The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the court hear Jamond M. Rush v. United States of America, a case challenging restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs). It is SAF’s second Supreme Court amicus brief on this topic, following a similar brief filed in David Robinson Jr. v. United States of America.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

“Similar to other circuit courts, the Seventh Circuit decided that U.S. v. Miller (1939) and its ruling allowing restrictions on short-barrel shotguns because they had no documented militia use, remains controlling and applicable to SBRs as well,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Our amicus brief makes several arguments as to why the Seventh Circuit’s analysis was flawed and why the Supreme Court should grant cert in this case. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will step in and correct courts reaching the wrong conclusion on this fundamental question, both as it pertains to SBRs and to other common arms.”

The brief explains that SBR’s are “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. In order to then regulate them, it is the government’s burden to show a historical tradition of such regulation. Such a historical tradition simply does not exist, nor is there one supporting the taxation regime of the National Firearms Act. The brief also discusses how some circuit courts are getting basic questions about protected arms wrong and misapplying the Bruen analysis, which necessitates the Supreme Court’s intervention. Read more

GW:  Anyone remember when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and guns were actually confiscated during the “state of emergency” declaration by the mayor?  Just when guns are needed for self-protection, the gun grabbers want to disarm citizens.  Same in Pennsylvania.

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, for conference to be held on Monday, Sept. 29.

The case seeks to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults by challenging Pennsylvania state law which prohibits them from carrying firearms during a declared state of emergency. Joining SAF in the case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.

“We agree with the commonwealth that cert should be granted in this case, and this conference distribution is one step closer to that goal,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court steps in and puts to bed once and for all the question as to whether 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ who share the same Second Amendment rights as their older counterparts.”

Originally filed in 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled in SAF’s favor. After the initial ruling, the commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in turn, remanded the case back to the Third Circuit to reconsider in light of the Court’s ruling in Rahimi. The Third Circuit determined that Rahimi had changed nothing about their analysis and once again ruled for SAF and the plaintiffs. After being denied en banc review by the Third Circuit, the commonwealth has once again petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

“If you’re an adult, then you should be able to fully exercise your Second Amendment rights, period,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Third Circuit has made the determination that 18-20-year-olds are members of ‘the People’ more than once, and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will follow suit and determine that adults under 21 have the same rights as other American adults.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Viramontes v. Cook County, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

Originally filed in 2021, the case was put “on hold” during which time the Supreme Court handed down the 2022 Bruen decision, and the Illinois legislature passed the nearly identical statewide ban on “assault weapons,” which SAF has also challenged, in Harrel v. Raoul. SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“The Supreme Court has indicated its interest in addressing assault weapons bans within the next term or two, and we think this case is a solid vehicle for that review,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “As Justice Thomas rightly pointed out in his dissent from denial in Snope, the longer SCOTUS delays, the longer millions of Americans are subject to these unconstitutional, categorical bans of the some of the most popular arms in America.”

As noted in the petition: “Cook County’s ‘assault weapons’ laws restrict many perfectly ordinary and common firearms, like the AR-15 rifle. These firearms are not distinct from other rifles in their design or their function. Indeed, the very term ‘assault weapon’ is a political slogan masquerading as a meaningful designation, designed to exploit ‘the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic’ firearms.”

“The idealogues in Cook County wrongfully think that the AR-15, and similar firearms, are not appropriate for self-defense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The disenfranchisement of an entire population of residents is an absolute infringement on their Second Amendment rights. We’ve fought this case for far too long and it’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and determine that bans on the AR-15 are unconstitutional.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson urging the FTC to support President Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights by conducting a thorough review of relationships and activities by the Biden FTC with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that propagated “whole of government” infringements on Second Amendment rights.

Gun control groups were welcomed to the Biden White House, including through the now-defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, that built a reciprocal relationship to attack Second Amendment rights and the firearm industry that makes exercising those rights possible. As part of a coordinated “lawfare” campaign, gun control NGOs aligned with the Biden administration coordinated to publish a series of misleading “complaints” urging the FTC to investigate and a take legal action against truthful and constitutionally-protected firearm advertising.

“Countering President Biden’s ‘whole of government’ effort to infringe the Second Amendment necessitates a whole of government response by this administration,” wrote Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel, to Chairman Ferguson. “Likewise, the particular focus from the Biden Administration and NGOs on co-opting the Biden-era FTC for their unconstitutional agenda, necessitates decisive action from the current Commission.”

Specifically, NSSF urged the FTC to take the following actions to implement President Trump’s Executive Order: Read more

Tuesday, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a brief countering the federal government’s argument that, if FPC is successful in striking down the law, the court should enter an extremely narrow injunction that would deny millions of peaceable people their right to keep and bear arms.

Although summary judgment briefing had concluded in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF — FPC’s Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the federal ban on purchasing handguns outside a person’s state of residence — the organization sought leave of court to respond to the Trump DOJ strategy to avoid having to follow the Second Amendment and respect constitutional rights. FPC’s brief, however, shows how binding Supreme Court precedent would require relief to apply to all FPC members, not just the named individual and retailer plaintiffs in the case.

“Should Plaintiffs prevail on their motion for summary judgment, they are entitled to injunctive relief for the Individual Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition,” says FPC’s brief. That FPC has the right to sue and seek relief on behalf of its members “is not debatable,” the brief goes on. Indeed, FPC said, “The Supreme Court reaffirmed associational standing two years ago” in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. And while the government complained that compliance with an injunction against enforcement of the ban as to FPC members would be challenging, as FPC’s new brief explained, “the Government could comply with an injunction by, for example, directing FFLs to ask whether prospective non-resident purchasers are FPC members or declining to enforce the restriction across the board.” Read more

Fairfax, VA – Tuesday, the National Rifle Association filed a challenge against Florida’s unconstitutional waiting period law in federal court. Following the filing, John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, released the following statement:

“For nearly 35 years, law-abiding Floridians have had to endure unconstitutional laws that arbitrarily deny them access to legally purchased firearms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “Thanks to the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, illogical, nonsensical, and unconstitutional gun control laws like this are being thrown out in federal courts across the country. We are confident that our challenge today will be successful and serve as another critical step in rehabilitating Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.”

BACKGROUND:

• Florida established a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases in 1990 through a constitutional amendment, which was later expanded to apply to all firearms in 2018 as part of a broader gun control package.
• Waiting period laws have come under intense scrutiny by federal courts. This month, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s 7-Day Waiting Period is unconstitutional in the NRA’s challenge against the law.
• In March, a federal district court ruled that Maine’s waiting period law likely violates the Second Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law. This challenge is currently before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• These rulings are based on the landmark NRA-backed Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun control laws are unconstitutional unless they are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Yukutake v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s restrictive firearm purchase laws.

While the Plaintiffs prevailed before a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, the case is now being reheard en banc. SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center.

“Our brief contends that the Ninth Circuit’s practice of routinely granting en banc rehearing to overturn Second Amendment victories undermines public confidence in the judicial system,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “We also argue that the court should reverse its erroneous interest-balancing standard set in B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom, which improperly revives a test rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen. Hawaii’s laws clearly implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment, and without a historical basis, they cannot stand.” Read more

Federal District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a permanent injunction siding with FPC and blocking enforcement of California laws preventing FPC’s members who reside outside of California from acquiring a carry license (commonly called a “Carry Concealed Weapons” license, or “CCW”). The injunction follows the Court’s July decision that the law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The Court held a hearing to resolve a dispute over the form of the injunction. The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional conditions and qualifications. But the Court agreed with FPC, which asked the Court to enter a straightforward injunction simply blocking enforcement of the ban altogether.

“People do not lose their right to keep and bear arms when they visit California. With this injunction, they can finally protect themselves and their families while in the Golden State,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

The National Rifle Association, Gun Owners’ Action League, Pioneer Valley Arms, three NRA members, and another individual filed a complaint challenging Massachusetts’s ban on “assault-style” firearms. Following the filing, John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, issued the following statement:

“Radical gun grabbers in Massachusetts have run roughshod on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “These extreme and ill-conceived laws have created chaos in the Commonwealth, turning lawful gun owners into felons overnight. Today’s lawsuit filed by the NRA seeks to end arbitrary bans on commonly owned firearms and begin the process of restoring the constitutional rights of Bay Staters.”

BACKGROUND:

• • The case is named Hanlon v. Campbell, and the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Read more

FORT WORTH, Texas – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today warned of a new Trump Administration strategy to block enforcement of constitutional rights.

In its recent brief in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF — FPC’s Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the federal ban on purchasing handguns outside a person’s state of residence — the Department of Justice argued that, if FPC is successful in striking down the law, the court should enter an extremely narrow injunction that would leave the unconstitutional law in place for everyone except two individuals and one Texas firearms retailer, allowing them to continue denying millions of peaceable people their right to keep and bear arms.

“If the Court grants an injunction, that injunction should extend no further than to bar enforcement of any laws the Court deems unconstitutional against the named plaintiffs specifically identified in the complaint,” the Trump Administration argues in its brief. “Because the [FPC] has not identified any of its members other than the named plaintiffs, the government would have no way to know whom an injunction restricting enforcement of the challenged laws covers.” Read more