Update on California v. ATF, A Case That Could Rewrite The Definition of “Firearm”

March 2, 2021 — Denver, Colorado — Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms (CKBA) on Friday asked a federal judge in the Northern District of California to include its clients as intervenors in California v. ATF, a case that could dramatically change the way the federal government defines and regulates “firearms.”  CKBA’s Director Cody J. Wisniewski argued that the court needs to hear not just from the federal government and the gun control advocates before it, but from those who have the most to lose if the case is wrongly decided.

And that is exactly who CKBA represents. It represents individuals who exercise their right to individually craft firearms for personal use — which long-standing tradition has been a legal practice in our nation since colonial times — as well as a well-known producer of certain items that individuals sometimes use when building arms from scratch. CKBA also represents the pro-Second Amendment Firearms Policy Coalition.  

California and the anti-gun groups who are plaintiffs in the case oppose granting CKBA’s clients intervenor status, even though they specifically reference CKBA’s client, 80% Arms, in their filings and despite the Federal Government support of CKBA’s clients’ intervention.

But excluding CKBA’s clients also excludes perspectives and legal arguments the court would find helpful and should hear, argued Wisniewski. “We welcomed the opportunity to speak directly to the court and to demonstrate exactly why our clients’ inclusion in this case is not only beneficial but is key to ensuring the court hears the complete story and the voices of millions of Americans who value self-sufficiency,” said Wisniewski. He stressed that no party to the case, including the state of California and the federal government, adequately represents the interests of CKBA’s clients.

The judge indicated that he wanted to resolve the matter quickly, so CKBA expects a ruling on our motion and our supporting reply in the coming weeks.

Follow this link for a case summary.