ThinkingAfield.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