NSSF Filed an Amicus Brief in Support of the Challenge by Michael Cargill in Garland v. Cargill

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the challenge by Michael Cargill in Garland v. Cargill. Cargill challenges that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority when officials there published a Final Rule that criminalized the possession of “bump stocks” by classifying them as “machineguns.”

“No matter what their intent is, ATF does not have the authority to supersede Congress by writing their own criminal law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “Drafting criminal law through the rule-making process has become a dangerous habit of the Executive Branch that threatens the separation of powers and threatens to relegate the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as secondary to the whims of bureaucratic authorities. This dangerous precedent must be challenged or we risk surrendering our rights to the administrative state.” Read more

GOA, GOF File Amicus Brief with SCOTUS in Bump Stock Case

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks.

Gun Owners of America has been active in pushing back on the Trump-era Bump Stock Ban, which was an onerous attempt by the ATF to re-classify bump stocks as machineguns under federal law. GOA met with officials in the Trump Administration to oppose the ban, has lobbied Capitol Hill to prevent codifying the ban, and even filed a separate lawsuit challenging the ATF’s policy reversal, which was previously denied by the Supreme Court in 2022. Read more

SAF Sues U.S. AG, Heads of ATF, FBI Over Medical Marijuana 2A Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and a District Attorney in Pennsylvania have filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland, the heads of the FBI and ATF, and the U.S. Government, challenging the federal prohibition on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In addition to Garland, the lawsuit names FBI Director Christopher Wray and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach as defendants. SAF is joined by Warren County, Pa. District Attorney Robert Greene, who has served in that office since 2013 and currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card under Pennsylvania law. They are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut, who serves as SAF executive director, and Joshua Prince of Bechtelsville, Pa.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3), which prohibit firearms purchases and possession by persons who use marijuana or other controlled substances.

“Medicinal marijuana has been adopted by 38 states despite federal inaction on the issue,” said Kraut, who is also a practicing attorney in Pennsylvania. “With the increasing acceptance of medical cannabis, millions of Americans are forced to choose between the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or treating their symptoms with a substance that disenfranchises them from their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Such a choice is incompatible with the constitution and finds no basis in this country’s history and tradition. We look forward to vindicating the rights of medical marijuana users.”

“The use of medical marijuana should not translate to an automatic surrender of one’s Second Amendment rights,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The current restrictions unquestionably and arbitrarily infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and the restriction lacks any director or analogous historical support, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.”

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012 Read more

Michigan’s AG, Dana Nessel, Steps In It

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, along with 19 Blue-State counterparts, has signed onto a letter directed to the Stefanie Feldman, Director of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, to stop the Lake City ammunition plant from selling to civilians in a desperate attempt to appear to be doing something to prevent violence.

Led by anti-gun AG Letitia James of New York the letter reads as follows:  “We write on behalf of the States of New York, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (the “States”) to express concern about recent reports that billions of rounds of military-grade ammunition manufactured at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant have been sold on the commercial market, leading to their use in many of the most tragic mass shootings in recent history.  We ask your Office to conduct an investigation into the contracting processes that led to this situation, and to take action to ensure that military-grade and military-subsidized ammunition stays out of civilian hands.”

“Ammunition from Lake City is manufactured for military use and does not belong in our communities,” the letter reads. “Federal courts have repeatedly noted the military nature of 5.56-millimeter rounds, which are used in military issued rifles, such as the M-16. Military-style weapons – and the ammunition specifically manufactured for them – should be limited to military use. Even if military-grade ammunition were appropriate for the civilian market, its sale to private parties should not be subsidized by taxpayer dollars.”

The Lake City plant is government-owned but run by Winchester and is only able to sell ammo commercially when it produces an excess beyond what the government requires.  Additionally, the same ammo is produced by other manufacturers and readily available to consumers.

On face value the matters presented in the letter appear to be quite ominous, but a deeper look into the issue’s unintended consequences is necessary before jumping into the battle.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation explains what would happen if the liberal AGs got their way:  “This policy to deny the sale of excess ammunition not only would freeze over 30 percent of the 5.56 mm/.223 caliber ammunition used by law-abiding gun owners, it risks the ammunition industry’s ability to surge production capacity for national defense, if the costs to maintain the present workforce isn’t recouped through sales to the civilian market.”

There is no evidentiary claim that the ammunition that Lake City makes available to the public is inherently more lethal or liable to be misused than any other brand of ammunition of the same caliber.  The term “military grade” ammunition, referenced in the letter is meant to infer that the ammo has some qualities that differ from any other ammo available.  It does not!

Meanwhile, in an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Attorney General Dana Nessel has expressed her dissatisfaction with her six-figure salary, which coincidentally comes 100 percent from Michigan’s taxpayer dollars.

She should concern herself with something other than window dressing and this obvious back-door attempt at more gun control legislation that does nothing to deter the demented desire of a single person.

Amending the Constitution of the United States Was Not Meant to be Easy

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Why is that the vocal gun grabbers always attempt to demonize the Second Amendment of our Constitution but always fail to change it or even repeal it?  Certainly, our liberal President Biden has attempted to undermine it with executive orders, which fail to become the law of the land for one reason:  They’re not legal and he has no authority to do so.  In fact, if the legal procedures are followed by means of the Constitution enumerated below, the President has no say in the matter.

So, when confronted with any Second Amendment bellyacher, ask him or her why they don’t a support or pursue the legal process that agrees with their ideals.  Remember that it can, and has, been done in our country’s history.

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution has been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

SAF Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Support of NRA 1st Amendment Suit

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit against Maria Vullo, former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, alleging she misused the power of her office to hamper their advocacy activities by discouraging financial institutions from doing business with the organization.

SAF is joined in this brief by the John Locke Foundation and Independence Institute. They are represented by attorneys Joseph G.S. Greenlee of McCall, Idaho, David Kopel of Denver, Colo., and Jonathan D. Guze of Raleigh, N.C. The case is known as NRA v. Vullo.

“In our brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we point to Vullo’s abuse of governmental authority to punish the NRA for its lawful advocacy efforts. SAF has experienced similar abuse by government agencies, which have tried to use their power to block our free speech, and it is unconscionable. This is why we felt it necessary to file this amicus, and we’re delighted to be joined by the John Locke Foundation and Independence Institute.”

“What happened in New York is very much like efforts by southern states to suppress the activities of the NAACP 60 years ago,” stated SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “In both instances, state government officials used the power of their agencies to stifle and penalize rights secured under the First and Second Amendments. In this case, New York attempted to cause financial ruin to the NRA because Vullo, and then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, harbor considerable animus toward NRA and its members.”

“NRA was penalized for doing the job it was created to do,” Gottlieb added. “This case is about correcting and preventing this sort of abuse now, and anytime in the future. When a government is able to weaponize its agencies, and its authority, to stifle views and activities with which it disagrees, something must be done to stop it and set an example that discourages others from trying the same thing.” Read more

New York AG Leads Coalition Asking Government to Stop Sales of “Military Grade” Ammo From Lake City Into Civilian Market

GW:  What a bunch of malarky!  Can anyone explain the difference between Lake City’s “military grade ammunition” and any other ammunition on the market?  Step right up; I’ll be here waiting.  

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James led a multistate coalition of 20 attorneys general calling on the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to investigate recent reports that a federally funded contractor has produced military-grade ammunition for sale to civilians, including to perpetrators of horrific recent mass shootings. Attorney General James and the coalition sent a letter asking the Office to investigate how a facility overseen by the U.S. Army, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (Lake City), produced billions of rounds of ammunition that were sold on the civilian market, and asked the Office to ensure that future military production contracts prohibit the sale of military-subsidized weapons and ammunition to civilians.

“Military-grade weapons and ammunition do not belong in our homes or in our communities,” said Attorney General James. “Ammunition made at Lake City has been used to kill American civilians in devastating recent mass shootings, including the Tops Supermarket massacre in Buffalo. The continued sale of this ammunition on the private market puts everyone at risk. I’m proud to join with my fellow attorneys general to raise this important issue and help ensure that weapons of war don’t make their way onto our streets.” Read more

SAF Victory: Fed. Appeals Court Restores Block of CA CCW Law

BELLEVUE, WA – The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier order which put a hold on a lower court ruling that blocked California’s new law prohibiting concealed carry in most public places, handing a significant victory to gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation.

The law had been blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, who declared the statute “repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The case is known as May v. Bonta.

“This is a major win for California gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is a definite wake-up call to anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Democrat colleagues in the California legislature who pushed through the ‘sensitive places’ law as a way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, as well as the Constitution.” Read more

Federal Appeals Court Strikes New York Signage Requirement

A federal appeals court has struck down a New York state law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.

The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in two of the four cases decided by the court in its 261-page ruling. They are known as Hardaway v. Chiumento and Christian v. Chiumento. The cases were before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Christian case challenged the signage requirement. The court noted that the regulated conduct—carrying a firearm for personal protection on private property—“falls within the Second Amendment right to carry.” Thus, the requirement to post signs allowing carry on private property open to the public was struck down. The restriction carried with it a criminal penalty of up to four years imprisonment and was graded as a Class E felony – which would strip the individual of their right to keep and bear arms in perpetuity.

The Hardaway case challenged a tenet of the law prohibiting carry in places of worship. The complaint became moot when the legislature changed the law after SAF sued to allow people such as plaintiff Jimmie Hardaway to carry in his church. In both cases, SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

There was another major win for gun rights in the lengthy decision, in a case not involving SAF. The court struck down a requirement to allow government access to private social media accounts in order to apply for a carry license.

“Our challenges were narrowly constructed, allowing us to win a small but significant victory in the Christian case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Because the legislature changed the law after our lawsuit was filed in the Hardaway case, we consider that a victory as well.”

“These are just two more examples of SAF carrying out its mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF Sues Cortland Housing Authority Over 2A Violations

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Cortland, N.Y., Housing Authority (CHA), alleging Second Amendment violations by prohibiting tenants from possessing firearms on CHA premises.

Joining SAF are three private citizens — all CHA residents — Doug Merrin, Elmer Irwin and Robert Hunter. They are represented by attorney Edward A. Paltzik at Bochner Law in New York City. Defendants are the housing authority and CHA Executive Director Ella M. Dilorio in her official capacity.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

“The Supreme Court made clear in Heller, the home is where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed. “We’ve been involved in similar cases and prevailed because a ban on the possession of firearms in public housing is a flagrant violation of Second Amendment rights. The public housing authority’s refusal to alter their lease agreement to comport with the requirements of the Constitution demonstrates their disdain for low-income, elderly residents being able to exercise their rights. SAF looks forward to vindicating their rights and forcing the housing authority to respect the Constitution.

“This case is nearly identical to one we handled a few years ago in Illinois,” recalled SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We obtained a permanent injunction against the East St. Louis Housing Authority for the same violation.” Read more

1 3 4 5 6 7 135