SAF Battles For Free Speech in Lawsuit

The Second Amendment Foundation is clearly concerned with our rights. It’s just usually focused on our Second Amendment rights. We know this because it’s right in the name, as that’s usually a pretty good indicator of what a group believes in.

See also: National Socialism

Anyway, while the SAF is usually focused on the Second Amendment, one of the legal battles they’re fighting right now stems from the First Amendment, not the Second.

At least, not directly.

Before a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, a gun rights group urged the court to revive its lawsuit accusing Washington leaders of unfairly targeting the group based on its political beliefs. 

“No matter how much advocacy the Second Amendment Foundation is engaged in right now, it’s a hundred thousand dollars less than what it would’ve been without the retaliatory investigation,” said Jack Lovejoy, attorney with Corr Cronin representing the Second Amendment Foundation. 

The Second Amendment Foundation accused former Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson — now governor — of targeting the group in retaliation for its protected political speech. The group asserts that it was targeted due to its frequent opposition to Ferguson’s gun control policies.

The state began investigating the group for potential violations of Washington’s nonprofit and charitable organization laws around three years ago and issued confidential civil information demands (CIDs). One year later, the Second Amendment Foundation sued Ferguson, asking the federal court to terminate his investigation and accusing Ferguson of constitutional violations.

The federal court took the state’s side and dismissed the group’s claims, finding that it had failed to identify an injury caused by the investigation and that the complaint didn’t allege that the group’s speech had been chilled. 

On appeal, the gun rights group argued that it was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the investigation.

“This is not a case where a CID was issued and on day one, we filed suit, and we just said, ‘We don’t like the CID,’” Lovejoy said.

Part of the battle is that the state and the judge both argue there haven’t been any actual damages as a result of the investigation, though SAF argues that once these happened, they had partners step away–people like accountants and such.

However, even if there are no damages at all, this is still a massive problem.

The process is the punishment, and we know damn good and well that this was sparked not by evidence of financial wrongdoing by the SAF, but by their advocacy work being based in such an anti-gun state.

We’re not seeing Alan Gottlieb flying around the country in a private jet wearing expensive suits while drawing a massive salary. That’s just not there, which means no one had any reason to think there was some kind of financial impropriety at play.

Washington state claims there’s no right to be free of an investigation, which is technically true, but only up to a point. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure, which suggests that any kind of investigation should have some basis in reality.

And this is most definitely an assault on their freedom of speech.

This is a threat looming over the head of the SAF, particularly with regard to any action they might consider taking against the state of Washington. It’s an effort to chill their pro-gun advocacy, and anyone with eyes can see that.

Hell, blind people can see it, for crying out loud.