ThinkingAfield.org

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (August 8, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion for summary judgment in its Worth v. Harrington lawsuit, a case that seeks to restore the right of adults under 21 years of age to carry loaded, operable arms in public for self-defense in Minnesota. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, not only were there no laws in any state that purported to limit the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry firearms for self-defense, there were several laws enacted, including the Militia Act of 1792, that required 18-year-olds to buy and maintain firearms,” FPC argues in the motion. “Defendants will not be able to point to any historical tradition that could justify Minnesota’s attempt to deviate from the plain text of the Second Amendment, therefore this Court must declare the Carry Ban unconstitutional.”

The State of Minnesota also filed its own motion for summary judgment, which began by arguing that this case is “part of [FPC’s] coordinated, multi-state litigation plan to force a determination on the issue of whether the Second Amendment covers the right of 18-to-20-year-olds to publicly carry handguns,” and went on to say that “[t]he plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover those under 21, therefore a historical analysis is unnecessary” and that “18-20 year old women are also not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Read more

NEW ORLEANS – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important appellate brief, joined by FPC Action Foundation, in the case of Cargill v. Garland, which challenges the ATF’s unconstitutional ban on “bump stock” devices. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

In December 2021, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, saying that “the Bump Stock Rule’s interpretation of the NFA’s definition of ‘machinegun’ is the best interpretation of the statute.” Last June, however, the Court ordered that the panel opinion be vacated and that the full Court would review the appeal (known as a rehearing en banc).

“Because virtually all semiautomatic weapons can be bump fired, and because that technique can be aided by myriad common household products or clothing items, ATF’s definition is necessarily overbroad and would eliminate statutory distinctions between less-regulated semiautomatic rifles and handguns, and more-regulated machineguns,” argued FPC and FPCAF in their brief to the en banc Fifth Circuit. “Bump firing, whether aided by a bump stock, a rubber band, or merely a well-controlled finger, is not shooting automatically and the ease with which any given weapon can be bump fired does not turn semiautomatic firearms into heavily regulated machineguns.” Read more