedforleavetoallowthenamedindividualsparticipate named individualharmedbytheban,andadditionaldefendants.Plaintiff complaint toaddanamedindividualplaintiff,allegationsconcerninganother Fourteenth Amendment.OnApril26,2018,NRAmovedforleavetoamendits violates boththeSecondAmendmentandEqualProtectionClauseof extended thisbantoencompasslonggunsaswell.Plaintiffarguesthat The Statepreviouslybannedtheseadultsfrompurchasinghandguns,butitrecently Florida’s banonthepurchaseoffirearmsbyadultsbetweenages18and21. filed intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforofFlorida,challenging The Courtusedalegallyfabricatedbasisforrenewalofredflagorder. There OfficeattemptedtoblockDavisfromaccessingallwitnesseswho The Sheriff’s This matterinvolvesthedenial by On March9,2018,alawsuitwas formerly National

7 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 8 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES November 1,2018,topreventthe agencyfromreversingtheburdenofproof.The lawsuit againsttheBATFE intheDistrictCourtforofColumbia on of suchaconvictionisinpossession ofATF, thetransfermustbeapproved. a disqualifyingcrimeorofmisdemeanor crimeofdomesticviolence.Unlessproof reversed. Itisnotanapplicant’s burdentoshowthathehasneverbeenconvictedof law, thetransfermustbeapproved.Asmattersstand, theburdenofproofisbeing receipt orpossessionofthesilencerbyMr. Lionwouldplacehiminviolationof transferee inviolationoflaw.” (emphasisadded).Thus,unlessthereisproofthat shall bedeniedifthetransfer, receipt,orpossessionofthefirearmwouldplace is affirmativelyshowntobedisqualified.Thatstatuteprovides that “Applications 5812(a), ismandatoryandrequiresATF to approveatransferunlessthetransferee disqualified theapplicantformpossessingafirearm. proof thatneithercharges,eveniftheyhadresultedinaconviction, wouldhave sent totheBATFE onJuly14,2017. Thedocumentationprovidedtherequested extensive packageofdocumentsinsupportthedeclaration.These materialswere declaration byMr. Lion,whichhadbeenrequestedbytheBATFE, andpreparedan one aprohibitedpersonunder§922(g)(1).Theapplicant’s attorneydrafteda misdemeanor crimesofdomesticviolenceunder§922(g)(9)anddidnotmake BATFE informedthatMr. Lionwouldhavetoprovethatchargeswerenot Lion’s attorneytriedtoresolvethematterthroughBATFE andNICS. without prejudice,theproselawsuithehadfiledinfederaldistrictcourt.Mr. Idaho. Ontheadviceofcounsel,onJune9,2016,Mr. Lionvoluntarilydismissed, under thelaw.” convictions arenotdomesticviolencecases,theeffectwillbesevereandunjustified burden ofproofonminorassaults,andrequiringtheapplicanttoshowthatallsuch This reversestheburdenofproof.“IfATF hasadoptedapracticeofreversingthe that chargeswerenotmisdemeanorcrimesofdomesticviolenceunder§922(g)(9). disqualify him.BATFE alsoinformedthattheapplicantwouldhavetoprove disposition ofthesechargescouldbefound.However, evenaconvictionwouldnot under §922(g)(1). and evenaconvictiononthesechargeswouldnotmakeoneprohibitedperson and/or afineofupto$1,000.Neitherisconsidered“crime”underNewJerseylaw, a disorderlypersonoffense,whichcarriesmaximumpenaltyofsixmonthsinjail penalty of30daysinjailand/orafineupto$500.Thesimpleassaultchargeis conduct chargeisapettydisorderlypersonoffense,whichcarriesmaximum for eitherchargeinthelocalcourtrecords.UnderNewJerseylaw, thedisorderly these chargesstemmedfromasingleincidentinJuly1987.Nodispositionisshown made theapplicantaprohibitedpersonunder18U.S.C.§922(g)(1).Bothof assault underN.J.Stat.Ann.§2C:12-1(a)(1)which,accordingtotheBATFE, of disorderlyconductunderN.J.Stat.Ann.§2C:33-2,andonechargesimple the silencerwasdeniedbasedontwochargesagainstMr. Lionin1987:onecharge Since aresolutionwiththeBATFE couldnotbereached,theapplicantfiled a The applicant’s attorneyalsoarguedthat…[T]herelevantstatute,26U.S.C.§ Mr. LionfiledaproselawsuitagainsttheBATFE infederaldistrictcourt BATFE informedtheapplicantthattransferwouldbedeniedifno anything less[thanadvisementof thelosspriortoplea];particularlywhena of asubstantialrightpredicated upon amisdemeanorconvictionshouldrequire courtcannotconceivethat theloss the lifetimelossofafundamental right....This “This Courtisnotawareofany other misdemeanoroffensethatwouldresultin and tochallengetheexistinglaw. Thedistrictcourtjudgestatedthefollowing: district judgeaffirmedthemagistrate’s decisionbuturgedtheapplicant toappeal magistrate judgeneednotadviseadefendantof“collateralconsequences.” was deniedbythemagistrate’s courtbaseduponIdaholaw, whichstatesthata unaware oftheimpendinglossrightswhenenteringthatguilty plea.Themotion moved towithdrawtheguiltyplea,showing“justcause”byclaiming thathewas consequences ofhisdomesticviolenceconviction(afterobtaining counsel),he deprived ofhisSecondAmendmentrights.WhenMr. Sunseriwasinformedofthe one informedhimthatbyacceptingthispleadeal,hewouldpermanently be entered aguiltypleatomisdemeanorcrimeofdomesticviolence inIdaho.No hearing, becauseheneededgetbacktowork,soasnotlosehis job.Mr. Sunseri as possible,insteadofcontinuingtobeheldwithoutbonduntilthe dateofafuture call. unsupervised probation,andthedismissalofchargeforinterferingwitha911phone immediate releasefromjail(threedaysalreadyserved),a$300fine,twoyearsof magistrate conveyedtheprosecutingattorney’s pleaoffer;namely, Mr. Sunseri’s domestic violenceinfrontofachild;uptooneyearjailand$1,000fine.The informed Mr. Sunseriofthepotentialmaximumpunishmentforconviction that thejudgementioned.Mr. Sunseriindicatedthathedid.Themagistratethen magistrate askedifMr. Sunserirecalledtheaforementioneddefendants’rights an attorney, andtherighttotrialbyjury. WhenMr. Sunseri’s casewasheard,the the appointmentofcounselatpublicexpenseifdefendantcouldnotafford defendants inthecourtroomoftheirrighttoremainsilent,counsel, counsel, byvideoinfrontofanIdahomagistratejudge.Theadvisedall the weekend incarcerated, Mr. Sunseriappeared, withouttheassistanceoflegal was heldinKootenaiCountyjailwithoutbondovertheweekend.Afterspending or assaultinthepresenceofachild,andinterferingwith911phonecall.He who hasnopriorcriminalhistory, wasarrestedandchargedwithdomesticbattery be anyproblemwiththat—whichisnotexpected—thecasecanreinstated. manufacturer toMr. Lion.Accordingly, thismatterisnotyetresolved.Shouldthere submitted andapprovedbyATF togetareplacementsilencertransferredbythe discovered thatthesilencerhadacrackedtube.Newpaperworkwillhavetobe paperwork totransferthesilenceronMarch15.However, itwassubsequently by bothplaintiffanddefendant.Thereafter, ATF did,infact,approvethenew The casehasbeenvoluntarilydismissedwithoutprejudicepursuanttoastipulation for transfer, becausethedealerinpossessionofparticularsilencerhadchanged. Lion’s applicationtotransferthesilencer. Mr. Lionsubmittedanewapplication government subsequentlyagreedtosettlethecasebygrantingapprovalofMr. State ofIdahov.NicholasBrianSunseri The applicantappealedthemagistrate’s decisiontothedistrictcourt.The The audiorecordingreflectsthatMr. Sunseriwantedtogetoutofjailassoon On April15,2016,Mr. Sunseri, remanding tothedistrictcourtwith directionstoconsiderMr. Sunseri’s “grounds reversing thedenialofMr. Sunseri’s motiontowithdrawhisguiltypleaand demonstrated therequisitejustcause towithdrawhispre-sentencingguiltyplea.” engage intherequired‘justcause’analysistodeterminewhether Mr. Sunserihad were uncounseledandthattheMagistrateDistrictCourton appealdidnot very concernedboththatthepleaofferandacceptanceofthis guiltyplea attorney informsthatthe“[a]rgumentwentverywellandJustices seemed 2018, oralargumentwasheardbeforetheIdahoSupremeCourt. Mr. Sunseri’s February 6,2018.TheapplicantfiledhisreplybriefMarch14, 2018. OnJune8, 14, 2017.TheStateofIdahoAttorneyGeneral’s Officefiledtheirbriefon Amendment rights. have pleadedguiltyhadheknownofthissubstantialdeprivation ofhisSecond where hedemonstrateshadmeritoriousdefensestothecharges andwouldnot fundamental rights,whetherMr. Sunserishouldbepermittedtowithdrawhisplea the Courtswerenotrequiredtoadvisedefendantofthisconsequencehis to acceptinghisguiltypleaamisdemeanorcrimeofdomesticviolence.Evenif own andpossessfirearmsammunitionuponconvictionbyIdahocourtsprior Sunseri shouldhavebeenadvisedoftheimmediatedeprivationhisrightto plea andwouldnothavepleadedguiltyhadhebeenproperlyadvised. because hedidnotreceivenoticeofthisconsequenceatthetimeenteredhis Sunserichallengesthislossof hisSecondAmendmentrights ammunition....Mr. result inalifetimebanonhisfundamentalrighttoownandpossessfirearms or non-citizentoknowinadvancethatadomesticviolenceconvictionwill the state’s dealratherthanlosehisjob,hehasfewerrightsthesexoffender upon falseaccusations,haslegitimatedefensestothecharges,butchoosestake defendant, likeMr. Sunseri,engagesinascufflewithhisex-wife,isimplicated registry, andnon-citizensconvictedofdeportablecrimes,etc.Yet ifamisdemeanor to adefendantenteringpleas;including,forinstance,theconsequencessexoffender misdemeanor chargeofdomesticviolence,thatisnotcurrentlythestatelaw.” be informedofthelossafundamentalrightpriortoenteringguiltypleafor as theCourtwouldliketofindthatfairnessandjusticerequireadefendant and loseemployment,oracceptthepleaofferbereleased.Therefore,inasmuch presented withaHobson’s choicetopleadnotguiltyandpotentiallyremaininjail prior totheentryofaguiltyplea.Particularlywhendefendantisincarceratedand characterizes itassuch.Thoughseemsshouldrequire,ataminimum,notice right topossessfirearmisacollateralconsequenceregardlessofthelegal fictionthat lossofthe informing adefendantthatsuchconsequenceexists.Yet itisso....The the ‘palladiumoflibertiesarepublic’mayberelinquishedforlifewithout strains credulitytobelievethatarightdescribedbyformerJusticeJosephStoryas defendant isappearingviavideofromjailandnotrepresentedbycounsel....It On October31,2018,theIdaho SupremeCourtruledinMr. Sunseri’s favor, Mr. SunserifiledhisopeningbriefwiththeIdahoSupremeCourtonNovember Mr. Sunseri’s attorneyframestheissuespresentedasfollows:WhetherMr. In regardtoothercriminaloffenses,“collateralconsequences”aredisclosedprior the endofFebruary2020. merits ofthetrialcourt’s March22ruling.Thepartiesaretosubmittheirbriefsby of appealandthecaseisbackinSecondDistrictAppellateCourt toaddressthe held thattheconsolidationwasafullmerger. Thedefendantthenfiledanewnotice argument astowhethertheconsolidationwasafullmergerornot, thetrialcourt corrected bythedefendants.Subsequently, inthetrialcourt,after briefingandoral the Courtruledthatappealwasnotproperlyfiledandout oftimetobe Deerfield appealedtotheSecondDistrictAppellateCourt.Inlate July2019, permanent injunctionbarringenforcementoftheordinances.The Village of on allclaims,excepttheTakings andEminent Domainclaims,anditissuedthe March 22,2019,thetrialcourtgrantedplaintiffs’motionsforsummary judgment on November30,2018.PlaintiffsfiledareplybriefDecember 14,2018.On for summaryjudgmentandapermanentinjunction.Thedefendant responded a preliminaryinjunctionwasheld.OnOctober26,2018,theplaintiffs moved 2018, oralargumentonamotiontoconvertthetemporaryrestrainingorder effect solongasthetemporaryrestrainingorderremainsinplace.OnOctober12, magazines butissuedapressreleaseacknowledgingthatthebanwillnotgointo The Village subsequentlyamendeditsordinancetoexpresslyban“largecapacity” law andthattheordinancedidnotactuallyprohibitpossessionofanymagazines. that theordinance’s banoncertainpopularfirearmswaspreemptedbyIllinois blocking enforcementoftheordinanceonJuly12,2018.TheCourtconcluded Lake County, challengingtheban.TheCourtissuedatemporaryrestrainingorder or anuncompensatedtaking. capacity magazinesarenotbannedor, inthealternative,thatanybanispreempted the contrary, didnotactuallybanthem.Plaintiffssoughtadeclarationthatlarge “large capacitymagazines,”but,despitepublicstatementsbyVillage officialsto just compensation.Asoriginallydrafted,theDeerfieldordinancealsodefined preempted byStatehuntinglawandthatitisanunconstitutionaltakingwithout argue thatthebanthereforeispreempted.Theyalso of aprior“assaultweapon”storageregulation.Theplaintiffsdisagree,andthey weapons bans,Deerfieldarguesthatthebanactuallyisanallowedamendment of Deerfield,Ill.WhileIllinoislawprohibitslocalitiesfromenactingnewassault an “assaultweapons”and“largecapacity”magazinebanenactedbythe Village Guns SaveLife,Inc.v.VillageofDeerfield ILLINOIS hearing wasexpectedinDecember2018orJanuary2019. Mr. Sunserimustnowestablishsuch“justcause”tothemagistrate’s satisfaction.A using afarmorefavorable‘justcause’analysisthanthelowercourtshadallowed.” Thomas J.Dart,Countyof Cook,Illinois Supplies andIndoorRange, andMarilynSmolenski,v,ZahraAli, Guns SaveLifeINC.,DPEServices, Inc.d/b/aMaxonShooter’s On April19,2018,theplaintiffs’filedalawsuitinIllinoisStateCourt, This caseisachallengetoboth This caseisachallengeto

9 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 10 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES Shawna Johnsonv.IllinoisStatePolice parties awaitactionbythecourt. District. OnJuly19,2019,briefingintheIllinoisAppellateCourtconcluded.The judgment. TheplaintiffsappealedtotheIllinoisAppellateCourt,FirstJudicial On August17,2018,thedistrictcourtgranteddefendant’s motionforsummary discovery, thedefendantcross-movedforsummaryjudgmentonNovember6,2017. granted amotionbythedefendanttodelaybriefingduringdiscovery. Afterlimited The plaintiffsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.InFebruary2017,theCourt 2015. InMarch2016,thedefendantfiledamotiontodismiss,whichwasdenied. an ammunition“violencetax”andtoaguntaximposedbyCookCounty, Ill.,in challenged the application of the Lautenberg Amendment in Illinois, the applicant challenged theapplicationof LautenbergAmendmentinIllinois,theapplicant of herSecondAmendmentrights. Unlikeseveralotherindividualswhohave Court reasonedthattheapplicant hasnomeansavailabletoobtainarestoration the IllinoisStatePolicetoreinstate andreissuetotheapplicantaFOIDcard.The its denialofpetitioner’s requesttoreinstate/reissueher aFOIDcardandordered violence” frompossessingfirearms.” which prohibitsanyonewithaconvictionfor“amisdemeanorcrime ofdomestic federal lawfrompossessingorreceivingafirearm”;and18U.S.C. §922(g)(9)— which directsISPtodenyFOIDapplicationsfromindividuals“prohibited under §1230.20(h)— when itwould‘becontrarytofederallaw’;20Ill.Admin.Code ILCS 65/10(b)&(c)(4)—whichprohibitsgrantingrelieffromFOID disabilities revocation ofaFOIDwhenfederallawprohibitsthepossession firearms;430 unconstitutional as-applied:“430ILCS65/8(n)—whichauthorizes denialor finally issuedanorder, holdingthefollowingfederalandstatelawsregulations follow-up conferenceforSeptember17,2018.OnOctober1,2018, thecourt 2016. AhearingtookplaceAugust20,2018,atwhichthejudge scheduledanother Subsequently, thecourtdirectedeachsideto submitpost-hearingbriefsbyMay13, unconstitutional undertheSecondAmendment. restored. Theapplicantalsoarguedthat18U.S.C.§922(g)(9)asappliedtoheris enables theremovalofafederalfirearmsdisabilityifone’s “civilrights”havebeen possessing firearmspursuanttofederallaw. Theapplicantarguedthatfederallaw because Illinoisstatutorylawprohibitsrestorationofrightstothoseprohibitedfrom 65/10(b), theIllinoisStatePolicearguedthatcircuitcourtscannotgrantrelief convicted ofamisdemeanordomesticviolencecharge.Citing430Ill.Comp.Stat. circuit courtcanremovefederalfirearmsdisabilitiesforindividualswhohavebeen rationale inCoramv. State,996N.E.1057(Ill.2013).Theissuewaswhethera that shecouldobtainreliefnotwithstandingthefederalprohibition,basedon against theIllinoisStatePoliceandobtainedarulingthatsubstantivelyindicated the applicantcommencedaproseaction,inCircuitCourtforWabash County, would notpermanentlypreventherfromholdingaFOID.Aftertherevocation, pleaded guiltytothatchargeaftertheprosecutorassuredherconviction 2001 misdemeanorbatteryconvictioninvolvingherex-husband.Theapplicanthad the applicant’s FirearmsOwner’s Identification(“FOID”)cardafterlearningofa The court reversed the decision of the director of the Illinois State Police in The courtreversedthedecision of thedirectorIllinoisStatePolicein An evidentiaryhearingwasheldinthismatteronJanuary20,2016. The IllinoisStatePolicerevoked SupremeCourt/2020/124213.pdf. restored” languageinthe1968GunControlAct.courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/ concluded thatrestorationofgunrightsundertheFOIDActmet the“civilrights January 24,2020,theIllinoisSupremeCourt,inanunanimous(7-0) decision, of homepossession),wehaveaddedasection…thatalsoaddresses thisissue.”On concerns theconstitutionalityofFOIDActasawhole(atleast inthecontext pending beforetheIllinoisSupremeCourt.“Inlightoffactthat theBrowncase held theFOIDActunconstitutionalonfactspresented,isalso currently on November19,2019.Anothercase,Peoplev. Brown,inwhichthecircuitcourt September 16,2019,andTheSupremeCourtofIllinoisconducted oralargument applicant filedtheBriefofPetitioner-Appellee. TheState’s ReplyBriefwasfiledon unconstitutional as-appliedtoMs.Johnson.... the LautenbergAmendmenttoperpetuallydenyrightkeepandbeararmsis at 442-43.Next,we…arguethat(astheCircuitCourtfound)incorporationof civil rightswithinthemeaningof§921(a)(20)”&(33)(i).Id.at250,167N.H. the] civilrighttokeepandbeararms,”astatecan“therebyrestore[anindividual]’s A.3d 239,167N.H.429(2015)—towit,thatby“remov[inga]restriction…[on Supreme CourtofNewHampshirereachedinDuPontv. NashuaPoliceDep’t, 113 intendtoadvancetheconclusion 18 U.S.C.§921(a)(20)&(33)(i)....[W]e the “civilrightsrestored”exceptioncontainedin1968GunControlAct.See Circuit Court’s ordergrantingreliefunder430ILCS65/10issufficienttoinvoke Supreme Court,we…relyontwoalternativearguments.First,we…arguethata State PolicetoissueanewFirearmsOwner’s Identificationcard:“AttheIllinois on November1,2018.TheCourtstayedthatpartoftheorderdirectedIllinois The StateappealedtotheSupremeCourtofIllinoisandfileditsnoticeappeal the appealnotedbelow. administrative ruleoftheStateinvalid.Thecourthasstayedthatpetitionpending brief insupportofthepetition.Thebasisforpetitionisthatcourtfoundan 2018, theapplicantfiledapetitionforanawardofattorney’sa feesandsubmitted to obtainapardon,theCourtdistinguishedtheseauthorities.OnOctober15, 113687 at¶¶132-34(Theis,J.,dissenting).Becausetheapplicanthadattempted in lightofthefactthatplaintiffhadnotrequestedapardon.SeeCoram,2013IL Justices whodissentedinCoramhadconsideredtheconstitutionalclaimpremature v. GreeneCnty. State’s Attorney’s Office,2016ILApp(4th)150035,¶61.Thetwo pardon. See,e.g.,Peoplev. Heitmann,2017ILApp(3d)160527,¶40;Baumgartner premature becausethepersonassertingthoseclaimshadnotsoughttoobtaina have declinedtoreachsimilarConstitutionalclaimsonthegroundthattheywere had appliedfor—andbeendenied—agubernatorialpardon.ManyIllinoiscourts On May8,2019,theStatefileditsAppellant’s Brief.OnJuly29,2019,the The IllinoisAttorneyGeneral’s OfficemovedforastayonOctober22,2018. filed aninterlocutoryappealon December14,2016. and SherryChapofromoperating therangeonNovember17,2016.TheChapos Madison CountyCircuitCourtissued apreliminaryinjunctionenjoiningJoseph though DeputyBigShot,LLCwas actuallyoperatingtheshootingrange.The Plan Commissionfiledacomplaint andinjunctionagainstTheChaposonly, even issued anamendedenforcementorder. OnMay25,2016,theJeffersonCounty was heldonApril20,2016.On27,2016,theZoningEnforcement Officer on April19,2016.Apublichearingregardingtheseallegedzoning violations and structures.TheChaposrespondedinwritingtothezoningenforcement order with anenforcementordertodiscontinuetheillegaluseofland, building, Chapos. OnApril6,2013,theZoningEnforcementOfficerserved theapplicants with theJeffersonCountyZoningOfficeragainstDeputyBigShot, LLCandThe such provisioninthecitedordinanceandcontrarytostatelaw. Appeals deniedtherangeconditionaluseapplicationsolelyonnoise, withoutany to sellhandguns.OnNovember7,2012,theJeffersonCountyBoard ofZoning applied forandreceivedafederalfirearmslicensehadregistered withIndiana thepublic.”ByJanuary2013,DeputyBigShot, LLChad range toaccommodate Big Shot[,]LLCinIndianatoincludeagunshopandexpandtheoriginalshooting application. OnOctober24,2012,theapplicants“organizedandregisteredDeputy November 11,2012,theBoardofZoningAppealsdeniedrangeconditionaluse approved thegunshopapplicationanddeferredrangeapplication.On filed therequiredapplications.OnOctober2,2012,BoardofZoningAppeals County PlanCommissionthatapermitwasrequiredforeachuse.TheChapos the SecretaryofJeffersonCountyBoardZoningAppealsand Jefferson CountyPlanCommissionregardingbothuses,andwereinstructedby in whichtheChapos’propertywaslocated.TheChaposmadeaninquirywith ordinance didnotaddressshootingrangesorgunshopsintheAgriculturalZone August 2012,JeffersonCountypassedtheZoningOrdinance.The Deputy BigShot,LLC,theonlypublicshootingrangeinJeffersonCounty. In their propertyinDeputy, Ind.,andsetupashootingrange.Theyownoperate Court ofAppealsIndiana Tamara Duquette,JeffreySharp,JeffersonCountyCircuitCourt, Jacobson, MikeShelton,AlanaG.Jackson,JesseDuquette, Jefferson CountyBoardofZoningAppeals,JamesGriffith,Robert Riedel, JerryYancy,DennisBoyer,VirginiaFranks,LauraBoldery, Commission, WarrenAuxier,JeffreyDaghir,LonnieMason,Gene Darrell M.Auxier,R.PatrickMagrath,JeffersonCountyPlan Sherry Chapo,DeputyBigShot,LLCv.JeffersonCounty,Indiana; Chapo v.JeffersonCountyPlanCommission;JosephChapo, v. JosephChapoandSherryChapo; and DeputyBigShot,LLC;JeffersonCountyPlanCommission Jefferson CountyPlanCommissionv.JosephChapo,Sherry INDIANA On March31,2016,neighborsJesseandTamara Duquettefiledacomplaint In 1991,JosephandSherryChapo,purchased trial conferencesetforDecember 2,2019. but, pertheorderofNovember25, 2019,thetrialdatewillbereconsideredatapre- management schedulewasissued. Trial hasbeenscheduledforDecember6, 2019, sanctions againsttheapplicants. adversely ontheapplicant’s motionsbutdeniedJeffersonCounty’s motionfor occurred July12,2019,onthemotions.OnNovember25, theCourtruled response. OnFebruary26,2019,TheChaposfiledresponsesthereto. Ahearing filed aresponseandmotiontostrikewhichtheapplicants field areplyand judgment onthepleadingsFebruary11,2019.On20, 2019,theJCPC lifted thestay. TheChaposfiledanansweronFebruary 10, 2019,andamotionfor 2018, anewjudgewasassignedtothecase.OnJanuary11,2019, thenewjudge applicants filedapetitionforrehearing,whichwasdeniedonNovember 1,2018. January 4,2018,orderwereupheldbytheCourtofAppeals.On June 26,2018,the upholding theCircuitCourt’s opinion.BoththeNovember17,2017,orderand Court ofAppealsdeniedthemotionforanemergencystayandissued anopinion the proceedingsintrialcourtpendingappeal.OnMay29,2018,Indiana applicants filed,withtheIndianaCourtofAppeals,anemergencymotiontostay preliminary injunctionsnorthefindingofcontempt.OnNovember17,2017, stayed theproceedingspendingappeal.Thestay, however, didnotaffectthe filed amotionforpermanentinjunction.OnOctober30,2017,thecircuitcourt motion forcontempt.OnOctober26,2017,theJeffersonCountyPlanCommission applicants’ motiontodismissandgrantedtheJeffersonCountyPlanCommission’s for contempt.OnOctober17,2017,thetrialcourtissuedanorderdenying applicants’ motiontodismissandtheJeffersonCountyPlanCommission’s motion contempt andamotiontoenforce.OnSeptember7,2017,thetrialcourtheard of theIndianaRangeProtectionActIC§14-22-31.5[.]” attempt toregulatetheDefendantsfromoperatingashootingrangeisinviolation a shootingrangeisprohibitedbytheJeffersonCountyHomeRule;and(4)The and ArticleI,Section32;(3)TheattempttoenjointheDefendantsfromoperating operating ashootingrangeisinviolationofthe2ndAmendmentrighttobeararms of anordinancewasviolated;(2)Theattempttoenjointhedefendantsfrom relief forthefollowingreasons:(1)JCPCfailstoestablishanordinanceorprovision “The AmendedComplaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichtheCourtcangrant 12(b)(6) motiontodismissonFebruary1,2017,basedthefollowinggrounds: brief andamotiontostrike.TheChaposfiledtheirreplyonOctober2,2017. brief, andonAugust14,2017,JeffersonCountyPlanCommissionfileditsappellate Indiana CourtofAppeals.OnJune15,2017,theapplicantsfiledtheirappellate range. Theapplicantsappealedthegrantingofpreliminaryinjunctionsto enjoining JosephandSherryChapoDeputyBigShot,LLCfromoperatingthe on December20,2016.OnJanuary4,2017,apreliminaryinjunctionwasissued A schedulingconferencewasheld onSeptember17,2018,andacase The originaljudgerecusedhimselfinNovemberof2017and,on December6, On July14,2017,theJeffersonCountyPlanCommissionfiledacitationfor In themeantime,litigationcontinuedintrialcourt.TheChaposfileda Deputy BigShot,LLCwasaddedasaDefendantinanamendedcomplaint 11 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 12 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES do notoriginatefromtheapplicant’s range. allegedly impacting the plaintiffs’ property projectiles the that maintains applicant own landandthereisalsoaprivate rangeadjacenttotheapplicant’s range.The applicant, othernearbylandowners haveallowedhunterstoshootontheir injunction andactual,consequential,punitivedamages.According tothe The complaintsallegednegligence,nuisance,andtrespass,seek apermanent that projectilesfromtheapplicant’s riflerangehaveimpactedtheirproperties. land ownerswho“appeartohavedevelopmentinterests.”Thecomplaints allege in theOwenCountyCircuitCourt,Indiana,againstapplicant bydownrange self-defense shootingtrainingtothepublic.In2017,twoseparate lawsuitswerefiled located inSpencer, Ind.,isafor-profit organizationprovidingsport shootingand Precision GunRange,LLC A. Jorgensen,asthetrusteesofJorgensenFamily Trustv. Drake v.PrecisionGunRange,LLC;LaneL.Jorgensen,Katheryn Jerry W.Wise,KathyLeeDavidA.Drakeand BroziaLee on thesemotions.DepositionshavebeenscheduledforFebruary2020. applicants filedresponsestobothmotionsdismiss.TheCourthasnotyetruled rest ofthedefendantsfiledanansweronJuly23,2018.OnAugust27,2018, against theJeffersonCountyCircuitCourtandIndianaofAppeals.” jurisdiction implications.The1983actionalsosoughtpreliminaryinjunctions governments inviolationoftheShootingRagestatuteshavestrongsubjectmatter for activitiesfallingundertheShootingRangestatutes.Anyactionsbylocal Shooting Rangestatutesprohibitlocalgovernmentfrompursuingshootingranges public participationattheshootingrange,’(IC§14-22-31.5-7(3)).TheIndiana ‘Expand orincreasethemembershipofshootingrangeopportunitiesfor said rangesfromnoiseliability(IC§14-22-31.506)andallowsto protected shootingrangesinexistencepriortoJuly1,1996.Thestatutes violated theIndianaShootingRangestatutes,ChapterIC§14-22-31.5which hear thecase…Theactionsofsomedefendantsin2012alsoignoredand the lawsuit;(3)[Thestatecourt]hadnosubjectmatterorpersonaljurisdictionto provision theJeffersonCountyPlanCommissionhadnojurisdiction[to]initiate Ordinance hadnoprovisionaddressingshootingranges.Without aviolationof case, IndianaShootingRangelaw, andthefactthatJeffersonCountyZoning legal authoritytoinitiateanactionagainsttheChaposin2016,basedonEzell (2) TheJeffersonCountyPlanCommissionhadnoConstitutionalauthority, nor Jefferson CountyZoningordinancehadnoprovisionaddressingshootingranges; 2012, basedontheEzellcase,IndianaShootingRangelaw, andthefactthat nor legalauthoritytorequiretheChaposobtainaconditionalusepermitin The JeffersonCountyBoardofZoningAppealshadnoConstitutionalauthority, (1) the violationsofplaintiffs’2ndAmendmentrightsbydefendants....: District CourtfortheSouthernofIndiana:“The…1983actionisbasedon Two Rule12(b)motionstodismisswerefiledbysomeofthedefendants,and On May26,2018,theapplicant’s fileda1983actionintheUnitedStates The applicant, Precision Gun Range, LLC, The applicant,PrecisionGunRange,LLC, of theMarylandDepartment Natural Resources(“DNR”)inherindividual Police (“MNRP”);DeputySecretary JoanneThrowe(“DeputySecretary Throwe”) District Courtfortheof MarylandagainsttheNaturalResources Police Police, andCaptainCharlesVernon,MarylandNatural Resources resources, CaptainEdwardJohnson,MarylandNatural Resources Joanne Throwe,DeputySecretaryDepartmentofNatural Norris PaulCarey,Jr.v.MarylandNaturalResources Police, MARYLAND and havefiledamotionforpreliminaryinjunction. obtained anorderfromthecourtrequiringexpediteddiscoveryin thenewlawsuit The applicantisseekingtohavethisthirdlawsuitdismissed. plaintiffshave guise ofaself-stylednuisance-typeprivateenforcementaction thezoningcode.” and causationissuesbeforethecourtinfirsttwolawsuits,this timeunderthe the range’s zoningpermityearsafterthefactandseekstolitigateverysafety range residencescausedbybulletsfromtheapplicant.“Thenewestcase challenges enforcement, publicnuisancetypeclaimconcerningallegedbulletimpactstodown operation ofitsriflerange.Thenewlawsuitalsoincludesaself-styledprivate the OwenCountyBoardofZoningAppealsthatallowedapplicanttoresume lawsuits. ThenewlawsuitseekstooverturntheJune2019unanimousdecisionby the applicantbysameindividualswhoareplaintiffsintwopriorpending 2019, athirdlawsuitwasfiledintheOwenCountyCircuitCourt,Indiana,against renew motionsforsummaryjudgementintheseconsolidatedcases.OnJuly17, deadline, andtrialisscheduledforJanuary2020.Theapplicantpreparingto against therangehavebeenconsolidated.September4,2019,wasmediation unanimously toallowtheapplicantreopenitsriflerange. to approvethereopening.InJuneof2019,BoardZoningAppealsvoted of operations—effectivelyforcingtheBoardZoningAppealstogocourtor range—despite theBoardofZoningAppeals’initialrefusaltoallowresumption in place,theapplicantforcedBoardofZoningAppeals’handbyreopeningits Board ofZoningAppeals.With preparedexpertopinionsandsafetyenhancements safety enhancementstructuresthattherangeagreedtoputinplace satisfy the against theapplicantbyaneighbor. Subsequently, theapplicantcompleted not totakeactionagainsttherange.InMay2018,newcomplaintswerefiled the range.AfteraFebruary2,2018publicmeeting,BoardofZoningdecided attempted topersuadethelocalzoningboardtakeenforcementactionagainst and didnotinvolveexpertswithlongrangeballisticsexpertise.Theplaintiffs conclusions concerningthepointoforiginprojectilesfoundatsuchadistance,” “the investigationfailedtogatherthetypeofevidencerequireddrawexpert projectiles andconcludedthattheapplicant’s rangewasthesource.However, However, thelitigationcontinues.Thetwocasespendinginstatecourt The StatePolicecompletedaninitialinvestigationofthetrespassing On January18,2018,Mr. Careyfiledalawsuitinthe UnitedStates was shockedbythetermination. Mr. Careyassertsthathewas terminatedasaresult termination, despitehisrequest for anexplanation.Mr. Carey’s directsupervisor fired personallybyDeputySecretary Throwe.Hewasnotgivenanyreason forhis the expirationdateofAugust8, 2017. However, onMay25, 2017,Mr. Careywas action. Mr. Carey’s supervisorinformedhimthathiscontractwouldberenewed by and consistentlyreceivedexcellentreviews.Therewasneverany disciplinary “revoked” LEOSAcard. Captain Vernon theninformedtheapplicant’s DNRsupervisorofMr. Carey’s attempted totrychangetheapplicant’s retirementstandingearlierthatmorning. standing,butinformedhimthatsomeone had which confirmedthathewasingood and CorrectionalTraining Commission toinquireabouthisretirementstatus, demanded thatMr. Careyreturnhiscard.Mr. CareycontactedtheMarylandPolice contacted Mr. standing,and Careyandinformedhimthathewasnotingood and receivedthecardonApril25,2017.Threedayslater, CaptainVernon Law EnforcementOfficerCard,”qualifyinghimtocarryasemi-automatic weapon, position withinDNRunderalong-termcontract.Mr. Careyappliedfora“Retired the anyotherofficers. sharing anyinformationwithhim.NochargeswerebroughtagainstMr. Careyor the investigation.Mr. Careyadmittedspeakingtotheformerofficer, butdenied investigation byMNRP, andthathehadsharedinformationwithofficerabout Mr. CareywascommunicatingwiththeformerMNRPofficerwhounder a notificationofcomplaint,datedSeptember26,2013.Thenoticeallegedthat in theinvestigation.Threemonthspriortohisretirement,Mr. Careyreceived patrol rifle.UnbeknownsttoMr. Carey, aformerMNRPofficerwassuspect interviewed byMNRPasawitnessintheongoinginvestigationofmissingM-16 standing.Priortohisretirement,Mr.and retiredfromMNRPingood Careywas no disciplinaryactions.Hereceivedmultiplecareer-related awardsfromMNRP Throughout hiscareerwithMNRP, Mr. Careyreceivedexcellentevaluationsand Federal courtwhentheirrightshavebeenviolated. enforceable Federalrighttoobtainaconcealedcarryfirearmpermitand can suein Police andbuttressesthecontentionthatretiredlawenforcementofficershavean by unconstitutionalpracticesinherentwithintheMarylandNaturalResources his righttofreespeech.Thiscaseinvolvesthedenialofprivilegesandrights brought abouthisterminationfromtheDNRinretaliationforMr. Careyexercising the lawsuitagainstdefendantsafterMNRPrescindedhisLEOSAcardand (“LEOSA”); and,aclaimfordefamationagainstCaptainJohnson.”Mr. Careyfiled of rightsgrantedbytheLawEnforcementOfficerSafetyAct,18U.S.C.§926C under 42U.S.C.§1983…;aclaimagainstMNRP1983forviolation Throwe, CaptainJohnson,andVernon forFirstAmendmentretaliation in hisindividualcapacity. Mr. Carey“assertsaclaimagainstDeputySecretary individual capacity;andCaptainCharlesVernon (“CaptainVernon”) oftheMNRP capacity; CaptainEdwardJohnson(“CaptainJohnson”)oftheMNRPinhis Mr. CareyperformedhisdutiesattheDNRtosatisfactionofsupervisor, On August2,2015,Mr. CareybeganworkingfortheDNR.Thiswasacivilian Mr. CareyretiredfromMNRPonDecember31,2013,after26yearsofservice. to dismiss.AnappealtheFourth Circuitwasfiled.OnApril29,2019,theUnited October 15,2018,theUnitedStates DistrictCourtgrantedthedefendants’motion 2018. TheNRAfiledanamicus briefsupportingtheplaintiffsonJuly2,2018.On moved todismissonJune11,2018. TheplaintiffsfiledaresponseonJune25, District ofMarylandchallengingMaryland’s concealedcarryrestrictions.Maryland On April12,2018,alawsuitwasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrict Courtforthe reconsideration ofthatopinioninlighttheDCCircuit’s decisioninGrace. Woolard v. Gallagherupheldthisrequirement,litigationisdesignedtoprompt andsubstantialreason.”WhiletheFourthCircuit’sshowing ofa“good decisionin outside thehometoobtainalicensedoso,whichitwillissue onlyupona Malpasso v.Pallozzi awaiting arulingbytheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforFourth Circuit. defendants havefiledtheirbriefsandthecaseisnowfullybriefed. Thepartiesare to theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforFourthCircuit.Mr. Careyandthe District ofMarylandgrantedthedefendants’motiontodismiss. Mr. Careyappealed motion todismiss.OnJanuary31,2019,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor judgment onJuly2,2018.OnAugust14,2018,Mr. Careyfiledhisoppositionto motion todismissthefirstamendedcomplaintor, inthealternative,forsummary On May7,2018,Mr. Careyfiledanamendedcomplaint.Thedefendantsa May 7,2018,Mr. Careyfiledhismemorandaoflawinoppositiontothesemotions. alterative, forsummaryjudgmentoncountsoneandtwo.OnApril25,2018, rescind hisproperlyissuedLEOSAcard.” prestige oftheirofficetobringaboutMr. Carey’s terminationfromDNRandto Mr. Carey’s disclosures,officialswithinthe MNRPusedthe same field....Following and ‘blacklisted’bytheagency, foreclosinghisabilitytofindre-employmentinthe DNR: “Followinghisretirement,hewasunfairlydeniedretirementcredentials engaged inacampaigntoharasshim,includinghissubsequentworkplaceatthe and commentsmakinglightofgunviolencedeath.” photographs ofCaptainJohnson’s assaultweapon…alongwithotherphotographs and failedtotakeremedialaction.”Inanotherblogposting,Mr. Carey“showed that the“chainofcommandwasawareCaptainJohnson’s questionablebehavior his investigationoffellowofficersforsuspicionsmisconduct.Mr. Careyalleged Captain JohnsonviolatedtheMNRP’s ofconductandwas“duplicitous”in code and thebackofamanwearingPaganmotorcyclejacket.”Mr. Careyallegedthat in hisMNRPuniformwith“scantilycladwomensexuallyprovocativeposes his ownpersonalFacebookpage.ThesepostsincludedphotosofCaptainJohnson had postedareportontheSalisburyNewsBlogaboutCaptainJohnson’s postson that calledMNRPintodishonoranddisgrace.”OnDecember14,2016,Mr. Carey exercising hisrighttofreespeechandpubliclycallingattentioninformation conduct byMNRPpersonnel.“Mr. Careywasterminatedinretaliationfor of exercisinghisrighttofreespeechandpubliclycallingattentionquestionable On April13,2018,thedefendantsmovedtodismissthreecounts,or, inthe In retaliationforMr. Carey’s postingsontheSalisburyNewsBlog,MNRP Maryland requiresthosewishingtocarryfirearms 13 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 14 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES Selectman’s action. The applicantwasnotgivenan opportunity tobeheardpriortheBoardof cease shootingat1,000-yardtargets fromitsupperfiringareaontheriflerange.” the applicantimmediately“cease anddesistusingitsriflerangeshootingshed violations. TheBoardofSelectman issuedaceaseanddesistletterorderingthat the applicant.Thelettercomplaints allegednoisenuisance,safetyandzoninglaw of Selectmantookoverthosedutiesandactedonthreelettercomplaints against building inspectorsteppeddowninSeptember2017,theTown ofGranby’s Board owners neartherangebeganapubliccampaigntoshutdown club.Afterthe predates anyenactedzoningordinances.Inthespringof2017,some property on approximately260acresoflandthatitownsinGranby, Mass. Therange founded inthe1940s,whichoperatesarifle,pistol,andarchery shootingrange conference, theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtisholdingthisinabeyance. with theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwasfiledonMarch29,2019. Afteraninitial reason”restrictionunderintermediatescrutiny.the “good Apetitionforcertiorari the UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforFirstCircuitruledadversely, upholding the FirstCircuit.OralargumentoccurredonJuly25,2018.OnNovember2,2018, to thedefendants.TheplaintiffsappealedUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor were filedin2017.InDecember, 2017,thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment defense beforeissuanceofalicensetocarry. Cross-motionsforsummaryjudgment licensing authoritiesthepowertorequireshowingofaheightenedneedforself- reason,”anditdelegatestolocal may begrantedonlyupondemonstrationofa“good February 4,2016.Massachusettsrequiresalicensetocarryfirearmsinpublic,which on Massachusetts restrictionsonthecarryingoffirearmsinpublicwasfiled Board ofAppeals,etal Granby Bow&GunClub,Inc.,etal.v.Townof Zoning Gould v.Morgan( MASSACHUSETTS Maryland ShallIssue,Inc.,etal.v.Hogan,al November 15,2019,theNRAfiledanamicusbriefinsupportofplaintiff. A petitionforcertiorariwasfiledintheSupremeCourtonSeptember26,2019.On States CourtofAppealFourthCircuitaffirmedthejudgmentdistrictcourt. case retiredandthenewjudgehasnotactedonmatter. Dispositive motionswerebriefedbyNovember5,2018.Thejudgeassignedtothe and theState’s motiontodismisswasdenied.Discoveryhasnowbeencompleted. stated plausibleclaimsforreliefundertheSecondandFourteenthAmendments hearing onthemotionAugust7,2017,judgefoundthatplaintiffshad subsequent handgunpurchase.TheStatefiledamotiontodismiss.Following numerous fees,inadditiontothebackgroundcheckandfeesassociatedwithany formal classwithlivefire,fingerprinting,abackgroundcheck,andpaymentof handgun purchaserstoobtainaqualificationlicense,whichrequires the Marylandhandgunqualificationlicense.currentlyrequiresall formerly The applicantisanot-for-profit corporation, Gouldv.O’Leary) This challenge to This challengeto This casechallenges refused tomoveforwardinthedistrict courtuntilitsappealisresolved. pending intheDistrictCourt,no actionisbeingtakenbecauseMassachusetts with theUnitedStatesCircuitCourt fortheFirstCircuit.Whilestilltechnically filed anappealfromtheDistrict Court’s rejectionofitsEleventh Amendmentclaim March 14,2018,theMassachusetts’s motiontodismisswas denied.Massachusetts Massachusetts filedamotiontodismiss.Thewasheard in April2017.On reinterpretation ofMassachusetts’longstandinggunban.OnNovember 22,2016, 2016 bytheNationalShootingSportsFoundation.Thelawsuit challenges the United StatesDistinctCourtfortheDistrictofMassachusettson September22, firearm onthemarkettobeillegalunderMassachusettslaw. Suitwas filed inthe for approximately20years.Sheunilaterallydeclaredalmostevery semiautomatic 1994 Clintonfederalgunbanandthathadbeenonthebooksin Massachusetts radical reinterpretationofMassachusetts’longstandinggunban thatmirrorsthe Boston Globe,StateAttorneyGeneralMauraHealyannouncedforthefirsttime a zoning enforcementaction. afforded rangesbytheMassachusettsRangeProtectionActviaapretextual action; and(2)[W]hetherrangeopponentscancircumventtheprotections protected propertyrightsthatpredatezoningviaapretextualenforcement [W]hether the[ZoningBoardofAppeals]caneliminatevestedconstitutionally Pullman Arms,Inc.,etal.v.Healy of Massachusetts.) Amendments totheU.S.ConstitutioninUnitedStatesDistrictCourt, also intendstofilea1983actionagainstthe Town undertheSecondandFifth dispositive motions,inwhichcasetrialwillbescheduledanearlier. (Theapplicant 2020. Trial hasbeensetforlateJuneorearlyJuly2020,unlessthereareno completed byMarch30,2020.DispositivemotionsaretobefiledMay management deadlineswereset:Discovery, includingexpertdisclosures,istobe unsuccessful andthelitigationinMassachusettsLandUseCourthasresumed. firing linewasdenied,andlitigationhasresumed.Effortstosettlethematterproved mitigate noisewhileexercisinggrandfatheredshootingrightsattherange’s precision the permitapplicationtookplaceonApril9,2019.Theforashootershedto upper firingareapermitbyworkingthoughtheprocess.Apublichearingon parties wentbacktotheZoningBoardofAppealstryattemptresolve stipulation andremandedthecasetoZoningBoardofAppeals.Inlate2018, preserving allrightstomoveforwardwiththeappeal.Thecourtapproved entered intoastipulationtoattemptresolvethedisputethroughpermits,while Massachusetts Land Court (Hampshire County). The issues presented include: (1) Massachusetts LandCourt(HampshireCounty).Theissuespresentedinclude:(1) by theBoardofSelectmen.OnJanuary5,2018,applicantappealedto supporting thethreecomplaintlettersotherthanafewaerialphotosprovided issuing itsruling.TheZoningBoardofAppealsdidnothearorreviewanyevidence were nopublichearingsordeliberationspriortotheZoningBoardofAppeals 2017, theZoningBoardofAppealsupheldSelectmen’s decision.There A statusconferencewasheldonNovember21,2019.Thefollowingcase The applicant appealed to the Granby Zoning Board of Appeals. In November The applicantappealedtotheGranbyZoningBoardofAppeals.InNovember At thejudge’s urging,theapplicantandTown In aJuly20,2016,editorialinthe Nancy Woehlkev.Timothy CraigMilko MICHIGAN Worman, etal.v.Healy,al Supreme Courthasbeenfiled. upheld theMassachusettslaw. Apetitionforcertiorariin theUnitedStates 2019. OnApril26,2019,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor theFirstCircuit Circuit. BriefswerefiledbyOctober5,2018.Oralargumentoccurred onJanuary9, PlaintiffsappealedtotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforFirst service.’” proper testforwhetherafirearmisprotectedit‘most usefulinmilitary commonality isnotarelevantissueinSecondAmendmentanalysis, andthatthe Second Amendment,largelyfollowingtheKolbedecision.TheCourtheldthat firearms andmagazinesbannedbyMassachusettsareoutsidetheprotectionof claims anddismissedtheretroactivityclaimasunripe.TheCourtheldthat granted DefendantssummaryjudgmentontheSecondAmendmentandvagueness follows: “Afterdiscovery, oncross-motionsforsummaryjudgment,JudgeYoung Massachusetts upheldban.ILALitigationCounselinformedas The partiestookdepositionsofeachother’s expertwitnesses. the defendantshavewithheldnearlyallinternalcommunications,claimingprivilege. defendants intheirinterrogatories.FactdiscoveryendedonSeptember15,2017,and General. Plaintiffsalsotookthedepositionsoffactwitnessesidentified of PublicSafety, theMassachusettsStatePolice,andOfficeofAttorney Plaintiffs tookthedepositionsofrepresentativewitnessesfromExecutiveOffice its deposition,andopposedthemotionswithrespecttoSuperintendentMcKeon. Governor withoutdiscovery, anddroppedMassachusettsStatePolice,butnoticed Safety—did notmovetodismissorstaydiscovery. counseldroppedthe Theplaintiff’s July 17,2017.Otherdefendants—AttorneyGeneralandSecretaryofOfficePublic moved todismissonJuly14,2017,andstaydiscoveryagainstthem State Police,andSuperintendentMcKeonoftheMassachusettsPolice— exchanged. Certaindefendants—theGovernorofMassachusetts,Massachusetts defenses ofimmunityfromsuitasparttheiranswer. Written discoveryhasbeen filed anansweronMarch16,2017.ThedefendantsassertedEleventhAmendment a complaintwasfiledinthe firearm onthemarkettobeillegalunderMassachusettslaw. OnJanuary23,2017, approximately 20years.Sheunilaterallydeclaredalmosteverysemiautomatic Clinton federalgunbanandthathadbeenonthebooksinMassachusettsfor reinterpretation ofMassachusetts’longstandinggunbanthatmirrorsthe1994 Globe, StateAttorneyGeneralMauraHealyannouncedforthefirsttimearadical Circuit Court, Family Division, issued a “consolidated order regarding custody and and Circuit Court,FamilyDivision,issued a“consolidatedorderregardingcustody oftheirchildren.TheOaklandCounty through adivorce.Theysharejoint custody moralcharacter.has beenfoundtobeofgood The applicant andhisex-wifewent Concealed PistolLicense,isacertified NRAinstructor, hasnocriminalrecord,and operates agunsmithing,firearms, andoutdoorsshop.TheapplicanthasaMichigan On April6,2018,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforof United StatesDistrict Boston In aJuly20,2016,editorialintheBoston Court, Massachusetts. The state Court, Massachusetts.Thestate The applicant owns and The applicantownsand and ScottFreshv.HowellTownship Oakland TacticalSupply,LLC,JasonRaines,Matthew Remenar order topermitshootingranges there.” Atasubsequentpublicmeeting,neighbors needed toapplytheTownship to“seekatextamendmenttheARdistrict in ranges nowbeingallowedinthe AR district.Mr. Paigewasinformed thathe application wasdeniedafterneighbors opposedtheapplicationbasedonshooting local permits. has securedrightstoa350-acreparcel,zonedAR,andappliedfor thenecessary range facilityforbothprivateandpublicuseinneighboringHowell Township, and County, Mich.,since2011.Mr. Paigeisplanningtobuildanextensive outdoor since 2003,Mr. PaigehasoperatedaretailstoreinHartlandTownship Livingston the ownerofOaklandTactical Supply, LLC.,atacticalfirearmsretailer. Inbusiness petition thecourtinfuturetoallowdaughterhunt. “will notparticipateinhuntinguntilfurtherorderofthiscourt.” The applicantmay all firearmssafewhennotonhispersonorotherwiseinus’andthatthedaughter applicant’s motionwasgranted.Theorderprovidesthattheapplicanthas“tomake applicant’s attorneysredraftedandfiledthemotion.OnOctober30,2019, and dismissed[theapplicant’s] motionsbasedonthedenialofthatrequest.”The March 2019.“Thecourtdenied[theapplicant’s] requestforanextendedpagelimit protectstherighttohunt.Mich.Comp.Laws§324.40113a. The MichiganCode Michigan SupremeCourtas[beingguaranteedby]the5thand14thAmendments.” 189 N.W.2d. 927(1922).“Therighttoearnalivinghasbeenrecognizedbythe the state.”Mich.Const.art.I,§6.Seealso,PeoplevZerillo,219635,640; that “[e]verypersonhasarighttokeepandbeararmsforthedefenseofhimself “That rightismostacutewithinthehome.”TheMichiganConstitutionprovides the righttopossessfirearmsforself-defenseascoreofSecondAmendment. hunt. Theapplicant’s attorneybelievesthatafavorableoutcomeislikely. Hellerheld and, whethertheorderinfringesapplicant’s andhischildren’s statutoryrightto gunsmith andfirearmsdealer, whethertheorderlimitsapplicant’s righttowork; and beararmsforself-defenseisinfringed;inlightofthefactthatapplicanta Second Amendment;whethertheapplicant’s MichiganConstitutionalrighttokeep restricting theapplicant’s righttopossessfirearmsforself-defense,infringesthe to firearmsandhunting.Theissuesraisedinclude:whether, inlightofHeller, remedies infamilycourt. An appealwasrejectedonthegroundsthatapplicanthadnotexhaustedallhis subsequent orderprovidedthattheapplicantmayalsonothuntwithhischildren. to belockedandoutofsight.”Whentheapplicantchallengedthisrestriction,a are withFatherduringhisparentingtimeinavehicleandifthehomethey [ parenting time,”whichincludedthefollowingrestriction:“Nogunsofanykinds ] are to be present or in the presence of the children when the minor children sic] aretobepresentorinthepresenceofchildrenwhenminor In 2017,Mr. PaigeappliedtothePlanningBoardforaspecialpermit.The A motion to modify custody and parenting time orders was filed at the end of andparentingtimeorderswasfiledattheendof custody A motiontomodify The applicantwishestochallengetheprohibitionsandrestrictionsrelating The applicant,MichaelPaige,is 15 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 16 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES for dismissal(thatnoneoftheindividual plaintiffsresidedwithintheTownship).” were addedtothelawsuit,effectively cuttingofftheTownship’s strongestarguments not yetbeenactedupon.“During thesummerof2019,severalindividualplaintiffs raising, amongstotherissues,standingripeness,andmootness.These motionshave of law. TheTownship filedamotionforsummaryjudgmentandmotionstodismiss, 2019, applicantfiledamotionofsummaryjudgmentandsupporting memorandum ended unsuccessfullyinFebruary2019andlitigationhasresumed. OnApril10, shooting ranges,asaviolationoftheSecondAmendment.Settlement negotiations the constitutionalityofTownship’s zoninglawswhich effectivelybanoutdoor Eastern DistrictofMichigan—seekinginjunctiverelief,feesand costs—challenging the applicantandthreeindividualplaintiffs,inUnitedStates DistrictCourt, Teixeira v. AlamedaCty., Cal.,138S.Ct.1988(2018). v. Cty. ofAlameda,873F.3d 670,678-79(9thCir. 2017),cert.deniedsubnom. Illinois, No.17C6057,2018WL2718045(N.D.III.June6,2018)and Teixeira standards appliedincasessuchasChicagoGunClub,LLCv. Vill. ofWillowbrook, location withintheTown. Therefore,thechallengewouldmeetmorerestrictive the Town provideafacial,absolutebarprohibitingsitingofgunrangeinany zoning restrictionsappliedby asserted objective.’Tyler, 837F.3d at693....[T]he or important;and(2)areasonablefitbetweenthechallengedregulation scrutiny requires‘(1)thegovernment’s statedobjectivetobesignificant,substantial, and Stimmelv. Sessions,879F.3d 198,203,6thCir. 2018(Ohio)....Intermediate Hillsdale CountySheriff’s Department,837F.3d 678,685,6thCir. 2016(Mich.)… restrictions complywiththerequirementsofintermediatescrutiny. SeeTyler v, is historicallyprotected,theburdenongovernmenttoestablishthat 6th Circuithasconfirmedthatafterdeterminingwhethertheactivity(training) shooting ranges,whichthe7thCircuithasmadeclearisunconstitutional....[T]he in EzellII,thepracticaleffectofzoningordinanceisatotalbanonoutdoor Amendment protectionstoshootingrangesandfirearmstrainingactivities....As related rulingssuggestthatthe6thCircuitwillbereceptivetoextendingSecond to considerwhethershootingrangesareprotectedbytheSecondAmendment, of asfriendlytoranges.”Althoughthe6thCircuithasnothadopportunity the Township’s locationinapartofthecountrythatwouldnormallybethought altogether, andthishasmadeitvirtuallyimpossibletositeanoutdoorrangedespite Sixth Circuit.Here,thezoninglawsfailtoaddresssitingofshootingranges 2017) (EzellII).Thiscase“presentsthenextlogicalextensionofto (7th Cir. 2011)(EzellI)andEzell,etal.v. CityofChicago,846F.3rd 888(7thCir. range,” inviolationoftheholdingsonEzell,etal.v. CityofChicago,651F.3rd 684 infringement ontheSecondAmendmentrighttopracticewithfirearmsata ordinances donotprohibitshootingrangesnormentionthem. no opportunitybeinggiventotheapplicantbeheard.Theapplicablezoning opposed thetextamendment.Theamendmentproposalwasdenied,with On November2,2018,theapplicant’s attorneyfiledalawsuit,onbehalfof The Township’s effectivebanonshootingrangesisan“impermissible Joshua Wadev.UniversityofMichigan occupied thefield.Thosetwocases wereappealedtoMichiganSupremeCourt. Supreme CourtholdinginCADLv. MOC thattheMichiganlegislaturehad No. 329418).Mr. Wade’s attorneybelievesthatthisfliesinthefaceofMichigan Michigan OpenCarryInc.vClio School District,Mich.App.N.W.2d (2016)(Docket v AnnArborPublicSchools,Mich.App.N.W.2d (2016)(Docket No.32693)and completely preemptedthefieldoffirearmsregulation.MichiganGunOwners,Inc. subject topreemptionandrejectingtheargumentthatMichigan legislature has ruledinthetwocases,holdingthatK-12schooldistricts werenot abeyance untilthosecasesweredecided.Recently, theMichiganCourtofAppeals occurred inDecember2016andtheCourtofAppealsheldapplicant’s casein and AnnArbor)whichinvolvedtheMichiganpreemptionstatute. Oralargument currently pendingoralargumentintheMichiganCourtofAppeals. Court ofAppealsonDecember4,2015.Briefshavebeenfiledand thismatteris for summarydisposition.CounselMr. Wade filedanappealwiththeMichigan applicable statelaws.InNovember2015,theCourtgrantedUniversity’s motion supervision powerstotheUniversity—theUniversitywassubject togenerally Regents oftheUniversityMichigan,itwasheldthat—despitegrant“general are subjecttothestatefirearmspreemption.Furthermore,inBranumv. Boardof preempted theentirefieldoffirearmregulationsandthatquasi-municipalentities Appeals heldthatthepreemptionstatuteandMichigan’s statefirearmsregulations statute broadly. InCapitalAreaDistrictLibraryv. MichiganOpenCarry,theCourtof 123.1101 on UniversitypropertyunderMichigan’s preemptionstatute.Mich.Comp.Laws§ the powertoexercisegeneralsupervisionofitsproperty. set forthintheMichiganConstitution,pursuanttowhichUniversityisgiven denied. TheUniversityofMichigan’s powers,asanarmofthestategovernment,are delegated totheChiefofUniversityMichiganPolicebeforebeingultimately of PublicSafetyforthepersonalwaiverinSeptember2014,andhisrequestwas Safety forpermissiontocarryafirearmoncampus.Mr. Wade appliedtotheDirector determined thathecouldapplytotheUniversityofMichigan’s DirectorofPublic property hewouldbearrested.Afterresearchingtherelevantgunlaws,Mr. Wade encountered acampuspoliceofficerwhotoldhimifhebroughthisgunonto Pistol License.WhileopencarryingindowntownAnnArbor, Mich.,Mr. Wade University ofMichiganCreditUnionandholdsavalidConcealed settlement effortsfail,Oaklandispreparedtoresumethelitigation. is expectedtovoteontheproposalwithinnextcoupleofmonths.If will besubmittedtotheTownship withinthenextfewweeks,andTownship that theTownship requestedinordertovotesettlethecase.Thisinformation 7, 2020.Oaklandiscompletingthewrittenproposalanddocumentationbyexperts conference occurredonAugust28,2019.LitigationhasbeenstayeduntilJanuary The Michigan Court of Appeals has consolidated two school district cases (Clio The MichiganCourtofAppealshasconsolidatedtwoschooldistrict cases(Clio Mr. Wade challengedtheUniversityofMichigan’s banonthecarryoffirearms The courtscheduledsettlementdiscussionsandastatus et seq.Michigan’s CourtofAppealshasinterpretedthefirearmspreemption Mr. Wade worksforthe a handgunforhomedefense.While theThirdCircuit’s decisioninDrakev. Filko “justifiable need.”Inaddition, without suchapermititisnearlyimpossibletoobtain the hometoobtainalicensedo so,whichitwillissueonlyuponashowingof of AppealsfortheThirdCircuit. completed inApril,2019.TheplaintiffshaveappealedtotheUnited StatesCourt Rifle &PistolAssociation,Inc. v. CityofNew York, No.18-280(U.S.).Briefingwas a stayofallproceedingspendingtheSupremeCourt’s decisioninNewYork State The defendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentandtheplaintiffs cross-moved for Plaintiffs petitionedforrehearingenbanc,whichwasdeniedon January 9,2019. 2018. OnDecember5,2018theThirdCircuitpanelaffirmed DistrictCourt. prejudice. OralargumentwasheldonNovember14,2018and 20, Court ofAppealsdeniedthemotionforaninjunctionpendingappeal without motion forexpeditedbriefing,andbriefingconcludedbyNovember 2,2018.The pending appeal,andmovedforexpeditedbriefing.TheThirdCircuit grantedthe the UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforThirdCircuit,moved foraninjunction District CourtdeniedthemotiononSeptember28,2018.Theplaintiffs appealedto Following anevidentiaryhearing,post-hearingbriefing,andoralargument,the moved forapreliminaryinjunction.BriefingwascompletedonJuly9,2018. Clause, andEqualProtectionClausegrounds.OnJune21,2018,theplaintiffs residents, challengingthenewmagazinebanonSecondAmendment,Takings Court fortheDistrictofNewJersey, onbehalfofANJRPCandseveralNewJersey (10) rounds.OnJune13,2018,alawsuitwasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrict the possessionofanyfirearmammunitionmagazinescapableholdingoverten Rogers v.Grewal Thomas Williver,andJamesB.O’Connor and AlexanderDembowskiv.GurbirGrewal,PatrickJ.Callahan, Association ofNewJerseyRifle&PistolClubs,Inc.,BlakeEllman, NEW JERSEY City ofNewYork. in abeyancependingtheoutcomeofNewYork StateRifle&PistolAssociation,Inc. v. two cases. Supreme Court.OnJuly27,2018,theCourtissueditsopinionsinthose and in abeyanceuntilthecasesofMichiganGunOwners,Inc.vAnnArborPublicSchools December 20,2017,theMichiganSupremeCourtissuedanorderholdingthiscase On opposing wasfiled.OnSeptember1,2017,theapplicantfiledhisreplybrief. filed anapplicationforleavetoappealtheMichiganSupremeCourt.Abrief for appealtotheMichiganSupremeCourt.OnJuly18,2017,Mr. Wade’s attorney dissenting opinionwasfavorabletotheapplicant’s positionandsupportsgrounds affirming thelowercourt’s summarydispositionfortheAppellee.However, the On June 6, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order holding this case On June6,2017,theMichiganSupremeCourtissuedanorderholdingthiscase The CourtofAppealsissueditsopinionforpublicationonJune6,2017, , were resolved by the Michigan Michigan OpenCarryInc.vClioSchoolDistrict,wereresolvedbythe New Jersey requires those wishing to carry firearms outside New Jerseyrequiresthosewishing tocarryfirearmsoutside New Jersey enacted a ban on New Jerseyenactedabanon

Suffolk County, N.Y., since1963onCounty-ownedland.Theapplicant,Hunter dismiss. Thepartiesarestillawaitingadecisionondefendants’motion todismiss. 2019, Mr. Henryfiledamemorandumoflawinoppositiontodefendants’motion to Penal Law§400.00(11)(a).”Thedefendantsfiledamotionto dismiss. OnJuly26, that revocationsarelimitedto“aseriesofspecificoccurrencesclearly set forthin any reason”underPenalLaw§400.00(11).Mr. Henrydisputesthisandargues Nassau Countyclaimstheauthoritytorevokeapistollicense“at anytime…for revocation, Mr. HenryalsolosthisrighttopossesslongarmsinNassauCounty. subsequently revokedMr. Henry’s pistollicense.Asaresultofthatlicense of firearmsandwasdismisseddayslater. Despitethesefacts,NassauCounty of protection.Theorderdidnotincludeanyprovisionregarding theremoval OfficeenteredMr.County Sheriff’s Henry’s residencetoserveanexparteorder were apparentlyraisedinthecomplaint.OnOctober20,2014, Nassau Second Amendment,Monellliability, 42U.S.C.§1981,and§1983 to therevocationofhispistolpermit.Causesactionandclaimsunder a declaratoryjudgement,injunctiverelief,andmonetarydamagesinregard State Rifle&PistolAssociation,Inc. v. CityofNew York. Supreme CourtisholdingthiscaseinabeyancependingtheoutcomeofNewYork Court’s conferenceonMay23,2019.AfteraninitialtheUnitedStates reply briefonMay7,2019.OnthefilingsweredistributedforSupreme Jersey fileditsbriefinoppositiontothewritonMay3,2019.Petitionerstheir waived itsrighttorespondthepetition,butCourtrequestedaresponse.New with theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtonDecember20,2018.NewJerseyinitially Circuit grantedthatmotionandsummarilyaffirmed.Awritofcertiorariwasfiled summarily, giventhebindingdecisioninDrake.OnSeptember21,2018,Third plaintiffs filed anunopposed motionasking theCourt ofAppeals toacton theappeal to theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforThirdCircuit.OnJuly3,2018, district courtgrantedthemotionanddismissedcase.Theplaintiffsappealed On April3,2018,thedefendantsfiledamotiontodismiss.June18, for theDistrictofNewJerseychallengingJersey’s concealedcarryrestrictions. coordination withANJRPC,alawsuitwasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt opinion in light of the DC Circuit’s decision in upheld thisrequirement,litigationisdesignedtopromptreconsiderationofthat of Suffolk Kepert, CarolBissonette,and TimothyP.Mazzei,andtheCounty Fiore-Rosenfeld, KevinT.McCarrick, KathleenWalsh,Connie Hunter SportsShootingGrounds, Inc.v.BrianX.Foley,Steve Jeffrey Toscano Adam Fischer,StephenTriano,JeffreyKuchek,MarkSimonand Department, ThomasKrumpter,PatrickRyder,MarcTimpano, Lambert Henryv.CountyofNassau,NassauPolice NEW YORK Suffolk Countyhasoperatedatrap andskeetshootingrangein Mr. Henryisaretiredlawenforcementofficerwhoseeks Grace v. DC. On February5, 2018, in 17 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 18 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES knives falselyclaimingthatthey areillegal“gravityknives.”UnderDefendants’ and prosecuteindividualsbusinesses forpossessingandsellingordinarypocket Department enforceNewYork Stateknifelaw. TheDefendantsroutinelyarrest in whichtheManhattanDistrict Attorney’s OfficeandtheNew York CityPolice “gravity” knives.Thiscaseisachallenge tothevagueandunconstitutionalmanner to NewYork City’s enforcementofstate lawsthatprohibit“switchblade”and Underwood Inc., KnifeRightsFoundation,Inc.v.CyrusR.Vance, Jr.,Barbara John Copeland,PedroPerez,NativeLeatherLtd,Knife Rights, The applicantintendstoappeal. the Courtruledagainstapplicant,dismissingallofapplicant’s causesofaction. 14, 2019,theapplicantfileditspost-trialmemorandum.OnNovember 21,2019, Trial commencedonJanuary 30, 2019andconcludedonFebruary5,2019.OnJune pending appeal,andanoticeofappeal.Thecourtdeniedtheapplicant’s motions. the applicantsimultaneouslymovedforleavetoreargue,astayof proceedings the applicant’s motionforsummaryjudgmentwasdenied.OnOctober18,2018, defendants filedtheirmemorandumoflawinopposition.OnSeptember 14,2018, in supportoftheapplicant’s motionforsummaryjudgment.OnMay17,2018,the of thecausesaction.OnMay17,2018,CountySuffolkfiledanaffirmation 6 and7(a)oftheNewYork StateConstitution.”Discoveryhasbeencompleted. 14 of theUnitedStates Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and Article I Section and proceduralDueProcessEqualProtectionofthelawsunderArticles5 ‘taking’ ofHunterSport’s propertyinterests,inviolationofitsrightssubstantive of Brookhavenhasdeprivedtheapplicant“…ofvestedpropertyrights,effectinga County shootingrange—“shouldtrumptheTown’s regulation”andthattheTown argues thattheSuffolkCountynoiseordinance—whichspecificallyexempts the noiseordinancepassedbyTown ofBrookhaven.Theapplicant’s attorney range, locatedinSuffolkCounty, hastherighttocontinueuseassuchdespite practice andappealsthroughouttheseyears.Theissueiswhethertheapplicant’s Court andtheAppellateDivision.Thepartieshaveengagedinextensivemotions since then,withthematterbeingconsideredbyDistrictCourt,Supreme fees pursuantto42U.S.C.§1983,andinjunctiverelief.Theactionhascontinued York SupremeCourt,CountyofSuffolk,seekingdamages,includingattorney’s individual summonsatvarioustrialsintheDistrictCourt. for violatingthenoiseordinancearepending.Theapplicanthadtodefendeach one—the firsttrial—resultedinaconviction.Approximately150summonses To date,89summonsesforviolatingthenoiseordinancehavebeendismissedand the applicant’s shootingrangebasedonallegedviolationsofitsnoiseordinance. County shootingrange.TheTown ofBrookhavenhasbeentryingtoshutdown range. SuffolkCountyalsopassedanoiseordinance,butitspecificallyexemptsthe a noiseordinancethatprohibitstheoperationofpropertyastrapandskeet range astheCounty’s concessionaire.In1987,theTown ofBrookhavenpassed Sports ShootingGrounds,Inc.,hasalicensetooperatethetrapandskeetshooting On April10,2018,theapplicantfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonsome In January2007,theapplicantfiledadeclaratoryjudgmentactioninNew This isachallenge,onFourteenthAmendmentvaguenessgrounds, in thecontextofrecentlydecided SupremeCourtcasesJohnsonv. UnitedStates a clearcircuitsplitworthyofreview bytheSupremeCourt:“Thecriticalissuearises Fourth andEighthCircuitsdecide similartypesofcases.Thedecisionbelowcreates withthemannerinwhich proceeded inamannersquarely and starklyatodds the SecondCircuitdisregardedclearly establishSupremeCourtprecedentand narrowly asafacialchallengeandthenrefusingtoreachthemerits. Bydoingso, and controversialapproachtoConstitutionalclaimsbypigeon-holing thecase 2018, theSecondCircuitdeniedpetitionforrehearingenbanc. applicants filedapetitionforpanelrehearinganden banc. OnAugust29, Second CircuitCourtofAppealsruledagainsttheapplicants.On July6,2018,the was briefed,andargumentsoccurredonJanuary18,2018.OnJune 22,2018,the appeal totheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforSecondCircuit. Theappeal illegal foldingknife.OnFebruary16,2017,theapplicantsfiled their noticeof by whichapersoncandeterminewhethertheyareinpossession ofalegaloran defendants inanunconstitutionallyvaguemanner—eventhough thereisnomeans Court ruledagainsttheapplicants,holdingthatstatuteisnot appliedbythe broad enforcementofCalifornia’s “assaultweapon”law.) filed withtheNinthCircuitinHaynievHarris,avaguenesschallengetooverly firearms restrictions.(Forinstance,aRule28(j)submission,citingthiscase,was several SecondAmendmentcasesinotherpartsofthecountrychallenging in facttosatisfystanding.ThefavorableSecondCircuitopinionisbeingused Perez, andNativeLeather, findingthoseplaintiffssufficientlyallegedaninjury standing, butvacatedandremandedthedistrictcourt’s holdingastoCopeland, that theorganizationsKnifeRightsandFoundationdonothave States CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitaffirmedlowercourt’s holding and argumentwasheldonJanuary13,2015.OnSeptember23,2015,theUnited the U.S.CourtofAppealsforSecondCircuitonMay15,2014.Briefswerefiled reconsideration wasdeniedonNovember20,2013.Thedismissalappealedto or imminent”injurythatwouldbe“redressablebyafavorableruling.”Amotionfor of standing.Itheldthatnoplaintiffallegeda“concrete,particularized,andactual New York onJune9,2011.Thecourtdismissedthelawsuitbasedplaintiffs’lack Second Circuit,whileawinwouldproveusefulinsubsequentcases.” further threatenstheabilityofotherplaintiffstobringfirearms-relatedcasesin Authority FOPA caseisoneexample).Alossonthependingappealinthis effort tostopSecondAmendmentcasesfromproceeding(theGreggRevellPort for severalyearsbeenbendingstandingrulestothebreakingpointinanapparent and SecondAmendmentcases:“JudgesintheThirdCircuitshave attorney informsthatthestandingissueisofimportanceinotherfirearmsrelated have beenarrested(includingsomeoftheplaintiffsinthiscase).Theapplicants’ subsequently confiscatelicensed,registeredfirearmsfrommanyofthosewho Significantly, theknifepossessionchargesarealsobeingusedasapretextto approach toenforcementitisimpossibleknowwhatknivesarelegalorillegal. In affirmingthetrialcourt’s ruling,theSecondCircuitemployedadisturbing On June16,2016,thebenchtrialconcluded.January30,2017,District The complaintwasfiledintheU.S.DistrictCourtforSouthernof New YorkStateRifle&PistolAssociationv.Beach prior vetoes.”Thismattermaynowbeconsideredclosed. the materialinducementstoGovernorCuomofinallysigning billafterhistwo to thelawsuit.We understandthatthependencyofourcert.petition,wasone State legislaturerepealingthecriminalprohibitionsongravityknivesthatgaverise Supreme Court,KnifeRightswasinstrumentalinadvancingabilltheNewYork U.S. SupremeCourtwasdenied,priortotheconsiderationofourpetitionby The applicant’s attorneyinforms:“[A]lthoughourpetitionforcertioraribeforethe Potentially RemainSubjecttoFutureProsecutionforConductPriortheRepeal.” Prohibitions; (2)AssemblyBill5944DidNotMootthePetitionBecauseRetailers Subways andBuses,theNYPDhasAnnounceditsIntentiontoEnforceThose Not MootthePetitionBecauseGravityKnivesRemainIllegalonNewYork City regarding theissueofmootness,arguingasfollows:“(1)AssemblyBill5944Did 2019, theapplicantsfiledasupplementalbriefinUnitedStatesSupremeCourt States SupremeCourtregardingarguingthatthecasehasbecomemoot.OnJune7, to enforcethelawagainstabidingknifeowners.” remains, andtheNYPDhasmadeitclearthattheyintendtocontinuetheirefforts not afullrepealandalsowasretroactive.Therefore,someexposuretoliability a repealofportionNewYork’s gravityknifelaw. Unfortunately, therepealwas States SupremeCourt:“May30,2019,GovernorAndrewCuomosignedintolaw in ourcase,disregardedtheSupremeCourt’s holdinginJohnsonandDimaya.” hand, inNewYork StateRifle&PistolAssociation v. Cuomo,theSecondCircuit,as Dimaya inrelaxingtherequirementsforafacialvaguenesschallenge.Onother v. Hogan,theFourthCircuitexplicitlyacknowledgedimpactofJohnsonand split) arisesparticularlyinthecontextofSecondAmendmentchallenges.InKolbe their infancywithoutconsiderationofthemerits.Thisissue(andrelatedcircuit resisting thischangeinthelaw, andindoingsoisblockingcivilrightscases maintaining afacialConstitutionalchallenge.TheSecondCircuitissteadfastly and Sessionsv. Dimaya,bothofwhichhadtheeffectrelaxingstandardfor Rifle andPistolAssociation,etal v. City ofNew York, etal.case. the SecondCircuitcasewas stayedpendingadecisionintheNewYork State filed March10,2019.OnAugust 28,2019,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor the UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals fortheSecondCircuit.Theopeningbriefwas which thedistrictcourtgrantedonDecember17,2018.Theplaintiffs appealedto carry restrictions.OnMarch26,2018,thedefendant’s filedamotiontodismiss, States DistrictCourtfortheofNewYork challengingNew York’s concealed Circuit’s decisioninGrace.OnJanuary31,2018,alawsuitwasfiledtheUnited litigation isdesignedtopromptreconsiderationofthatopinionin lightoftheD.C. decision inKachalskyv. CountyofWestchester upheldthisrequirement, it willissueonlyuponashowingof“propercause.”WhiletheSecond Circuit’s those wishingtocarryfirearmsoutsidethehomeobtainalicense todoso,which On June4,2019,theDistrictAttorneyfiledaletterwithclerkofUnited On January14,2019,theapplicantsfiledapetitionforcertioraritoUnited New York requires York, etal. New YorkStateRifleandPistolAssociation,etalv.Cityof York, etal. New YorkStateRifleandPistolAssociation,etal.v.Cityof States SupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.ThecasewasarguedonDecember2,2019. decision. Apetitionforcertiorariwasfiled,andonJanuary22,2019,theUnited the UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforSecondCircuitupheldtrialcourt before theSecondCircuitwasheldonAugust17,2016.OnFebruary23,2018, States CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitwasfiledinMarch2015.Argument the fundamentalrighttotravel,orFirstAmendment.AnappealUnited premises licensesdonotviolatetheSecondAmendment,CommerceClause, its motionforsummaryjudgment.Thedistrictcourtheldthattherestrictionsin February 2015,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtruledinfavorofcitybygranting raising, amongotherthings,theSecondAmendmentandrighttotravel.In enforced onacase-by-casebasis.Thislawsuit,filedin2013,challengedthelawby Second Amendmentrightsastohandguns)wasputintoplaceseveralyearsagoand person’s firearmpermit(forfeitureofallhandgunsandessentiallyarevocation York Stateapprovedhuntingland.Thisregulation,enforcedbyrevocationofthe within theFiveBoroughsofNYC,withasmallexceptionforhuntingonNew permit holdercouldtransportaguntoonlyrangesapprovedbytheNYPDlocated Department (“NYPD”)addedfurtherregulationslimitingtheplacesapremises carry to“premisesonly”overthecourseofdecades,NewYork CityPolice the citywasjustifiedby“public safety,” becauselicenseesarejustassusceptible Second Circuitheldthattherestriction onbeingabletotakeone’s firearmsoutside The plaintiffsdidnotprevailin either theDistrictCourtorSecondCircuit.The Second Amendment,theCommerce Clause,andthefundamentalrighttotravel. and PistolAssociation,challenged thelawasviolating,amongotherthings, home elsewhereinthestate.The plaintiffs,includingtheNewYork StateRifle handgun, eveninalockedcontainer, toarangeoutsidethecityorsecond city, ofwhichthereareonlyseven.Thus,licensees cannottransportanunloaded New York Cityinterprets“authorized”rangesorclubs tomeanonlythosewithinthe club, unloaded,inalockedcontainer, theammunitiontobecarriedseparately.” her/his handgun(s)directlytoandfromanauthorizedsmallarms range/shooting listed onthelicense.Thesoleexceptionisthatlicenseholder “maytransport obtain isa“premiseslicense”whichlimitsthepossessionofhandguns totheaddress the cityorcounty…where[heshe]resides.”Theonlylicensemost residentsmay have alicense.To obtainalicense, a residentmustapply“tothelicensingofficerin review ofadecisionbytheSecondCircuitdenyingrelieftoplaintiffs. America. Theamicusbriefisinsupportofgrantingapetitionfor certiorariseeking the LawEnforcementActionNetwork,andAllianceof Law EnforcementFirearmsInstructors,theLegalDefenseFund, Enforcement EducatorsandTrainers Association,theInternationalAssociationof a numberoflawenforcementorganizations,includingtheInternationalLaw and filingofanamicus The StateofNewYork prohibitsresidentsfrompossessing ahandgununlessthey After reducingmosthandgunpermitsissuedbythecityfromfull- A NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund grant supported the preparation A NRACivilRightsDefenseFundgrantsupportedthepreparation in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of curiae intheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtonbehalfof 19 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 20 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES that therearenodefinitionsof “private” versus“commercial”useinthezoning club; cana“private”gunclubbe commercial.”Theapplicant’s attorneyargued club intheabsenceofanyzoning regulationsspecifyingwhatconstitutesa“private” has becomeanuisance;whether dailymembershipscanbesoldfora‘private’gun officer canrevokeapermitbecause, onsubjectivegrounds,apermittedgunrange identified theissuesincaseasincluding:“Whetheracounty enforcement that theGunClubhadbecome“commercial”andceasedtobe‘private.’” Ordinance; and(2)sheusedinformationfromtheGunClub’s websitetospeculate bay rangeshepreviouslyhadapprovedviolatedthecounty’s highlysubjectiveNoise Gun Club’s ZoningCompliancePermitsbecause(1)shedeterminedthatthe30- permitted usesinRA-20districts,thecounty’s zoningadministratorrevokedthe decibel limitationsintheordinances:“Despitefactthatshooting rangesare a nuisancebecausethedecibellevelswereunacceptable.However, thereareno permit.” Anotherallegationofnon-compliancewasthattherange hadcreated members ofthepublictouserange—evenifusingitasmembers—violates the daily memberships.However, thezoningenforcementofficerarguedthat“allowing The applicantarguedthatmembersofthe“public”arestillrequired topurchase website mentionedinstructionalclasses“toserveourmembersandthepublic.” zoning permitfornon-compliance.Oneallegationofnon-compliancewasthatthe a complaintwiththezoningenforcementofficer, whothenrevokedtheclub’s gun club,northeterms“private”or“commercial.”Neighborsofclubfiled the applicant’s attorney, neitherthepermitnorordinancedefinea“private” club thatmaynotbeusedfor“commercialpurposes.”However, accordingto the CaldwellGunClubreceivedazoningcompliancepermitfor“private”gun Robert NavarroandtheCaldwellGunClub,LLC. NORTH CAROLINA States SupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.ThecasewasarguedonDecember2,2019. The amicusbriefwasfiledonOctober9,2018.OnJanuary22,2019,theUnited transporting theirunloaded,lockedupfirearms,andreliedsolelyonspeculation. noactualevidencethatlicenseholdersposeathreatwhen City hasproduced with acriminalrecord,whoarenoteveneligibleforpremiseslicense.NewYork to empiricaldata.Mosthomicidesandviolentcrimesarecommittedbyindividuals carry permitholdersinotherstates,whoareextraordinarilylaw-abidingaccording License holdersundergoexhaustivescreening,andarecomparabletoconcealed benefits citedbytheSecondCircuitunder“intermediatescrutiny”arenon-existent. the constitutionalargumentsbyshowingfactuallythatalleged“publicsafety” certiorari intheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Theamicusbriefwillsupplement the “insignificantandindirect”burdensonSecondAmendmentrights. would bebetternottohavethepresenceofafirearm.”Thatinteresteasilyjustified “crowd situations,demonstrations,familydisputes”andothersituations“whereit as othersto“stressfulsituations”onthepublicstreets,including“roadrage”and The applicantappealedtotheBoardofAdjustment.applicant’s attorney The law enforcement amicus brief was filed in support of a petition for The lawenforcementamicusbriefwasfiledinsupportofapetitionfor In Marchof2016, Court’s denialoftheirmotiontodismiss. The Countythenfilednoticeof appealtotheCourtofAppealsasSuperior After hearingintheSuperiorCourt theCounty’s motiontodismisswasdenied. Court ofAppeals.TheCountyCaldwellmovedtodismissthe appealasuntimely. On August14,2018,theapplicantfilednoticeofappealto North Carolina zoning permitsfortheapplicant,andforcingashutdownofshooting range. favor ofthecountyBoardAdjustment,sustainingcounty’s revocationofthe County SuperiorCourtheardthematter. OnJuly13,2018,theCourtfoundin writ ofcertiorariwasissuedonJuly26,2017.OnApril23,2018, theCaldwell record. and theBoard’s findingswerecontradictedbysubstantialevidenceappearing in the manufacture theevidencetobeusedagainstacitizen;and(7)The County’s claims who instructedneighborstomakemultiplecalls.Agovernment official cannot calls, however, weregeneratedbytheadministratorherselfandcountyattorney about noise as herevidence thatsheshouldenforcetheNoiseOrdinance.These booth; (6)Thezoningadministratorusedthevolumeofcallstocomplain sound room range whichwebelievedweremanipulatedwithvolumecontrolsfromthehearing the Countytopresentitscasefirst,whichincludedrecordingsfromshooting to noiseonthegroundsofrelevanceandprejudice.Nonetheless,Boardallowed the SherifftobeappealedorheardbyBoard.We objectedtotestimonyrelated standard procedure, anotherdueprocessviolation;(5)Therewasnocitationfrom evidence andhavethefinalpositionatclosing.TheCountyrefused tofollow with and apetitionertotheBoard,dueprocessrequiredthatGunClubproceedfirst the GunClubwasanappellantofafinalorderissuedbyzoningadministrator cases—that itwasnotobligatedtofollowitsownenforcementlaws;(4)Because County actuallyargued—despiteholdingsweprovidedfromnumerousappellate to revocation.Thisisaproceduralviolationaswelldueprocessissue;(3)The notice ofviolationsothatitcouldexplainorrespond.Instead,sheproceededstraight unequivocally requiredthezoningadministratortoprovideGunClubwitha powers exclusivelydelegatedtotheOfficeofSheriff;(2)TheZoningOrdinance enforced theordinance.Thezoningadministratorhadnoauthoritytoassume can enforcetheNoiseOrdinance,andafter60-70complaints,Sheriffhadnot many legalandproceduralerrors,including,butnotlimitedto:(1)OnlytheSheriff operation oftheshootingrange.Theapplicant’s attorneyinformsthattherewere administrator’s decisionrescindingtheusepermit,andeffectivelyshuttingdown potentially providesadditionalprotection....” entirely subjective.Additionally, theSportShootingRangeProtectionActof1997 to provewhenithasnodecibellimitationsinitsordinanceandthedecisionis free useofland.“Thenuisanceaspectthiscasewillbedifficultforthecounty case lawdictatesthatambiguitiesintheordinancearetobedecidedfavorof ordinances, thattherearenodecibellimitationsinthecountyand A petition for Certiorari to the Caldwell County Superior Court was filed. A A petitionforCertioraritotheCaldwellCountySuperiorCourt wasfiled. On June15,2017,theBoardofAdjustmentvotedtoupholdzoning Education andLisaTuttle-Huff and BenjaminAdamsv.MadisonLocalSchoolDistrictBoardof Erin Gabbard,AimeeRobsonandDallasRobson,BenjaminTobey, OHIO authorize individualstocarryafirearm onschoolgrounds.” judgment. Ultimately, theCourtheldthatunderOhiolaw, Madison ispermittedto of CommonPleasruledinMadison’s favor, grantingourmotionforsummary judgment andtrialonthemerits. OnFebruary28,2019,theButlerCountyCourt the lawsuitfollowingaconsolidated hearingontheparties’motionsforsummary for summaryjudgment:“MadisonLocalSchoolDistrictsuccessfully defended the defendants’motionforsummaryjudgmentanddeniedplaintiffs’ motion hearing washeldonFebruary25,2019.On28,2019,the Courtgranted on February1,2019.Theplaintiffsalsofiledasummaryjudgement motion.The motion forprotectiveorder. Thedefendantsfiledasummaryjudgementmotion County CommonPleasCourtgrantedinpartanddenied thedefendants’ pretrial conferenceoccurredonFebruary11,2019.On 22, 2019,theButler other tacticalresponsetraining.” concealed carryingoffirearmsbyschoolstaffwhohavereceived concealedcarryand courts inotherstateswouldsupporteffortsbylocalschoolboards toauthorize FASTER SavesLivestraining). This casecouldhavewidespreadimpactonwhether the sufficiencyofconcealcarryandothertacticalresponsetraining (forexample, policies throughoutthestateofOhio.Moregenerally, thePlaintiffshaveattacked first impressioninOhio,andwouldthereforehaveachillingeffectonsimilar carry byschoolstaffwhoarenottrainedaspeaceofficers.Thiscaseisaof Everytown forGunSafety)areseekingtoprohibittheauthorizationofconceal of thestatute.ThiscasehasawidespreadimpactbecausePlaintiffs(backedby Attorney General’s (nowGovernor’s) writtenopinionregardingtheinterpretation is authorizedtocarryfirearms.MadisonSchoolsdisagrees,andfollowstheOhio personnel, whichrequirespoliceacademytraining,appliestoanyemployeewho grounds. Intheircomplaint,thePlaintiffscontendthatastatuteconcerningsecurity by theboardandlicensedtocarryaconcealedfirearmconcealonschool Ohio lawpermitslocalboardsofeducationtoallowemployeeswhoareauthorized 2018. Theapplicant’s attorneyinforms:“Thelegalquestioninthiscaseiswhether policy. TheapplicantrepliedtothispreliminaryinjunctiononNovember21, preliminary injunctionregardingtheimplementationoffirearmsauthorization public recordscount.OnOctober31,2018,theplaintiffsfiledamotionfor October 10,2018,theapplicantfiledapartialmotiontodismissoncomplaint’s implementation ofthispolicy”intheButlerCountyCommonPleasCourt.On backed andfundedbyEverytownforGunSafety…filedalawsuittopreventthe firearms onschoolgrounds.OnSeptember12,2018,“asmallhandfulofresidents, authorization policy, whichpermitscertaintrainedstaffmemberstocarryconcealed the MadisonSchoolsBoardofEducationadoptedaresolutionadoptingfirearms District BoardofEducationinButlerCounty, Ohio.BetweenAprilandJune2018, A consolidated trial on the merits was scheduled for February 25, 2019. The final A consolidatedtrialonthemeritswasscheduledforFebruary25, 2019.Thefinal The applicant is the Madison Local School The applicantistheMadisonLocalSchool They are: “utterly non-responsive and a waste of time....[T]hey donotconcern They are:“utterlynon-responsive andawasteoftime....[T]hey provided thefundsdemanded.The firstbatchofrecordsarrivedonJuly19,2018. is involved,butPPSdemandedpayment toreleasetheserecords.Theapplicant of suchrecords.Theapplicantattempted togetthefeewaivedaspublicinterest activities. PPSisallowed,under Oregon law, tochargeafeefortheproduction activities todeterminewhether PPS isengagedinpartisanandideological disclose recordsunderOregon’s PublicRecordsActconcerningtheaforementioned further violationsofOr. Rev. Stat.§260.432(2).Theapplicantrequested thatPPS initiative hasnotyetqualifiedtoappearontheballot.Theapplicants expects semi-automaticrifles.Asofthistime,the effectively outlawingmostmodern on thejobduringworkinghours.Or. Rev. Stat.§260.432(2).” recall petition,theadoptionofameasureorpublic officeholderwhile election ofacandidate,thegatheringsignaturesonaninitiative, referendumor promote oropposeanypoliticalcommittee thenominationor shall solicitanymoney, influence,serviceorotherthing ofvalueorotherwise Partisan politicalspendingbypublicofficialsareunlawful:“No public employee provided bylaw, orforanyotherdifferentpurpose thanprovidedbylaw.” Id. “It isunlawfulforanypublicofficialtoexpendmoneysinexcessoftheamounts pursuant toOr. Rev. Stat.§294.100,educationfundsmustbespentforeducation. or insupportofpersonsissues.’OAR582-020-0035(1)(b)(emphasisadded).” efrain fromexploitingprofessionalrelationshipswithanystudentforpersonalgain, provide that‘[t]heethicaleducator, infulfillingobligationstothestudent,will…[r] and possessionofallsemi-automaticweapons:“Oregoneducationalregulations PPS alsohaspassedaformalresolutioncallingforbanonthemanufacture,sale, superintendent orderedstafftoorganizethestudentsinthesedemonstrations.The Schools system(“PPS”)organizeddemonstrationsinfavorofguncontrol.ThePPS Superintendent ofPortlandSchoolDistrictNo.1J entity; andGuadalupeGuerreroinhisofficialcapacityas through thePortlandSchoolBoard,anOregonpublicschool Christopher S.Johnsonv.PortlandSchoolDistrictNo.1Jbyand Lucas Burwell,MichelleYarbrough,KatherinKirkpatrick;and argument wassetforOctober7,2019,butrescheduledDecember2,2019. and “ExpertsinSchoolSafetyFirearmsTraining.” Initially, thedatefororal On theothersideamicusbriefshavebeenfiledbyProfessorPeterM.Shane Firearms Foundationhavebothfiledamicusbriefsinsupportoftheapplicant. reply briefwasfiledonJuly22,2019.TheOhioAttorneyGeneralandtheBuckeye July 12,2019,theapplicantfileditsbriefinopposition.Theplaintiffs-appellants the sameargumentthatplaintiffs-appellantsmadeatsummaryjudgment.”On a firearmonschoolpropertytocompletepoliceacademytraining.Thisislargely 109.78(D), whichplaintiffs-appellantsassertrequiresindividualsauthorizedtocarry their meritbriefs.“Theplaintiffs-appellantsfocusonaninterpretationofR.C. District CourtofAppeals,Ohio.OnJune14,2019,theplaintiffs-appellantsfiled Initiative PetitionNo.43isexpectedtobeputontheOregonballot thisfall, The applicantsuspectswidespreadviolationsofthisregulation.Furthermore, On March26,2019,theplaintiffsfiledtheirnoticeofappealto Twelfth The PortlandPublic 21 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 22 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES presented. Materialsreceivedin response totheapplicant’s recordrequest prove 138 S.Ct.2448(2018),further strengthens theFirstAmendmentarguments 294.100(1)).” (ORS recover fundsexpendedfor“another ordifferentpurposethanprovidedbylaw” Second Amendmentrights).Theremightbealsopendantstate lawclaimsto of activitiesviolatestheFirstAmendmentrightsparents(and threatenstheir case Iamhopingtodevelop,assertingthatforcedtaxpayerfunding ofthesesorts the waydowntokindergarten....Inshort,materialsbegin support thefederal to encouragestudentswalkoutontheirown;(6)Theanti-gun effortextendsall March 14thdemonstrations,whilecarefullyassertingthatPPSwas withoutpower articulated his“expectation”thateveryschoolwouldfacilitateand supportthe and guidanceforstudentactivistswereprepared;(5)ThePPSSuperintendent and associationsofschooladministrators;(4)Anti-guninstructional materials with closecoordinationlocalDemocraticpoliticians,theteacher’s union, (3) OnMarch6th,PPSadoptedaresolutionbanningallsemi-automatic weapons, no hintofanydissentingvoicesamongPPSstaff,andveryfewparent complaints; feeds fromanti-gunorganizationsthroughtheirPPSe-mails;(2)Thereisalmost news feedsrifewithanti-gunpropaganda,andmanyPPSeducatorssubscribeto seen sofar, itseemsclearthat:(1)ThePPSe-mailsystemisawashwithleft-wing whatIhave December 6th....Ihavereviewedmostofthematerialproduced.From by issued September7,2018…,decreeingthatalldocumentsmustbeproduced theDistrictAttorneyresolvedmyappealbydecision initial, worthlessproduction, Ct. 1407(1978),aspotentiallyfavorableprecedentforapotentialfederallawsuit. (1985), Committee, 470U.S.480,84L.Ed.2d455,105S.Ct.1459,53U.S.L.W. 4293 S. Ct.612(1976),FederalElectionComm’n.v. NationalConservativePoliticalAction 53 U.S.L.W. 4587,4594(1985),Buckleyv. Valeo , 424U.S.1,46L.Ed.2d659,96 v. OfficeofDisciplinaryCounsel,471U.S.626,85L.Ed.2d652,105S.Ct.2265, v. Maynard,430U.S.705,715,51L.Ed.2d752,97S.Ct.1428(1977),Zauderer 466 U.S.435,80L.Ed.2d428,104S.Ct.1883,52U.S.L.W. 4499(1984),Wooley 97 S.Ct.1782(1977),Ellisv. BrotherhoodofRailway, Airline&SteamshipClerks, 1158 (1963),Aboodv. DetroitBoardofEducation,431U.S.209,52L.Ed.2d261, Ct. 1784(1961),RailwayClerksv. Allen,373U.S.113,10L.Ed.2d235,83S.Ct. International AssociationofMachinistsv. Street,367U.S.740,6L.Ed.2d1141,81S. of Educationv. Barnette,319U.S.624,87L.Ed.1628,63S.Ct.1178(1943), should bepursued.Theapplicantwillprovideelectroniccopiesofsuchmaterials. andprepareawrittenanalysisastowhetherfurtherlitigation the recordsproduced, Whenprovidedwithresponsivematerials,theapplicantwillanalyze production. the non-responsivematerialbesubtractedfromcostsdemandedbyPPSfor ofresponsivedocumentsandthatthecostsproducing demanded production communications betweenthePortlandPoliceBureauandPPS.”Theapplicanthas “Second AmendmentSubjects”asdefinedintherequestatall,muchlessconstitute Last summer’s SupremeCourtdecisioninJanusv. AFSCME, Council31, The applicantinforms:“Sincemylastreport,inwhichPPShadfinallymadean The applicantcitesGaldav. Rutgers,772F.2d 1060(3dCir. 1985),Board First NationalBankofBostonv. Bellotti,435U.S.765,55L.Ed.2d707,98S. District Court.OnSeptember19,2019,PortlandPublicSchools filedaresponse. “compulsion” thanthatwhichappliesinotherFirstAmendment contexts.” participating inthedemonstrations.Thisistrue,butanaltogether differentviewof alleged wasinsufficient,inthatstudentsdidnotsufferanypunishment fornot students themselves,theMagistrateJudgearguedthatlevelof compulsion Complaint forreference....With respecttotheclaimforcompelledspeechby and Recommendations,at18-22.)IhaveattachedacopyoftheFirstAmended actors, whichispreciselywhatthecomplaintsays.(SeealsoObjectiontoFindings the studentswithamessageitdesiredtopromote,andwereprivate were deficient,becausethetruthofmatteristhatPPSwaspropagandizing and offeredachancetorepleadthem.Itisnotclearmehowtheallegations concluded, forreasonnotcleartome,thatsuchallegationsweresufficient, however, thatthecomplainthadallegedstudentswereprivateparties,but invoking the“governmentspeech”doctrine.MagistrateRussorecognized, were insubstancethird-partycontractorsemployedbythegovernment,thus with respecttotheclaimforforcedsubsidizationofspeech,thatchildren Findings andRecommendationsareattached).Thegistofherrulingwasthat 2019, MagistrateJudgeJulieRussodismissedtheFirstAmendedComplaint(her judge refusedtherequestsofbothsidesfororalargument:“[O]nAugust23, has nowbeencompletedonthedefendants’motiontodismiss.Themagistrate the motiontodismissonJune17,2019.Thedefendantsfiledareplyandbriefing attorney feesandcosts. Act. Thecomplaintseeksadeclaratoryjudgment,permanentinjunction,and speech, and42U.S.C.§1983,alsoasaviolationoftheOregonPublicRecords First AmendmentRights,becauseofforcedsubsidizationspeechandcompelled parents, challengingtheactionsofPortlandPublicSchoolsasaviolation District CourtfortheofOregon,PortlandDivision,onbehalfcertain requested. OnMarch13,2019,theapplicantsfieldalawsuitinUnitedStates to provideadditionalresponsivedocumentsbuthaveyeteverything ofstudentinitiative.ThePortlandPublicSchoolshavecontinued be theproduct District-wide anti-gunprotestswhichwerethenrepeatedlyandfalselyclaimed to that thePPSorganized,supportedandrequiredeachindividualschooltoengagein University d/b/aTheOhioStateatMarion Concealed Carry&Mr.MichaelW.Newbernv.The OhioState Students forConcealedCarryFoundation,Inc.,Ohioans for termination ofemploymentand/or expulsionfromtheuniversity. members violatetheFirearmsPolicies, thepenaltiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto, prohibit suchconductbypersons unaffiliatedwithOSU.Ifstudentsorfaculty affiliated withtheuniversity—such asstudentsandfacultymembers—butdonot (the “FirearmsPolicies”)thatprohibitotherwiselawfulfirearms usebypersons Ohio StateUniversity(“OSU”),currentlyhasvariousrules,regulations andpolicies On September6,2019,theapplicantfiledanappealtoUnited States The defendantsfiledamotiontodismiss.applicantsresponse The defendant, Doe, etal.v.Wolf, PENNSYLVANIA and asur-reply tothe defendants’reply. Oralargumentwasheldbefore theCourt Second Amendmentrights.On February 13,2017,theplaintiffsfiledanopposition the processbywhichtheyweredeclared mentallyill,andweredivestedoftheir rights becausetheyweredeclared mentallyill,and,therefore,cannotchallenge to dismissthecomplaint,arguing thattheplaintiffshavenoSecondAmendment constitutionally adequatelegalprocess.OnJanuary30,2017,the defendantsmoved the DueProcessclauseofFourteenthAmendmentbecauseit occurswithout Second Amendmentrights,asaresultoftheirinvoluntarycommitments, violates a case.OnNovember16,2016,suitwasfiledarguingthatthedeprivation oftheir rights, includingtheopportunitytogobeforeacourt,examinewitnesses, orpresent are divestedoftheirSecondAmendmentrightswithouthaving basic dueprocess under thisschemefrompossessingfirearms.Theresultisthatlaw-abiding citizens Pennsylvania lawalsoprohibitsanyonewhohasbeeninvoluntarily committed mental healthtreatmentforuptofivedayswithoutanyjudicial oversight. treatment schemethatallowsphysicianstocommitcitizensinvoluntarily for plaintiffs haveagreedtodismissthelawsuit. isamendedbyJanuary31,2019,the the settlementagreement.Ifstudentcode for January11,2019regardingthestatusofimplementationterms agreement. ThestayexpiresonFebruary1,2019.Astatusconferenceisscheduled 2018, theCourtstayedalllitigationpendingimplementationofsettlement a firearmonuniversitypropertyincompliancewithR.C.2923.1210.OnMay21, prohibit astudentwithconcealedhandgunlicensefromtransportingorstoring doesnot toclarifythatthestudentcode best effortstoamenditsStudentCode ofconduct.OhioStateagreedtouseits itsstudentcode University willmodify applicants’ attorney, “thepoliciesareinclearcontradictionofstatelaw.” components protectedundertheUnitedStatesConstitution?”Accordingto associated withtheuniversityfrompossessingorotherwiseutilizingfirearmstheir ArepublicuniversitieswithinthestateofOhiothatprohibitthose Revised Code? or otherwiseutilizingfirearmstheircomponentsprotectedundertheOhio associated withtheuniversity(i.e.students,faculty, members,etc.)frompossessing subject toOhio’s preemptionstatute,thenareuniversitypoliciesthatprohibitthose §9.68…?Ifpublicuniversitiesare the stateofOhiosubjecttoRevisedCode attorney statestheissuespresentedasincluding:“Arepublicuniversitieswithin is pending.Theapplicants’attorneyexpectsthecasetogotrial. Discovery isongoing.Thedefendanthasfiledasummaryjudgmentmotion,which §2923.126(B)(5)—Ohio’sand OhioRevisedCode concealedcarrylicensestatute. §9.68—Ohio’sand BearArmsguarantee;OhioRevisedCode preemptionstatute; a violationof:ArticleI,Section4oftheOhioConstitution—Ohio’s RighttoKeep Marion County, Ohio,onNovember2,2016,challengingtheFirearmsPoliciesas In May2018,thepartiesagreedtoasettlementpursuantwhichOhioState The applicantsfiledalawsuitintheMarionCountyCommonPleasCourt, Pennsylvania has enacted a mental health Pennsylvania hasenactedamentalhealth the factthathehadbeenstealing firearmsfromthebusiness.TheBATFE’s criminal employee. Thisemployeehadbeen falsifyingthebusiness’s records inordertocover Police Department,whohadworked atArwadySalesfrom1991-1998asaparttime above—were duetothefaultof Mr. JeffreyLewis,aSergeant withtheHouston discrepancies—as wellasthosethat causedthe1998indictmentmentioned and over600missingfirearms.Mr. Arwadyclaimsthattheserecordkeeping registered to,norpresumablypossessedorsoldby, Mr. Arwadyorhisbusiness— the applicant’s attorneyalleges“wereacompletefraud”astheyhadneverbeen alleged bytheBATFE. Theseallegations includedfivemissingsilencers–which of aBATFE complianceinspection, andagainrecordkeepingviolationswere Arwady wasacquittedonallcounts.In2004,Sales again thesubject keeping violationsduringthecourseofa1996BATFE complianceinspection.Mr. told thatifhecooperatedwith[BATFE], he couldkeephislicense.” for theBATFE intheBATFE’s illegal“FastandFurious”program,“wherehewas applicant’s attorney, thisaroseoutofMr. Arwady’s refusaltobecomeaninformant Bureau ofAlcohol,Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives(“BATFE”). Accordingtothe and 2007.Duringthistime,Mr. Arwadyhadanantagonisticrelationshipwiththe of1989 Arwady Sales,aFederalFirearmsLicensee(“FFL”),betweentheperiod The casewasarguedonDecember9,2019. The caseisonappealtotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforThirdCircuit. States DistrictCourtfortheEasternofPennsylvaniaruledadverselyon. because theycannotaffectfederaldisqualification.OnJanuary10,2019,theUnited authority. Asaresult,staterestorationprocedurescannotrestorefirearmsrights 302 andothermentalhealthcommitmentstoNICSin2013,withoutspecificlegal of Defendant,anewplaintiffwassubstitutedforonetheoriginalplaintiffs. for December17,2018;andsettingatrialdateofJanuary7,2019.With theconsent dispositive motiondeadlineatNovember12,2018;settingthefinalpretrialhearing setting thedateforcloseofexpertdiscoveryatSeptember24,2018; an amendedschedulingordersettingthecloseoffactdiscoveryatJuly30,2018; rights withoutanadequateavailableremedy. OnMarch26,2018,theCourtentered 302 commitmentstoNICSmightpermanentlydeprivecitizensoftheirfirearms true, theremaybeadueprocessviolationandfindingthatthereportingofSection pleadings, suggestinginmanyfootnotesthatiftheallegationscomplaintare defendants butrejectedallofdefendant’s argumentsastothesufficiencyof and denyinginpartdefendant’s motiontodismiss.TheCourtdismissedseveral to theplaintiffs.OnAugust23,2017,Courtenteredanordergrantinginpart motion todismiss,didgrantleaveundersealallowadditionalfactinvestigation on May16,2017.OnAugust8,2017,theCourt,whilenotreachingState’s Ho, andtheUnitedStatesofAmerica Robert ArwadyandSamueliav.TommyHo,JaneDoe TEXAS In 1998,Mr. Arwadywasindicted,onchargesarisingfromallegedrecord Discovery has revealed that Pennsylvania State Police began reporting Section Discovery hasrevealedthatPennsylvaniaStatePolicebeganreportingSection Mr. Arwadyownedandoperated 23 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 24 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES FOPA (e.g.,thatseized armsmustbe“individualidentified”ashavingbeenusedin a seizurethatdisregardedtherestrictions placeduponsuchseizurebythe1986 1986 FOPA; (2)Liability ofthegovernmentforamassseizure160+firearms, grand juryoftherestrictivedefinition of“engagedinthebusiness”createdby grand jurytranscriptshowsthat neither theagentnorprosecutorinformed Owners ProtectionAct,aswelltherequirementfora“willful” stateofmind.The disregarded thedefinitionof“engagedinbusiness”inserted by the1986Firearm Liability ofthegovernmentforafalsearrestfirearmowner, anarrestwhich compensation. Theapplicant’s attorneyidentifiesthelegalissuesasfollows:(1) action, seekingdamagesforfalsearrest,trespasstochattels,andtakings without stripped ofpartsormagazines. without theboxes,piledinbedofapickuptruck,withmany havingbeen seized. Thefirearmshadbeenseizedinnewboxcondition.They werereturned returned thefirearmsbutinextraordinarilyworseconditionthan whentheywere acquittal, Mr. Arwadysoughtthereturnofhisfirearms.TheBATFE eventually the courtsuasponte,andcriminalforfeitureattemptending with Mr. Arwady’s that wereseized. counts onOctober21,2015.Thecourtalsoorderedthereturnof165firearms counts weredismissed.Mr. Arwadywasfoundnotguiltyoftheremainingtwo the 165firearms. Trial wassetforOctober19,2015.In2015,sixofeight indictment againstMr. Arwady, whichincludeda“noticeofforfeiture,”for162 In Februaryof2014,afederalgrandjuryinHoustonreturnedaneightcount of thepartiesafterCourtdeniedgovernment’s summaryjudgmentmotion. against thefirearms.Thecivilforfeitureactionwasdismissedonmutualagreement seizing 165firearms,andsubsequentlycommencingcivilforfeitureproceedings BATFE executedsearchwarrantsonMr. Arwady’s business,residenceandvehicle, he neverdisplayedanyofthesefirearmsforsaleatthebusiness).InJuly2009, the internet,whilestoringtheminsafesathisbusiness(thoughattorneynotes most ofthem.Hebegantodothisshortlythereafter, offeringthefirearmsforsaleon be legalforhimtotransferthesefirearmsintohispersonalcollection,andthensell inventory. BasedonBATFE regulationsandfederallaw, Mr. Arwadybelieveditto ammunition, andfirearmsaccessories. Arwady continuedtorunanothernon-FFLbusinessatthesamelocation,selling but subsequentlywithdrewhisappealandclosedArwadySales.However, Mr. filed anappealwiththeUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforFifthCircuit, District CourtfortheSouthernofTexas wasalsounsuccessful.Mr. Arwady was deniedataBATFE administrativehearing.HisappealtotheUnitedStates that theBATFE wouldnotberenewingArwadySale’s FFL.Mr. Arwady’s appeal for allbut30oftheover600missingfirearms,in2006,Mr. Arwadywasnotified efforts toreconcilethediscrepanciesallegedbyBATFE, includingaccounting to Mr. Lewis’agreementtotestifyagainstMr. Arwady. DespiteMr. Arwady’s best investigation, andsubsequentindictmentofpleaagreementwithMr. Lewisled The applicant’s attorneyrecentlyfiledaFederal Tort ClaimsActandaBivens In theaftermathofgovernment’s civilforfeiturehavingbeendismissedby At thetimeArwadySalesclosed,therewereroughly150firearmsleftin negligent storageclaimtomoveforward. claim andthefalsearrestbasedonstatuteoflimitationsbutallowed on oraboutMay28,2018.OnMarch26,2019,theCourtdismissedBivens government respondedwithtwomotionstodismiss,whichtheapplicantopposed Amendment totheUnitedStatesConstitution.OnoraboutMay7,2018, cause soofactionarisingundertheFederalTorts ClaimsActandtheFourth Southern DistrictofTexas, HoustonDivisiononoraboutJanuary24,2018alleging The firstamendedcomplaintwasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor forfeiture, withoutthegovernmentobjectingorappealing.” the othertwo,speaksforitself.Sodoescourt’s suaspontedismissalofthecivil dismissed sixoutofeightcountsontheevetrial,andthatajuryacquittedhim His gunswereseizedinviolationofFOPA aswell.Thefactthatthegovernment because: “Mr. ArwadywasprosecutedinclearviolationofFOPA’s provisions. applicant’s attorneybelievesthatthereisahighpotentialforfavorableresult detained firearmsasapartsbin,takingandmagazinesfromthematwill.The for anuncompensated“taking”ofprivateproperty, whereagentsusedMr. Arwady’s a violation,andthattheviolationmustbewillful);(3)Liabilityofgovernment Range NeighborhoodGroup,LLC. Opinion 4-247-Alerted,LabergeShootingRange;Inre:Firing In re:LabergeShootingRange,J.O.4-247;Jurisdictional VERMONT a newjurisdictionalopinionholding thatanAct250permitwasnowrequired.The minor improvementtotheirproperty withouttriggeringAct250.TheStateissued then norangeinVermont willbeabletomakeanyrepairsitsfacilityor changes triggerAct250jurisdiction andremovearange’s grandfathered status, suing arangefornoise-relatednuisance claims.Ifitisheldthattheseminimal to circumventtherangeprotectionlaw, whichexpresslyprohibits neighborsfrom comply withandonethatthisrangecannotsatisfy. Theplaintiffs areattempting dBA atthenearestresidence.Thisisalimitthatfewoutdoorranges, ifany, can jurisdiction. Act250imposesanoiselimitof70dBAattheproperty line,or55 three smallberms,andthecontinuedcollectionofdonationstriggered Act250 of onenewshootingbenchandtherepairsixexistingbenches, theerectionof obtain anAct250permit.Specifically, theplaintiffsargued thattheconstruction The plaintiffsarguethatminorimprovementstotherangerequire thattherange alleging changestotherangejustifiedeliminationofitsgrandfathered status. in therange’s favorallowingtherangetocontinueoperate. group ofneighborschallengedtherange.TheStateissuedajurisdictional opinion have thusavoidedregulationunderVermont’s developmentlaws.Inthe1990s, a range’s activitieshavebeenprotectedunderVermont’s rangeprotectionstatuteand The rangeisavailableforusebytheshootingpublicatnoadmissioncharge. has operatedashotgunshootingrangeinCharlotte,Vt.,forapproximately60years. The DepartmentofJusticedeniedMr. Arwady’s claimonJanuary24,2018. Two yearsago,theplaintiffsaskedStatetorevisitjurisdictional opinion, The applicant,Laberge&Sons,Inc., person shallmake,causetobemade, assistinmaking,orcontinueanyexcessive, Williston enacted a noiseordinance,which,inrelevantpart,statesasfollows:“No shooting range.”Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. §2291(8)and5227.In2004,theTown of municipalities maynot“prohibit, reduce,orlimitdischargeatanyexistingsport for approximately50years.Under theVermont rangeprotectionstatute,local members, hasoperatedashotgun shootingrangeintheTown ofWilliston, Vt., Vermont North CountrySportsman’sClub,Inc.v.TheTownof Williston, there willbenofurtherupdates.” to closethisfileandhandleanysettlementnegotiationsontheir own.Therefore, On January7,2020,theapplicant’s attorneyinformed:“TheLabergeshaveelected and forgoanyfurtherlitigationiftheapplicantsagreetoinstall improvements. mitigation measures.Theneighborshaveofferedtopayforthenoise mitigation with theplaintiffneighborstoseeifpartiescanagreeoncertain noise Court deniedtheappellant’s motionforreargument.Theapplicantsarenegotiating favor, affirmingthejudgementbelow. OnOctober1,2018,the Vermont Supreme brief. OnAugust17,2018,theVermont SupremeCourt ruledintheapplicant’s applicant fileditsappellatebrief.OnMay25,2018,theneighborstheirreply April 20,2018,theneighborsfiledtheirappellatebrief.OnMay11, the applicant. become acommercialoperation).OnMarch9,2018,thetrialcourtheldinfavorof safety purposes;and(2)whethertherehadbeenachangeifuse(i.e.therange improvements wereexemptfromregulationbecausetheyundertakenfor hearing washeldonJanuary31,2018.Thetwoissueswere:(1)whetherthealleged affidavit andtestifythatalltheimprovementsmakerangesafer. Amerits associated linesoffire. several shootingbenches,andtheeliminationoftwolocationstheir improvements includedtheplacementofbermsbehindtargets,repair required. Theapplicant’s attorneybelievesthattherangewillprevailbecause permit processweresafetyrelated,theapplicantwillprevailandnobe retroactively. Thus,iftheapplicantcanshowimprovementsthattriggered that thenewexemptionforshootingrangesrelatedtosafetyimprovementsapplies 2017. TheCourtdeniedthecompetingmotionsforsummaryjudgment,butheld replies andmemoranduminoppositionwerefiledbythepartiesMaythroughJune objection. ThepartiesbothmovedforsummaryjudgmentonMay12,2017.Various of Questions(thefilingthatestablishesthescopeappeal)overneighbors’ interlocutory innatureanddidnotmeetthestandardforanimmediateappeal. for aninterlocutoryappeal.TheCourtagreedwiththerangethatappealwas but wereunsuccessfulinthateffortalsobecausetheyfailedtofollowtherules untimely. TheplaintiffsappealedthatdecisiontotheVermont SupremeCourt, Court. Theplaintiffsunsuccessfullysoughttohavetheappealstrickenas applicants haveappealedthejurisdictionalopiniontoVermont Environmental The neighborshavefiledanappealtothe Vermont SupremeCourt.On The applicanthasengagedanNRA-certifiedgunsafetyexperttoexecute The EnvironmentalCourtgrantedtheRange’s motiontoamenditsStatement The applicant,theNorthCountrySportsman’s Club,Inc.,with120 the club completes these remedial measures, the matter will be closed; if not, the club the clubcompletestheseremedial measures,thematterwillbeclosed;ifnot,club Discontinuance doesrequirethe clubtoundertakeparticularremedialmeasures.If of Discontinuancedoesnotinclude thepaymentofanyfines.TheAssurance Assurance ofDiscontinuancewas executedonNovember16,2018.TheAssurance Resources relatedtothecontinued effortsbytheClubtoaddressleaddeposits.The has negotiatedanAssuranceofDiscontinuancewiththeAgency ofNatural there isamaterialchangeintheamountofactivityatclub.The applicant cite theapplicantforviolatingTown ofWilliston’s noiseordinanceunless that theapplicantenterintoanagreementastooperatinghours norcanit ruled intheapplicant’s favor. Asaresult,theTown ofWilliston cannotmandate appellee’s briefonemonththereafter. OnJune2,2017,theVermont Supreme Court Court. Theapplicant’s appellatebriefwasfiledonDecember7,2016andthe October 26,2016,theapplicantfiledanoticeofappealto Vermont Supreme shooting field was impractical, prohibitively expensive, and beyond the club’s means. with theordinance’s noiserestrictions.Thejudge’s advice,toenclosetheskeet Williston noiseordinance.Contrarytothejudge’s dicta,theclub cannotcomply club couldstillberequiredtomeetthenoiserestrictionsimposedbyTown of to enterintosuchanagreement.However, thejudgealsostated,indicta,that Court heldthattheTown ofWilliston didnothavetherighttocompel the club asking theVermont SuperiorCourttofindtheregulationinvalid.The into anagreement.Theclubthenfiledacomplaintfordeclaratoryinjunction, attorney arguedthattheTown ofWilliston hadnorighttocompeltheclubenter into anagreementwiththeTown ofWilliston aspertheordinance.Theclub’s the clubisonlyentitledtostatelawpreemptionprotectionifenters ordinance, thattheclub’s activitiesviolatedthatordinance’s noiselevels,andthat the absenceofanagreementastooperatinghours,clubwassubjectnoise violation oftheTown’s NoiseOrdinance.”TheTown ofWilliston contendedthatin greement wasterminated,onMay6and10,2015,theTown citedthe[c]lubfor terms, andnonewagreementwasexecutedbytheparties.“Shortlyafter[a] of operationandthenumberspecialevents.Theclubdidnotagreetothesenew The newagreementproposedbytheTown soughttofurtherlimittheclub’s hours by eitherparty. In2014,theTown askedtheclubtorenegotiateagreement. This agreementautomaticallyrenewedeachyear, andcouldbecancelledvianotice and requiringtheclubtoprovideadvancenoticeTown ofanyspecialevents. limiting theclub’s hoursofoperation,reducingthenumbereventsatclub, Control Ordinance§6.13(2004). be determinedthroughawrittenagreementwiththeTown.” Williston, Vt.,Noise sport shootingusespermittedpriortoJanuary1,2005,thehoursofoperationwill sport shootingconsistentwithanypermittingconditionsplacedonsuchuse.For (2004).” Theordinancespecificallyexcludes:“[t]heuseoffirearms…whenusedfor vicinity ofthenoiseordisturbance.Williston, Vt.,NoiseControlOrdinance§4 endangers thecomfort,health,peace,orsafetyofotherswithinimmediate unnecessary, unreasonablyloudnoiseordisturbance,whichdisturbs,destroys, On October25,2016,theCourtenteredfinaljudgmentin matter. On The applicantenteredintoanagreementwiththeTown ofWilliston in2007, 25 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES 26 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES decibels (dB)duringoperatinghours. Sixtyfivedecibelsisthenoiselevelallegedly County PlanningCommissionthat thePNTC’s goalwasto bebelowsixty-five(65) concerns. Theplaintiffsalsoallege thatthePNTCrepresentedtoBerkeley stewardship planandpromisedto be“sensitivetoneighbors”regardingtheirnoise shooting range.Theplaintiffsallege thatthePNTCprovidedanenvironmental PNTC appliedtotheBerkeleyCountyPlanningCommissionfor approvalofthe property in1976.ThePNTCopenedSeptember2011.Priorto construction,the enjoyment oftheirproperty. Theplaintiffspurchasedtheir FrederickCounty, Va. Frederick County, Va., andallegethatthe activityatPNTCisanuisancetothe and hasapproximately1,000members. national firearmscompetitionsandtrainingevents.Therangeis opentothepublic firearm trainingcenterlocatedinBerkeleyCounty, W Va. ThePNTChosts civil action.ThePNTC’s rangeisanationallyrecognizedshootingand collectively referredtoas“PNTC”)aretheDefendantsinabove-referenced Properties, LLCandPeacemakerNationalTraining Center, LLC(hereinafter Peacemaker NationalTrainingCenter,LLC. Ben andDianeGoldsteinv.PeacemakerProperties,LLC, WEST VIRGINIA Mitchell, etal.v.Atkins,al WASHINGTON abandoned.” to thenegotiatedresolutionappeared…andversionwas opponents greater numberofpermittedevents.TherewasanagreementwiththeTown, but can hostannually. TheClubisseekingtoremovethisrestrictionornegotiatea include everythingfromcorporateoutingstogunsafetycourses,whichtheClub noise ordinancethatincludesrestrictionsonthenumberofspecialevents,which Environmental Division:“TheTown ofWilliston isstillconsideringanamended for PermissiveInterventioninAssuranceofDiscontinuancetheSuperiorCourt, the clubdown.OnJanuary15,2019,theseneighborsfiledanAmendedMotion of Discontinuance,seekingtheimpositionmorepunitivefinesthatcouldshut will besubjecttofines.NeighborsoftheclubhavesoughtchallengeAssurance Discovery isongoingandcontended. not protectWashington firearmsdealersfrom Washington lawsthatburdenthem. on lackofstanding,harm,andthattheinterstatecommerceclausedoes to anon-residentofthestate.Theplaintiffshavedefeatedmotionsdismissbased a personbetween18and21yearsold,bansthesaleofanysemiautomaticrifle had passed.Amongotherthingsthelawbanssaleofanysemiautomaticrifleto filed alawsuitchallenging Washington Stateantiguninitiative(I-1638)which Association ofAmerica,theSecondAmendmentFoundation,andlocalactivists The plaintiffs,BenandDianeGoldstein,resideacrossthestateborder in On November15,2018,theNationalRifle The applicants,Peacemaker similar tothePNTC.TheCourt deniedtheapplicants’motiontodismissand soundssubstantially the PNTCandplaintiffs’property andallegedlyproduce Defense Range,noranynumber ofhomeranges,allwhicharelocatednear indispensable party. The plaintiffs’complaintdidnotincludetheShadowHawk Rule 19oftheWest Virginia RulesofCivilProcedureforthefailure tojoinan attorney arguedthattheplaintiffs’complaintshouldbedismissed pursuantto page, announcingthat“[a]tlonglast—Peacemakerisopen!”The applicants’ 22, 2011,basedonaSeptember2011FacebookpostthePNTC Facebook plaintiffs’ attorneycontendsthatthePNTCwasnotestablished untilSeptember therefore barredbythestatuteoflimitationsunderWest Virginia law. However, the September 18,2015.Theapplicants’attorneyarguesthattheplaintiffs’ complaintis activity attherangebeganinApril2011.Theplaintiffsfiledtheir complainton range. W. Va. §61-6-23(c).” Code establishment oftherangeortwoyearsafterasubstantialchange inuseofthe for noiseagainstthatrangeonlyiftheactionisbroughtwithinfour yearsafter established afterthepersonacquiredpropertymaymaintain a nuisanceaction law: “[A]personwhoownedpropertyinthevicinityofashootingrangethatwas the plaintiffs’claimisbarredbystatuteoflimitations.UnderWest Virginia at thetimeofitsestablishment.Further, evenifWest Virginia lawweretoapply, any noisecontrolstandardsapplicabletothePNTC,asnoneappliedPNTC Therefore, theapplicants’attorneyarguedthatunderVirginia lawtherecannotbe County’s ordinanceapplies.Theplaintiffs’propertyisnotinanyofthesezones. County, Va., noiseordinancecontainedalistofdifferentzonesinwhichthe established. Further, atthetimeofPNTC’s establishment,theFrederick Va., noiseordinanceexpresslyexcludedshootingrangeswhenthePNTCwas effect atitsdate.”Va. Ann.§15.2-917.TheBerkeleyCounty, Code W. a sportshootingrangetonoisecontrolstandardsmorestringentthanthosein any suchclaimsarebarredbythestatuteoflimitations. argues thatthePNTCiseitherexemptfromanyrelevantnoiseordinances,or regardless ofwhichstate’s lawthecourtdecidestoapply, theapplicants’attorney largely locatedinWest Virginia. Choiceoflawisdisputedinthismatter. However, Noise Ordinance.Theplaintiffs’residenceislocatedinVirginia, andthePNTCis Winchester, Va., NoiseControlOrdinance,aswelltheBerkeleyCounty, W. Va., the CircuitCourtofBerkeleyCounty, WVa., allegingviolationsofboththeCity ninety-four (94)decibels(dB),whichisloudenoughtodamagehumanhearing. Additionally, soundsasloud theplaintiffsallegethatPNTChasproduced weekends andweekdays,aslate7:30p.m.onbothweekdays. published hoursofoperation,includingallowingshootingasearly7a.m.onboth also contendthat,despitetheallegedpromises,PNTChasdeviatedfromits to theneighboringcommunity’s allegedconcernsovernoiselevels.Theplaintiffs allege thatthePNTCagreedtoamendPNTC’s hoursofoperationinresponse associated withthesoundofanormalhumanconversation.Further, plaintiffs The PNTCwasestablishedasacompanyanLLCinJuneof2010. Shooting Under Virginia law, “[n]olocalordinanceregulatinganynoiseshallsubject On September18,2015,theplaintiffsfiledaprivatenuisanceagainstPNTCin filed anuisanceclaimin Virginia. nuisance beingclaimed;and(c) theextentofdamagesallegedlyincurred. on September21,2015whentheir suitwasfiled;(b)thenatureandextentof for bringingthisnuisanceclaimunderW.Va. §61-6-23 asthesamestood Code Goldsteins’ nuisanceclaimisbarredbythe4-yearstatuteoflimitations ineffect will needtobeconductedbythepartiesdetermineinteralia,(a)whether wereenrolled…[A]dditionaldiscovery which theamendmentstoWVCode potential exposureasrespectssuchclaimswhichwerevestedof thedateon Legislature couldnotretroactivelybar, allshootingrangesinWest Virginia have claim seekingmoneydamagesconstitutedavestedpropertyright whichtheWV of PNTC’s legaloperations.SincetheSupremeCourtruledthatanuisance damages foranallegednuisancecausedbytheshootingrange’s operationsregardless constitutes aprivatenuisanceandthattheGoldsteinsshouldrecover money range constitutesaprivatenuisanceandthattheGoldsteins’claim thatitsrange for moneydamages…PNTCremainsexposedtotheGoldsteins’ claimthatits to theCircuitCourt“toresumeproceedingsinPetitioners’nuisanceclaim not eliminatebyretroactivelegislation.TheCourtthereforremandedthecase for moneydamageswasavestedpropertyrightwhichtheWVLegislaturecould 2017 amendmentofW.Va. §61-6-23andthatsuchaccruednuisanceclaim Code adequately pledaclaimformoneydamageswhichaccruedpriortothe litigation misconduct.However, theCourtfoundthatGoldsteinshad the Goldsteins’feepetitionandmotionforsanctionsagainstPNTCalleged court’s dismissalofthenuisanceclaimseekinginjunctivereliefanditsdenial Court forfurtherproceedingsondamages,ifany.” enactment oftherangeprotectionstatute.ThecasewillberemandedtoCircuit to anymonetarydamagesthattheGoldsteinsmayhavesufferedprior However, theSupremeCourtfurtherreversedCircuitCourt’s Orderasrelated Goldsteins arenotentitledtofees/costsasrelatedthediscoverydispute.... that itdoesindeedbartheGoldsteins’requestforaninjunctionand Circuit Court’s Orderfindingthattherangeprotectionstatuteisconstitutional, and remanded.Theformerattorneyinforms:“TheSupremeCourthasaffirmedthe the SupremeCourtofAppealsWest Virginia affirmedinpart,reversed 2017. Theapplicants’responsewasfiledonJanuary26,2018.OnMarch15,2019, Supreme CourtofAppealsWest Virginia. TheirbriefwasfiledonDecember12, summary judgmentinfavorofthedefendants.TheGoldsteinsappealedto applicants filedamotionforsummaryjudgment.InAugust2017,thecourtgranted which providesimmunityincasessuchasthis.Baseduponthisnewlaw, the trial court.Discoverywascontested. denied thismotionandthechoiceoflawquestionremainedpendingbefore the choiceoflawissuetoWest Virginia SupremeCourt.Afterbriefing,Court applicants filedananswertothecomplaint.Theamotioncertify In additiontothisWest Virginia litigation,inMayof2017,theplaintiffs also The newattorneyinforms:“…[T]heSupremeCourtaffirmedthelower A newrangeprotectionlawcameintoeffectinWest Virginia onJuly3,2017, Wyoming Statute§35-21-106(b). protective ordereachyear, Cause”isnotdefinedin asthestatuterequires.“Good cause”torevisea guidance indecidingwhethertherehasbeenashowingof“good Supreme Courthasnotconsideredacaselikethisandassuchthe courtshaveno Supreme CourttobypasstheDistrictandhearthisappeal. TheWyoming The divorcedecreespecifieswhatconductispermissiblebetween theparties. does nowispreventMr. Lopezfromshootingorpossessingfirearmsandhunting. Lopez innocentoftheactsallegedbyhiswife.Theonlything protectiveorder evidence, theJudgeextendedprotectiveordereventhougha juryhadfoundMr. in Jackson,Wyo., afterApril18,2016.Despitethecompletelack of anycredible sometime inApril2016,fivetosixmonthsbeforethemotionwas filed. entirely unsupportedorcorroboratedaboutabriefencounterthatallegedlyoccurred only newevidencepresentedwasthestatementofMr. Lopez’s wife,whichwas order foranotheryear, andonDecember19,2016,anotherhearingwasheld.The applicant frompossessinganyfirearmsorhuntingbows. divorce case,thejudgeissuedanamendedprotectiveorderthatalsoprecluded Court’s protectiveorderconflictedwiththeordersofDistrictCourtin wife weredivorcedintheDistrictCourtofTeton County. BecausethelowerCircuit gave herthefingerashedrovedownhighway. Subsequently, Mr. Lopezandhis another year. Thebasisforthatorderwasherallegationhesloweddownand order orthreatenedtheapplicant’s wife,thejudgeextendedprotectiveorderfor and, despiteherlackofanyevidencethattheapplicanthadviolatedprotective she hadobtainedinNovember2014.Ahearingwasheldonthemotiontorenew wife filedamotioninthe Teton CountyCircuitCourttorenewaprotectiveorder charges afterathree-dayjurytrialinAprilof2015.InOctober2015,Mr. Lopez’s abuse andaggravatedassaultagainstMr. Lopez.Hewasfoundnotguiltyofthe these allegations.TheTeton Countyprosecutorbroughtfelonychargesofchild pulled thetrigger, andthattheapplicanthithisminorchild.Theapplicantsdenied 2014, Mr. Lopez’s wifeallegedthathehadputanunloadedguntoherheadand working asanelectricianspecialistinGrandTeton NationalPark.InNovember had beenan11-yearNationalParkServiceemployeewithsecurityclearance, collected overtheyears.Mr. Lopezis51yearsoldand,upuntilNovember2014, years, thusdeprivinghimofhisrightstopossessandusethemanyfirearmshehas County, Wyo., issuedaprotectiveorderagainsttheapplicantforpastthree Jose AntonioLopezv.StateofWyoming WYOMING A NoticeofAppealwasfiled.Mr. Lopezplanstopetitionthe Wyoming Mr. Lopezdeniedtheallegationsandpresentedevidencethathenolongerlived On September27,2016,Mr. Lopez’s wifefiledamotiontoextendtheprotective The CircuitCourtinTeton 27 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund offers many flexible options for individuals, organizations, and companies to support the Fund’s work through charitable Workplace Giving Campaigns giving. Call 1-877-NRA GIVE (1-877-672-4483) for details on the options Workplace giving campaigns offer a convenient way to make payroll deduction available. These include:. contributions to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. In 2018, donors contributed generously through workplace giving campaigns. These contributions represent support from thousands of individual employees across the country, Direct Contribution and in the case of federal employees, around the world. Workplace giving By check or credit card, this is the easiest way to contribute to the Fund. campaigns include the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC); State, City, and Local Government Campaigns; The United Way Campaign and other workplace Online Contribution giving programs. Through our secure server, cyber donors are giving to the Fund by visiting COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN (CFC #10006) www.nradefensefund.org. The Combined Federal Campaign is the only authorized solicitor of employee

WAYS OF WAYS GIVING contributions in the federal workplace. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is considered a National Unaffiliated Organization and can be found in that section Matching Gifts of the CFC campaign booklet. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund currently Many corporations will match their employees’ gifts to charitable organizations, receives donor designations from more than 200 federal workplace campaigns. effectively doubling or tripling your charitable contribution. Donors should check with their personnel office and follow directions to initiate a match. STATE, CITY, & LOCAL GOVERNMENT For a complete list of companies, contact the Office of Advancement at EMPLOYEE CAMPAIGNS 877-NRA-GIVE. Employees of these agencies may also contribute to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund at their workplace if the Fund meets the agencies’ eligibility criteria. Specifically designating the Fund in campaigns where eligibility has not Gifts of Stocks, Bonds, and Other Securities yet been determined is often the catalyst for the Fund becoming eligible. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund welcomes gifts of stocks, bonds, and other securities. A gift of appreciated securities allows you to take an income tax deduction for the fair market value of the asset to the extent allowable by law, Tribute Gifts regardless of the original purchase price. Through a Special Tribute gift, your thoughtfulness can help sustain our Second Amendment freedoms for the future, while serving as a fitting tribute to an individual who has cherished these freedoms throughout their life. Special Tribute gifts can be made in memory of a deceased loved one, to celebrate a special occasion, or in honor of an important accomplishment.

28 Bequest language to benefit the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund endowment is Wills and Bequests as follows: I give, devise, and bequeath to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, After personal and family needs are met, donors can bequeath a specific amount 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030, the sum of $ ______(or here or a percentage of their remainder estate to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. otherwise describe the gift) for the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund Endowment. Contributions by bequest are deductible from the taxable estate as a charitable gift. As an alternative, the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund can be named a contingent beneficiary in the event the first-named beneficiary(ies) should not Other Planned Giving live to receive the inheritance. If your will is already prepared, a simple codicil The Fund offers several other options in addition to wills and bequests for (a supplement or addition) can be added to the existing document. individuals to make a planned gift. An individual can provide a bright future for our firearms heritage through trusts, or through charitable gift annuities which Since local laws differ, a professional advisor should be contacted for the can provide the donor needed income and a generous tax deduction. The Fund preparation of all wills and trusts. As a reference, the NRA Civil Rights Defense stands ready to assist you in the selection of what type of gift will work best to Fund recommends that supporters consider the following language for use help you meet your charitable giving goals. in their wills. A LEAVE LEGACY Contributions to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund are tax-deductible to the fullest General bequest language is as follows: I give, devise, and bequeath to the NRA extent of the law. The Fund is recognized as a 501(c)(3) entity under the Internal Civil Rights Defense Fund, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030, the sum Revenue Code. of $______(or here otherwise describe the gift) for its general purposes as such shall be determined by its Board of Trustees. The Fund’s mailing address is: 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030. Credit card contributions may be made by telephoning 1-877-NRA GIVE (1-877-672-4483), or make an online contribution through our secure server by visiting www.nradefensefund.org.

To learn more about how you can ensure the Fund’s future with a planned or strategic gift, please call (877) NRA-GIVE (672-4483).

29 30 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS effectiveness oftheentity’s internalcontrol.Accordingly, weexpressnosuch in thecircumstances,butnotforpurposeofexpressingan opiniononthe financial statementsinordertodesignauditproceduresthat areappropriate control relevanttotheentity’s preparationandfairpresentationofthe fraud orerror. Inmaking thoseriskassessments,theauditorconsidersinternal risks ofmaterialmisstatementthefinancialstatements,whether dueto selected dependontheauditor’s judgment,includingtheassessmentof the amountsanddisclosuresinfinancialstatements.The procedures whether thefinancialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement. that weplanandperformtheaudittoobtainreasonableassurance about generally acceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thosestandards require on ouraudit.We conductedouraudit inaccordancewithauditingstandards Our responsibilityistoexpressanopiniononthesefinancialstatementsbased Responsibility Auditor’s material misstatement,whetherduetofraudorerror. preparation andfairpresentationoffinancialstatementsthatarefreefrom implementation, andmaintenanceofinternalcontrolrelevanttothe generally acceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica;thisincludesdesign, of thesefinancialstatementsinaccordancewithaccountingprinciples Management isresponsibleforthepreparationandfairpresentation Financial Statements Responsibility the for Management’s notes tothefinancialstatements. Functional Expenses,andCashFlowsfortheyearthenended,related Position asofDecember31,2019,andtherelatedStatementsActivities, Rights DefenseFund(theFund),whichcomprisetheStatementofFinancial We haveauditedtheaccompanyingfinancialstatementsofTheNRACivil Financial Statements onthe Report FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA NRA CIVILRIGHTSDEFENSEFUND To ofTrustees Board Independent Auditor’sReport An auditinvolvesperformingprocedurestoobtainevidence about

March 11,2020 Rockville, Maryland opinion onthosestatements. by otherauditorswhosereportdatedMarch13,2019,expressed anunmodified The financialstatementsoftheFundasDecember31,2018, wereaudited PeriodPrior Financial Statements with respecttothismatter. Contributions ReceivedandMade.Ouropinionisnotmodified Update No.2018-08–ClarifyingtheScopeandAccountingGuidancefor As discussedinNote1,2019,theFundadoptedAccountingStandards ofMatter Emphasis States ofAmerica. in accordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedtheUnited and thechangesintheirnetassetscashflowsforyearthenended material respects,thefinancialpositionofFundasDecember31,2019, In ouropinion,thefinancialstatementsreferredtoabovepresentfairly, inall Opinion appropriate toprovideabasisforourauditopinion. statements. by management,aswellevaluatingtheoverallpresentationoffinancial policies usedandthereasonablenessofsignificantaccountingestimatesmade opinion. Anauditalsoincludesevaluatingtheappropriatenessofaccounting We believethattheauditevidencewehaveobtainedissufficientand THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AREANINTEGRALPART OFTHESEFINANCIALSTATEMENTS. AS OFDECEMBER31,2019AND2018 ofFinancial Position Statements NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund With donor-restrictions Without donor-restrictions Assets Net Annuities payable Accounts payable Liabilities Split interestagreements Other assets Due fromaffiliates Pledges andcontributionsreceivable,net Investments Cash Assets Total liabilitiesandnetassets Total netassets Total liabilities Total assets $ $ $ $ 9,064,092 8,707,913 9,064,092 2019 5,300,757 3,407,156 2,346,661 1,013,393 4,324,696 356,179 138,570 217,609 823,445 113,902 441,995 $ $ $ $ 7,676,958 7,470,291 7,676,958 2018 4,256,829 3,213,462 2,558,868 3,692,026 206,667 151,367 658,516 107,757 600,423 55,300 59,368 31 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 32 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THEYEARENDEDDECEMBER31,2019 ofActivities Statement NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund End ofyear Beginning ofyear Assets Net Assets InNet Change Fundraising Administrative Program Expenses Net assetsreleasedfromrestrictions Other Income Change invalueofsplitinterestagreements Net investmentincome Contributions Revenue Support andOther THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AREANINTEGRALPART OFTHESEFINANCIALSTATEMENTS. Total expenses Total revenueandothersupport Without Donor $ Restrictions $ 3,407,156 1,061,154 1,254,848 3,213,462 193,694 976,500 133,342 577,971 539,515 82,147 2,507 4,020 — $ $ With Donor 5,300,757 1,043,928 Restrictions 4,256,829 1,043,928 (133,342) 164,929 374,727 637,614 2019 — — — — — $ $ 8,707,913 1,061,154 2,298,776 7,470,291 1,237,622 1,177,129 976,500 164,929 952,698 Total 82,147 2,507 4,020 — FOR THEYEARENDEDDECEMBER31,2018 ofActivities Statement NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund End ofyear Beginning ofyear Assets Net Assets InNet Change Fundraising Administrative Program Expenses Net assetsreleasedfromrestrictions Other Income Change invalueofsplitinterestagreements Net investmentloss Contributions Revenue Support andOther THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AREANINTEGRALPART OFTHESEFINANCIALSTATEMENTS. Total expenses Total revenueandothersupport Without Donor $ Restrictions $ 3,213,462 3,436,839 (223,377) (255,489) 794,420 571,043 727,932 138,889 687,643 63,403 3,085 — — $ $ With Donor 4,256,829 Restrictions 3,292,061 1,273,418 2018 (138,889) 964,768 964,768 (73,902) (95,859) — — — — — $ $

7,470,291 1,535,811 6,728,900 1,961,061 (351,348) 794,420 727,932 741,391 (73,902) Total 63,403 3,085 — — 33 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 34 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THEYEARSENDEDDECEMBER31,2019AND2018 Expenses ofFunctional Statements NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund Other Meetings Bank feesandservices Office supplies Information technology Printing andpublications Legal, auditandfilingfees Grants andassistance Other Meetings Bank feesandservices Office supplies Information technology Printing andpublications Legal, auditandfilingfees Grants andassistance THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AREANINTEGRALPART OFTHESEFINANCIALSTATEMENTS. Total Total $ $ $ $ 976,500 727,932 Program Program 966,500 717,932 10,000 10,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — Administrative Administrative $ $ $ $ 82,147 63,403 20,692 42,923 10,000 18,003 18,411 2,763 7,250 4,128 4,391 2,914 6,106 4,234 3,735 — — — 2019 2018 $ $ Fundraising $ $ Fundraising 2,507 2,502 3,085 1,251 1,829 — — — — — — 5 — — — — — 5 $ $ $ $ 1,061,154 794,420 966,500 717,932 20,692 52,923 10,005 18,003 28,411 5,265 7,250 4,128 4,391 4,165 6,106 4,234 5,564 Total Total 5 THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AREANINTEGRALPART OFTHESEFINANCIALSTATEMENTS. FOR THEYEARSENDEDDECEMBER31,2019AND2018 ofCashFlowsStatements NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund End ofyear Beginning ofyear Cash InCash Decrease Net Payments onannuityobligations Proceeds fromcontributionsrestrictedfor: Cash Flows Financing Activities From Proceeds fromsalesofinvestments Purchases ofinvestments Cash Flows Investing From Activities used inoperatingactivities: Adjustments toreconcilechangeinnetassetscash Change innetassets Cash Flows Activities Operating From Investment inendowment Changes inoperatingassetsandliabilities: (Increase) decreaseinvalueofsplitinterestagreements Net realizedgainoninvestments Net unrealized(gain)lossoninvestments Net increaseininvestmentendowment Increase inaccountspayable Increase inotherassets Decrease (increase)inamountsduefromaffiliates (Increase) decreaseinpledgesandcontributionsreceivable Net cashprovidedbyfinancingactivities Net cashprovidedby(usedin)investingactivities Net cashusedinoperatingactivities $ $ (310,583) 1,237,622 2019 (158,428) (954,025) (164,929) (768,745) 441,995 149,417 600,423 162,598 162,309 212,207 (12,797) (13,181) (13,342) (15,535) 15,535 (6,145) 2,738 $ $ (1,464,150) (1,984,770) (304,070) (673,612) 1,572,772 1,160,080 2018 (972,349) 600,423 585,947 741,391 (11,643) (16,548) (88,760) (16,976) 16,976 11,340 20,862 73,902 5,333 35 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 36 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Fund mayhavefundsondeposit exceedingtheinsurancelimitsofFederal Washington, DC,metropolitanarea.Duringthenormal courseofbusiness,the The Fundmaintainsitscashaccountsinonecommercialbank locatedinthe Risk ofCredit Concentration restrictions, basedontheexistenceorabsenceofdonor-imposed restrictions. two separateclassesofnetassets:withoutdonor-restrictions, andwithdonor- the resourcesavailabletoFund,accountsofFundaremaintainedin To identifytheobservanceoflimitationsandrestrictions placedontheuseof Assets Net of Classification those estimates. reported amountsanddisclosures.Accordingly, actualresultscoulddifferfrom requires managementtomakeestimatesandassumptionsthataffectcertain accounting principlesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica accounting. Thepreparationoffinancialstatementsinconformitywith The financialstatementshavebeenpreparedontheaccrualbasisof Basis ofPresentation from generalcontributions. bear armsinafreesociety. TheFundreceivesthemajorityofitsoperatingfunds of thehuman,civil,and/orconstitutionalrightsindividualtokeepand as anonprofitorganizationtovoluntarilyassistinthepreservationanddefense NRA CivilRightsDefenseFund(the“Fund”)wasorganizedonJuly 22,1978, NatureofActivitiesandSignificant 1. maintained inperpetuity. are perpetualinnature,wherebythedonorhasstipulated fundsbe actions oftheFundpursuanttothosestipulations.Otherdonor-restrictions they eitherexpirebypassageoftimeorcanbefulfilledandremoved by imposed stipulations.Someoftheserestrictionsaretemporary inthat of assetswhoseusebytheFundforitsprogramsarelimited donor- Net assetswithdonor-restrictions representcontributions andotherinflows the Fund’s generaloperations. restricted bydonor-imposed stipulations.Theyareavailableforsupportof Net assetswithoutdonor-restrictions representresourcesthatarenot Accounting Policies applied rangedfrom1.83%to 1.92% fortheyearendedDecember31,2019, been recordedatthepresentvalue ofestimatedcashflows.Thediscountrate present valueofsplitinterestagreement.Thereceivablefrom thetrustshas and itsactuariallycomputedvalueateachyearendisrecorded aschangesin of eachyear. Thedifference betweentheamountreceivedforagreement asset basedontheactuariallycomputedfairvalueandadjusted asoftheend upon expirationofthetrusts.Splitinterestagreementsarerecorded asan has theirrevocablerighttoreceiveaportionofremaining trustassets agreements heldbyathirdparty. Underthetermsofagreements, Fund The Fundisthebeneficiaryundertwocharitableremainder unitrust Agreements Split Interest judgment ofpotentialdefaults. pledges andcontributionsreceivableisprovidedbaseduponmanagement’s ofonetofiveyears.Anallowanceforuncollectible overaperiod future periods, measurable bequestproceedsduetotheFundanddonorpromisesgivein Unconditional pledgesandcontributionsreceivableconsistofirrevocable Receivable andContributions Pledges revenue andothersupportinthestatementsofactivities. of theinvestmentstotheirfairvalue,changeinvalueisincluded determined bythespecific-identificationmethod. Toadjustthecarryingvalue Incalculatingrealizedgainsandlosses,thecostofsecuritiessoldis the period. independent marketvaluationserviceusingtheclosingpricesatendof fixed incomesecuritieswhicharecarriedatfairvalue,asdeterminedbyan Investments consistprimarilyofmoneymarketfunds,equitysecurities,and Investments investment balancesandtheamountsreportedinfinancialstatements. reasonably possiblethatchangesinrisktheneartermwouldmateriallyaffect uncertainty relatedtochangesinthevalueofsuchinvestments,itisatleast Due tothelevelofriskassociatedwithsuchinvestments,and Such investmentsareexposedtovariousrisks,suchasmarketandcredit. contains moneymarketfunds,equitysecurities,andfixedincomesecurities. losses. some degreeofcreditrisk,althoughtheFundhasnotexperiencedanysuch only financiallysoundinstitutions.Nevertheless,thesedepositsaresubjectto Deposit InsuranceCorporation.TheFund’s policyistodepositthesefundsin The Fundinvestsinaprofessionallymanagedportfoliothatprimarily recognized untiltheconditionsonwhichtheydependaresubstantially met. allowance foruncollectibleamounts.Conditionalpromisesto givearenot in thestatementsofactivitiesasnetassetsreleasedfromrestrictions. restrictions arereclassifiedtonetassetswithoutdonor andreported restriction endsorpurposeisaccomplished),netassets withdonor nature ofrestriction.Whenarestrictionexpires(thatis,when astipulatedtime reported asanincreaseinnetassetswithdonorrestrictions,depending onthe the contributionisrecognized.Allotherdonorrestrictedcontributions are inwhich donor restrictionsiftherestrictionexpiresinreportingperiod that arerestrictedbythedonorreportedasanincreaseinnetassetswithout gift orpledgeandclassifiedintheappropriatenetassetcategory. Contributions restrictions, arerecognizedasrevenueuponnotificationoftheunconditional Unconditional contributions,whetherwithoutdonorrestrictionsorwith Revenue Recognition bequest andtheproceedsaremeasurable. of suchamountsisnotrecordeduntiltheFundhasanirrevocablerightto realizable amountsofwhicharenotpresentlydeterminable.TheFund’s share The Fundisthebeneficiaryundervariouswillsandtrustagreements,total Legacies Outstanding ranged from1.4%to3.2%. ended December31,2019,and2018,thediscountrateapplied and itsactuariallycomputedliabilityisrecordedasrevenue.Forboththeyears the timeofgift.Thedifferencebetweenamountreceivedforcontract contracts arerecordedasaliabilitybasedontheactuariallycomputedvalueat assets uponterminationofthecontract.Amountspayableunderannuity contracts, theFundhasirrevocablerighttoreceiveremainingcontract Donors haveestablishedandfundedgiftannuitycontracts.Undertermsofthe PayableAnnuities 7 and11fortheyearendedDecember31,2018. future lifeexpectanciesof6and10fortheyearendedDecember31,2019, and 2.59%to2.69%fortheyearendedDecember31,2018,incorporated Pledges receivablearestatedattheestimatednetpresentvalue, netofan fair values, addresses impairment issues related to equity securities and modifies fair values,addressesimpairment issuesrelatedtoequitysecuritiesandmodifies provides analternativevaluationforsecuritieswithoutreadily determinable equity investments(otherthanthosedisclosedunderthe method), included intheASU,updateeliminatesclassificationdistinctions for forusersoffinancialinformation.Amongtheguidanceimprovements model Instruments –Overall(Subtopic825-10),whichimprovesthe reporting Measurement ofFinancialAssetsandLiabilities, During 2019,theFundadoptedASUNo.2016-01–Recognition and Pronouncements Accounting Adopted supporting activities. recorded directly, withnofurtherallocationsbetweenprogramservicesand accounted foronafunctionalbasisinthestatementsofactivities.Allcostsare The costsofprovidingprogramservicesandsupportingactivitieshavebeen ofExpenses Allocation Functional financial statementstocomplywiththeprovisionsofthisguidance. Fund hadtakennouncertaintaxpositionsthatrequireadjustmenttothe in process. Currently,statute oflimitationslook-backperiod. therearenoexaminations year remainopenforexaminationbytaxauthorities,whichisthestandard Taxand accountingininterimperiods. yearsfrom2016throughthecurrent addresses de-recognition,classification,interestandpenaltiesonincometaxes, settlement. Theguidanceonaccountingforuncertaintyinincometaxesalso ofbeingrealizeduponultimate benefit thathasagreaterthan50%likelihood financial statementsfromsuchapositionaremeasuredbasedonthelargest on thetechnicalmeritsofposition.Thetaxbenefitsrecognizedin the taxpositionwillbesustainedonexaminationbytaxingauthorities,based benefit fromanuncertaintaxpositiononlyifitismore-likely-than-notthat financial statements.Underthisguidance,theFundmayrecognizetax claimed orexpectedtobeonataxreturnshouldrecordedinthe in incometaxes,whichaddressesthedeterminationofwhethertaxbenefits not classifiedasaprivatefoundation. andfromstateincometaxes.Inaddition,theFundis Internal RevenueCode The FundisexemptfromFederalincometaxesunderSection501(c)(3)ofthe Tax Status Management evaluatedtheFund’s taxpositionsandconcludedthatthe The Fundfollowstheaccountingstandardonforuncertainty 37 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 38 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS those restrictions. income fromdonorrestrictedendowmentsandcontributions, insatisfactionof as itsgeneraloperatingexpensescomedue.Thisincludesthe appropriationof The Fundmaintainsapolicyofstructuringitsfinancialassets tobeavailable 2. AvailabilityandLiquidity date thefinancialstatementswereavailabletobeissued. The FundevaluatedsubsequenteventsthroughMarch11,2020, whichisthe EventsSubsequent Revenue Recognition. with theFund’s underASC 605 historicrevenuerecognition methodology amountsarenotadjustedandcontinuetobereportedinaccordance period beginning afterJanuary1,2019,arepresentedunderASC606,whileprior Resultsforreportingperiods retrospectivemethod. ASC 606usingthemodified significant changesinthewayFundrecognizesrevenue.Theadopted profit entities.Analysisofthevariousprovisionsthisstandardresultedinno comparability ofrevenuerecognitionpracticesacrossfor-profit andnot-for- provides theframeworkforrecognizingrevenueandisintendedtoimprove Contracts withCustomers(Topic 606),asamended.This guidance enhanced. revenue; however, thepresentationanddisclosuresofrevenuehasbeen standard resultedinnosignificantchangesthewayFundrecognizes and unconditionalcontributions.Analysisofthevariousprovisionsthis contributions, andimproveguidancetobetterdistinguishbetweenconditional regarding theaccountingforgrantsandcontractsasexchangetransactionsor and contributionsmade.Keyprovisionsinthisguidanceincludeclarification improve thescopeandaccountingguidanceforcontributionsreceived Received andContributionsMade.Thisguidanceisintendedtoclarify Clarifying theScopeandAccountingGuidanceforContributions statements. the classificationofinvestmentsdisclosedinaccompanyingfinancial Adoption oftheASU’s amendmentsdidnotaffectamountsreportedor the disclosurerequirementsassociatedwithdebtsecuritiesheldtomaturity. The tablebelowrepresentstheFund’s financialassetsavailabletomeet During 2019,theFundadoptedASUNo.2014-09–Revenuefrom During 2019,theFundadoptedASUNo.2018-08–Not-for-Profit Entities: Total Net unrealizedgain(loss)oninvestments Net realizedgainoninvestments Interest/dividend income Total Fixed incomesecurities Equity securities Money market general expenditureswithinoneyear Financial assetsavailabletomeet to beusedwithinoneyear Financial assetsnotavailable to beusedwithinoneyear: Less amountsnotavailable Total financialassets Financial assetsatyear-end: Investment income(loss)iscomposedofthefollowing: following: Investments, atfairvalue,asofDecember31,2019and2018consistedthe 3. general expenditureswithinoneyearasofDecember31,2019and2018: Net assetswithdonorrestrictions Pledges andcontributionsreceivable,net Investments Cash andcashequivalents Investments $ $ $ $ 4,324,696 2019 2019 1,809,788 2,401,858 $ $ 952,698 768,745 170,611 113,050 13,342 4,037,226 1,741,858 5,779,084 2019 1,741,858 1,012,393 4,324,696 441,995 $ $ $ $ 3,692,026 2018 2018 (351,348) 1,662,638 1,917,964 (585,947) 145,839 111,424 88,760 $ $ 3,622,241 4,349,817 2018 3,692,026 727,576 727,576 600,423 57,368 Total Less: allowanceonpledgesreceivable One tofiveyears Within oneyear described below: pricing anassetorliability. The threelevelsofthefairvaluehierarchyare Inputs arebroadlydefinedasassumptions marketparticipantswouldusein or liabilities(Level1)andthe lowest prioritytounobservableinputs(Level3). gives thehighestprioritytoquoted pricesinactivemarketsforidenticalassets measurement dateandsetsoutafairvaluehierarchy. Thefairvaluehierarchy transfer aliabilityinanorderlytransactionbetweenmarketparticipants atthe defines fairvalueasthepricethatwouldbereceivedtosell an assetorpaidto topic,FairValueThe FundfollowstheCodification Measurement,which 6. $51,500, respectively. in accountspayableatDecember31,2019and2018were$114,000 and respectively. LegalcostsincurredonBoardapprovedactions,andincluded December 31,2019and2018,$430,833$500,723havebeen committed, program expenseandaliabilityoncelegalworkhasbeenperformed.At are committeduponactionoftheBoard,andsubsequentlybecomea Awards toreimburse legalcostsinassociationwiththeFund’s mission 5. December 31,2018,whichwaslessthan10%oftotal2018revenue. Another donorrepresented84.2%ofpledgesandcontributionsreceivableat at December31,2019,correspondingto26.3%oftotal2019revenue. respectively. $0 wereincludedincontributionsreceivableatDecember31,2019and2018, Proceeds bequeathedandduetotheFundinamountof$1,000,000 promised togiveamountsasfollows: At December31,2019and2018,donorstotheFundhaveunconditionally 4. One donorrepresented98.7%ofpledgesandcontributionsreceivable Fair ValueMeasurements Commitments Pledges andContributionsReceivable $ $ 1,013,393 2019 1,014,143 1,013,143 1,000 750 $ $ 2018 59,368 59,368 57,368 2,000 — recurring basisbylevelwithinthehierarchy. oftimebetweentheiroriginationand expectedrealization. period approximate theirindividualcarryingamountsduetotherelatively short including receivablesandpayablesarisingintheordinarycourse ofoperations, Level 3. measurement isbasedonsignificantunobservableinputsareclassifiedas allassetsandliabilitiesforwhichthefairvalue At eachreportingperiod, of theassetsandliabilitiesthataresubjecttotopicFairValue Measurement. and considersfactorsspecifictotheinvestment. particular inputtothefairvaluemeasurementinitsentiretyrequiresjudgment, to thefairvaluemeasurement.TheFund’s assessmentofthesignificancea the fairvaluehierarchyisbasedonlowestlevelofinputthatsignificant levels ofthefairvaluehierarchy. Insuchcases,aninvestment’s levelwithin In certaincases,theinputsusedtomeasurefairvaluemayfallintodifferent methodologies. orothervaluation fair valueisdeterminedthroughtheuseofmodels observable fortheassetorliability, eitherdirectlyorindirectly;and listed equitiesandderivatives. measurement date.ThetypeofinvestmentsincludedinLevel1include or liabilitiesthatthereportingentityhasabilitytoaccessat The tablesbelowpresentthebalancesofassetsmeasuredatfair valueona The estimatedfairvaluesoftheFund’s short-termfinancialinstruments, In determiningtheappropriatelevels,Fundperformsadetailedanalysis management judgmentorestimation. the bestinformationincircumstancesandmayrequiresignificant liability. The inputsintothedeterminationoffairvaluearebasedupon situations wherethereislittle,ifany, marketactivityfortheassetor LEVEL 2: LEVEL 1: LEVEL 3:

Inputs otherthanquotedpriceswithinLevel1thatare Unadjusted quotedpricesinactivemarketsforidenticalassets Inputs areunobservablefortheassetorliabilityandinclude 39 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 40 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Split interestagreements Money market Total available-for-sale fixedincomesecurities: Available-for-sale fixedincomesecurities: Total available-for-sale equitysecurities Available-for-sale equitysecurities: Total Multi-strategy bondfunds U.S. Treasury securityfunds Multi-strategy mutualfunds Telecommunication services Materials Information technology Industrials Healthcare Financial services Consumer staples Consumer discretionary $ $ 5,148,141 1,809,788 2,401,858 1,329,918 2,211,297 Total 823,445 113,050 479,870 20,001 10,943 49,325 46,531 17,710 12,288 23,802 9,961 $ $ 4,324,696 1,809,788 2,401,858 As ofDecember31, 2019 1,329,918 2,211,297 Level 1 113,050 479,870 20,001 10,943 49,325 46,531 17,710 12,288 23,802 9,961 — $ $ Level 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $ $ Level 3 823,445 823,445 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total available-for-sale equitysecurities Available-for-sale equitysecurities: Split interestagreements Money market Total available-for-sale fixedincomesecurities: Available-for-sale fixedincomesecurities: Multi-strategy mutualfunds Telecommunication services Materials Information technology Industrials Healthcare Financial services Consumer staples Consumer discretionary Total Multi-strategy bondfunds U.S. Treasury securityfunds $ $ 1,662,638 1,917,964 4,350,542 1,764,925 1,195,947 Total 658,516 111,424 466,691 15,323 46,383 14,050 21,829 24,265 17,183 8,398 5,608 $ $ 1,662,638 1,917,964 3,692,026 As ofDecember31, 2018 1,764,925 1,195,947 Level 1 111,424 466,691 15,323 46,383 14,050 21,829 24,265 17,183 8,398 5,608 — $ $ Level 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $ $ Level 3 658,516 658,516 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 41 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 42 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Total Other, includingpassageoftime Endowment earnings–generaloperations Program awards Perpetual innature Split interestagreements,endofyear Change invalue beginning ofyear Split interestagreements, State LawsinJuly2006andenacted intheCommonwealthofVirginia was adoptedbytheNationalConferences ofCommissionersonUniform Prudent ManagementofInstitutional FundsActof2006(UPMIFA), which addresses accountingissuesrelatedtoguidelinesintheUniform Codification subtopicReportingendowmentfunds . The The FundfollowstheCodification Net assetswithdonor-restrictions arerestrictedasfollows: NetAssets with DonorRestrictionsand 7. unobservable inputs: the Fund’s assetsmeasuredatfairvalue onarecurringbasisusingsignificant which maybepresentednet.Thetablebelowrepresentsthereconciliationof category ofassetsandliabilities,exceptforderivative reconciliation ofthebeginningandendingbalances,separatelyforeachmajor significant unobservableinputs(Level3),FairValue Measurement requires active marketareavailable,theFunddoesnotcontrolthoseinvestments. Although thetrustassetsmaybeinvestmentsforwhichquotedpricesinan to receivecashflowsfromthetrusts,notassetsoftruststhemselves. market fortheFund’s interestinthetrusts.Further, theFund’s assetistheright exchanges. classified asLevel1instruments,theyareactivelytradedonpublic For assetsandliabilitiesmeasuredatfairvalueonarecurringbasisusing Split interestagreementsareclassifiedasLevel3instruments,thereisno Money marketfunds,equitysecuritiesandfixedincomeare Endowment Funds $ $ $ $ 5,300,757 2019 2019 1,185,409 3,533,907 823,445 221,339 360,102 164,929 658,516 $ $ $ $ 4,256,829 2018 2018 1,180,504 2,766,807 658,516 166,188 143,330 732,418 (73,902) exemplary activitiesinsupport oftheRighttoKeepandBearArms. in theformofprogramspending, generallyforthepurposeofawarding reflected asnetassetswithdonor-restrictions untilappropriatedforexpenditure designations, respectively. Theearningson donor-restricted endowmentsare donor-restrictions ismadeinaccordancewithdonorstipulationsandBoard original contribution(s).Theamount appropriatedforendowmentswithout preceding year, aslongthevalueofendowmentdoesnotdropbelow ranges from1%to5%oftheendowmentfund’s fairvalueasoftheend amount appropriatedforexpenditurefromendowmentswith donor-restrictions class ofsecuritieswillhaveadisproportionateimpactonthetotal portfolio.The unsystematic riskandtoprovidereasonableassurancethatno singlesecurityor class andwithinassetclasses.Thepurposeofdiversificationis tominimize exceeds spendingpolicyrequirements.Investmentsarediversified bothbyasset is toachieve,ataminimum,real(inflationadjusted)total net returnthat purchasing poweroftheendowmentassets.Theinvestmentpolicy oftheFund to theprogramssupportedbyendowmentwhileseeking maintain endowment assetsthatattempttoprovideapredictablestream offunding The Fundhasadoptedinvestmentandspendingpoliciesfordonor-restricted donor-restricted and/orBoarddesignatedendowmentfunds: following factorsinmakingadeterminationtoappropriateoraccumulate designated purpose.InaccordancewithUPMIFA, theFundconsiders net assetswithoutdonor-restrictions untilutilizedbytheFundforBoard permanent endowment.Boarddesignatedendowmentfundsareclassifiedin gifts receivedwherebytheproceedsofanyfuturesalearedonor-restricted to of allowanceforuncollectiblepledges,and(c)thefairvaluenon-cash the discountedvalueoffuturegiftspromisedtopermanentendowment,net (a) theoriginalvalueofcashgiftsdonatedtopermanentendowment,(b) this interpretation,theFundclassifiesasnetassetswithdonor-restrictions explicit donorstipulationsorBoardactiontothecontrary. Asaresultof endowment giftsasofthedategiftorBoarddesignationabsent as requiringthepreservationoffairvalueoriginaldonor-restricted on July1,2008.TheManagementoftheFundhasinterpretedUPMIFA n n n n n n n

The investmentpoliciesoftheFund Other resourcesoftheFund investments The expectedtotalreturnfromincomeandtheappreciationof The possibleeffectofinflationanddeflation General economicconditions designated endowmentfund The purposesoftheFund,donor-restricted endowmentand/orBoard The durationandpreservationoftheendowmentfund Net appreciation(depreciation) Interest anddividends,net Endowment netassets,beginningofyear Endowment netassets,endofyear Amount appropriatedforexpenditure Designations andcontributions years endedDecember31,2019 and2018,respectively. NRA ontheFund’s behalf.Theseexpensestotaled$41,831and $39,341 forthe reflected inthesefinancialstatements. the fairvalueofthesebenefitsisminimal,andaccordingly, noamountsare office spaceandadministrativeservices.Managementhasdetermined that certain benefitsfromthisaffiliationatnocost,amongwhich aretheuseof the membersofBoardTrustees oftheFund.TheFundhas received by virtueofthecontrolvestedinBoardDirectors NRAtoappoint The FundisaffiliatedwiththeNationalRifleAssociationof America(“NRA”) 8. Total donor-restricted perpetualendowmentfund Time restrictedaccumulatedinvestmentgains required tobemaintainedinperpetuitybydonor Original donor-restricted giftamountandamounts gains wereincludedinnetassetswithdonorrestrictionsasfollows: Perpetually restrictedendowmentsandrelatedtimeinvestment December 31,2019and2018is$3,533,908$2,766,808,respectively. permanently eitherbyexplicitdonorstipulationorUPMIFA asof and splitinterestagreements. The FundreimbursestheNRA forgeneraloperatingexpenses,paidbythe The portionofperpetualendowmentfundsthatisrequiredtoberetained The relatedassetsareincludedininvestments,amountsduefromaffiliates, The changesinendowmentnetassetsfortheyearsendedDecember31,2019and2018areasfollows: Related Parties $ $ Without Donor Restrictions $ $ 929,710 130,993 762,679 36,038 Year EndedDecember31, 2019 4,883,991 1,350,083 3,533,908 2019 — — $ $ With Donor Restrictions $ $ 4,883,991 3,846,800 3,846,800 417,118 614,829 (59,356) 1,079,992 2,766,808 2018 64,600 $ $ 5,813,701 4,609,479 Total NRA, other NRA, awards NRA Foundation,other NRAF Foundation,grantrefunds NRA Foundation,giftannuities NRA Foundation,endowment respectively. totaling $21,035and$141,500fortheyearsendedDec31,20192018, Foundation, Inc.fundedcertainqualifiedFundprogramswithgrantawards endowments andgiftannuitiesbenefitingtheFund.Additionally, theNRA affiliates asofDecember31,2019and2018. ended December31,2019and2018,ofwhich$0areincludedinduefrom association withFund’s missiontotaling$652,384and$433,872fortheyears 548,111 100,638 614,829 (59,356) Total affiliates Total NRAFoundation The followingamountswereduefrom(to)affiliatesatDecember31: The NRAFoundation,Inc.,anaffiliatedentity, maintainscertain The FundmadeawardstoNRAreimbursequalifiedlegalcostsin $ $ Without Donor Restrictions 762,679 763,646 (86,300) 22,965 62,368 Year EndedDecember31, 2018 — $ $ With Donor Restrictions 3,846,800 2,922,974 1,129,916 (199,267) $ $ (67,359) 60,536 2,346,661 2,348,035 2,152,039 2019 263,420 (75,114) (1,374) 7,690 — $ $ 4,609,479 3,686,620 1,192,284 $ $ (285,567) Total (67,359) 83,501 2,558,868 2,562,029 2,314,383 2018 234,164 13,482 (3,161) — — 43 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND

© 2020

Follow us online: www.nradefensefund.org