US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

SCOTUS Rejects National Association for Gun Rights’ “Assault Weapon” and Mag Ban Case

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

Washington, D.C. -Today, the Supreme Court rejected certiorari in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville. The case will now proceed to the discovery, trial, and summary judgment phases at the district court.

“Today’s decision tells the lower courts they’re more than welcome to trample Bruen to their hearts’ content – at least for the time being. The question all along has been whether the Supreme Court was okay with the lower courts’ outright and unanimous defiance of the plain holdings of Bruen. Today we got our answer: for now at least, the Second Amendment IS a second-class right, and it will remain so until the Supreme Court decides to stop ducking the issue,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. 

The U.S. District Court denied a preliminary injunction blocking the law’s enforcement, which plaintiffs then appealed to the 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, ruling that AR-15s are not guns under the Second Amendment in an outrageous ruling that defied multiple Supreme Court precedents.

The National Association for Gun Rights appealed to the Supreme Court, asking them to overturn the 7th Circuit’s ruling and issue a nationwide precedent striking down gun bans once and for all.

Justice Clarence Thomas included a statement calling the 7th Circuit’s ruling “nonsensical” and said “It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.” Justice Thomas went on to state that when the case comes back to the Court in a final judgment posture, the Supreme Court “can – and should” review the 7th Circuit’s decision if they stand by their preliminary injunction reasoning.

“Justice Thomas just told the nation that the 7th Circuit got it wrong when it ruled that AR-15s – the most commonly owned rifle in America – is not a gun at all under the Second Amendment. And yet, the entire Court – with the exception of Justice Alito – agreed to let that decision stand. Apparently, a right delayed is NOT a right denied for the Supreme Court. They better get used to hearing from us, because we will keep bringing them ‘assault weapons’ ban cases until they get it right,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. 

The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.

###

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

NAGR Files Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court in “Spirit of Aloha” Wilson v. Hawaii Case

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Washington, D.C.- The National Association for Gun Rights filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today in the case of Wilson v. Hawaii, a prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license. The Hawaii Supreme Court said that “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.” The question appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court is whether or not the Bruen test should apply to criminal prosecutions for carrying without a license. The brief may be found here.

“Hawaii’s defiance of Bruen is only different from the rest of the lower courts because Hawaii didn’t bother to give lip service to the Supreme Court’s precedent. For instance, the 7th Circuit circumvented Bruen in our lawsuit by holding that AR-15s aren’t even ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment. Our amicus brief points out that the Hawaii ruling is just the latest in a long pattern of Bruen defiance, not an outlier. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court takes swift, decisive action to end this legal anarchy and uphold the Second Amendment,” said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

NAGR has appealed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the Illinois so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, a ruling that found AR-15s are not even “arms” under the Second Amendment. This appeal for certiorari is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The amicus brief points out the grave Constitutional implications of a state court’s defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority, but also reminds the Justices that Hawaii simply followed the example of numerous lower courts across the country which have circumvented Bruen’s plain holdings in order to uphold unconstitutional gun bans.

Quote from the brief: “Despite Bruen’s admonition, the lower courts have continued to treat the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right. NAGR hopes the Court will use this case to send a forceful rebuke to these courts lest ‘anarchy [] prevail within the federal judicial system.’”

“We searched through the Constitution, and we didn’t find ‘spirit of Aloha’ anywhere in it. What IS in the Constitution is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The Founders would have laughed out loud if someone had complained that the Second Amendment was inconsistent with the ‘spirit of Aloha,’ and hopefully that’s what the Supreme Court does too – along with slapping down all the other lower courts also in defiance of Bruen,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights.

The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.

###

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

NAGR and NFGR File Amicus Brief Against Mexico at SCOTUS

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

The National Association for Gun Rights and the National Foundation for Gun Rights have filed a joint amicus brief in the case Mexico v. Smith & Wesson at the Supreme Court. You can read our amicus brief here.

In this case, Mexico has sued America’s largest manufacturers of firearms in a blatant attempt to scapegoat the country’s failure to deal with its cartel problem.

They shamelessly brag about their draconian gun laws that only allow military, law enforcement, government officials, and the extremely wealthy to own and carry firearms in their country. In other words, Mexico has blamed the Second Amendment for its cartel problem, rather than their United Nations supported policies leaving the average citizen defenseless.

In their lawsuit, Mexico demands the courts:

  • Ban gun manufacturers from producing and selling the most popular firearms in America.
  • Ban manufacturers from producing and selling standard-capacity magazines and any firearm capable of accepting them.
  • Impose Universal Gun Registration.
  • Implement “smart gun” single-user technology on all firearms.
  • Force the manufacturers to go well beyond the requirements to sell a gun under federal law.
  • Order a ten-billion-dollar payout to the corrupt Mexican government.

This tyrannical attack on the Second Amendment has one goal in mind, imposing the UN Small Arms Treaty on American citizens through the courts, ultimately stripping us of our God given rights.

In our brief, we outline how this lawsuit is a gross abuse of the federal court system to impose back door gun control, and we have asked the Justices to grant certiorari in this case and end these attacks on our civil liberties.

As we said in our brief:

The Second Amendment Rights—or any other rights—of American citizens should not be in jeopardy simply because a foreign government cannot, or will not, adequately address its own domestic crime problems.

The United Nations, the Biden administration, and ATF Director Dettelbach fully support Mexico’s claims. They know full well that if Mexico succeeds in this lawsuit the floodgates will open and they can finally press their blood-soaked boots on our throats.

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights will not stand idly by while they attempt this.

Click here to make a generous contribution to our legal war chest.

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

SCOTUS Conference on Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held conference on our case against Illinois’ ban on so called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines for the first time.

In our appeal for certiorari at the Supreme Court, we have asked the justices to strike down the 7th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Illinois’ ban. You can read our petition for certiorari here.

Now, there are a couple of things that can happen with this:

  • The Court accepts our petition, and we will move forward to an oral argument before the justices.
  • The Court “punts” our case for further conference dates to discuss whether to take it.
  • The Court could deny our petition for certiorari.

If the Court does “punt” the case for further conference, that is far from a bad thing. As much as we would like the Court to take our case as soon as they can, their discussing it at further dates can be an indicator that they are seriously considering taking it.

The landmark decisions from Heller and Bruen are being ignored, misapplied, or outright defied by the lower courts across the country. This is undoubtably something that the justices at the Supreme Court have noticed, and something they will have to correct.

The Supreme Court is going to have to answer the questions on “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans sooner or later. If they choose not to take this case, and instead remand it back to the lower courts, our multi-circuit strategy will have the “assault weapons” ban issue right back on their desks in no time.

The Supreme Court releases an order list on Mondays with their decisions from the previous conference date. Your NFGR team will be closely monitoring the release of these orders and will keep you posted.

Stay tuned for updates on this case, we hope to hear good news soon.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest and continue the fight for the Second Amendment!

Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction in Colorado Homemade Firearms Case

A federal judge in the Colorado District Court has denied our motion for a preliminary injunction in our case against the state’s ban on homemade firearms. You can read his ruling here.

The American tradition of manufacturing firearms in the home is one that extends to the colonial period, well before we achieved our independence from the British Empire.

Not only does this tradition extend to the earliest days of our republic, the individual right to manufacture your own firearms at home was absolutely critical in liberating our great country from British rule.

Many parts of the commonly owned muskets at the time were difficult to manufacture from scratch. So rather than attempt this, American colonists regularly imported quality percussion locks, barrels, and other parts from Europe.

This is the exact same conduct a modern American engages in when ordering a firearm parts kit, and then manufacturing those parts into a commonly owned firearm of today.

None of our historical evidence mattered to Judge Gallagher, who ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply in this case at all, because the state’s ban merely “imposes a condition on the commercial sale of a firearm.”

This is yet another instance of a federal judge sidestepping any analysis under the Bruen standard to allow a state to infringe upon our God-given rights.

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights will not allow our rights to be stripped, especially with the District Court refusing to even hear this case on Second Amendment grounds.

That is why we have already filed our appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges will hopefully find the lower court’s decision just as outrageous as we did.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest and help us continue to fight for the Second Amendment!

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

National Association for Gun Rights Petitions Supreme Court to Strike Down Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Washington, D.C.– Today, the National Association for Gun Rights submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and strike down the Illinois “assault weapons” ban.

Specifically, NAGR’s petition asks three questions of the court:

  • Is Illinois’ handgun ban constitutional, in light of Heller’s ruling that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional?
  • Is the “in common use” test in Heller hopelessly circular and therefore workable?
  • Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of semi-automatic firearms and magazines, both of which are owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes?


From the cert petition: “Bruen called on the Nation’s legislatures to engage in a sober reassessment of their power to impose burdens on the right to keep and bear arms. The Illinois legislature ignored that call. Indeed, instead of tapping on the regulatory brakes, Illinois stomped on the gas and passed a sweeping arms ban that included a ban on the most popular rifle in America.”

“As we’ve said from the beginning, this is a very simple case. Under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents, you can’t ban so-called ‘assault weapons.’ The 7th Circuit had to actually rule that AR-15s aren’t guns at all in order to uphold the gun ban. That’s how open and shut our case is, and we look forward to the Supreme Court striking down these unconstitutional gun bans once and for all,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director, National Foundation for Gun Rights (legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights).

NAGR’s appeal draws attention to numerous ways the 7th Circuit violated not only the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents and asks the Justices to address those errors:

  • The 7th Circuit said that that AR- and AK-platform firearms are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.
  • The 7th Circuit said that the “in common use” test in Heller is faulty circular reasoning and can’t be used.
  • The 7th Circuit said that Bruen’s history and tradition test is hypocritical because it uses interest balancing banned by the Supreme Court.
  • The 7th Circuit failed to properly conduct the “history and tradition” test in this case.
  • The 7th Circuit said that arms can be banned consistent with the Second Amendment if a court thinks they are “particularly dangerous.”
  • The 7th Circuit used interest balancing – which Bruen specifically said courts can no longer use.
  • The 7th Circuit said that guns can be banned if they’re similar to weapons used by the military.

“Ever since Bruen, the lower courts have upheld ‘assault weapons’ bans in every single contested case. If that doesn’t spell outright defiance of the Supreme Court and an absolute unwillingness to obey the Constitution, I don’t know what does. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in, enforce its own precedents, and smack down the activist judges who think they’re above both the Supreme Court and the Constitution,”  said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Click here to read the petition.

The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s second largest pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members and supporters nationwide. ###

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

RMGO and NAGR File Lawsuit Challenging Colorado’s “Ghost Gun” Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

DENVER, CO — Rocky Mountain Gun Owners [RMGO], Colorado’s only no-compromise gun rights lobby, announced today that they have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s newly enacted homemade firearm ban, Senate Bill 23-279. The federal court lawsuit aims to overturn the ban, which infringes on Second Amendment rights.

Three members of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, along with the National Association for Gun Rights, joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on the ground that it infringes their right to keep and bear arms.

“This law is an outright assault on the constitutional rights of peaceable Coloradans. It’s not just an overreach; it’s a direct defiance to our Second Amendment freedoms,” Rhodes stated. “We believe that this law, much like others that attempt to restrict gun rights, will not stand up under scrutiny, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen.”

The lawsuit specifically references the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a precedent that any gun control law must be consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen prohibits judges from giving any credence to government arguments that the benefits of a firearm regulation outweigh the burden on citizen’s constitutional rights.

“In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that any law infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Senate Bill 23-279 clearly does not meet this standard. If homemade – unserialized – guns weren’t legal at the time of our nation’s founding, we would all have a British accent,” Rhodes emphasized.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners asserts that the new legislation infringes on the rights of gun enthusiasts, collectors, and hobbyists who engage in the lawful creation and possession of homemade firearms. They argue that the bill lacks clarity and unfairly targets peaceable citizens.

“The fight for our constitutional rights is never easy, but it’s always worth it,” Rhodes continued. “We’re committed to ensuring that Coloradans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without undue governmental intrusion. This lawsuit is yet another testament to that commitment.”

RMGO is urging supporters and gun rights advocates to stand with them as they challenge the unconstitutional law. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for gun legislation and Second Amendment rights, not just in Colorado but across the United States.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization headquartered in Littleton, Colorado, with a mission to hold politicians accountable and achieve maximum liberty for individuals to defend themselves, their family, and their property without having to ask the government for permission to do so. Since its founding in 1996, RMGO has led the fight against anti-gun politicians with the support of more than 200,000 members and grassroots activists statewide.

###

 The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.

###

Massachusetts Judge Rules Against the Second Amendment

U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Saylor just upheld the Massachusetts “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazine bans in a ruling that denied our motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read the ruling here.

Our legal team is preparing to appeal this ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal must be filed 30 days from the date of the ruling.

This ruling manipulates Supreme Court precedents Heller and Bruen in order to conclude that the gun ban signed into law by then-Governor Mitt Romney is consistent with the Second Amendment.

For instance, Judge Saylor used the Heller finding that handguns are “the quintessential self-defense weapon” to conclude that this means “legislatures have some greater degree of latitude when regulating firearms that are not handguns.”

The ruling builds on this, going so far as to claim that if a handgun is the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” firearms with features not found on a handgun make it less useful for self-defense.

That conclusion is particularly problematic because the actual quote from Heller states that while judges may speculate on why a particular gun is Americans’ choice of self-defense weapon, it is the people’s choice and not the role of judges to second-guess their decisions:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. (D.C. v. Heller, emphasis added)

The Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes require “a more nuanced approach,” and Judge Saylor took this to mean that concealed carry restrictions and fire codes on the storage of gunpowder somehow allowed the government to impose an outright ban on standard-capacity magazines.

Though it is disappointing to receive a bad ruling, this was the expected outcome as Judge Saylor called our interpretation of the Second Amendment a “suicide pact” during oral arguments.

We will be appealing this case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals as soon as we can, and we will not stop fighting for the Second Amendment rights of the people of Massachusetts.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment!

2nd Circuit Update: Police File Amicus Brief Against Connecticut Semi-Auto Ban

The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police filed an Amicus brief in support of our case against Connecticut’s ban semiautomatics and standard capacity magazines. You can read their brief here.

Our case at the Second Circuit is in its opening briefing stage following our appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction in August.

In Judge Arterton’s district court ruling, she opined that AR-15s and similar rifles are only sought out for their militaristic features and are not useful for self-defense.

The law enforcement amicus brief rebuts this by stating, “AR-15s are not exclusively or predominantly used in military service, nor are they otherwise reserved for the military—they’re not used at all.”

Judge Arterton also stated that the AR-15 was designed to produce “maximum wound effect.”

The supporting amicus brief from the two police organizations refutes this by showing that 5.56 is in fact a smaller round than previous infantry rifles and that even high-ranking members of the military find it too small. The amicus quotes Major General Robert Scales as stating, “The civilian version of the 5.56mm bullet was designed as a ‘varmint killer’ and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough.”

In the opening of their amicus brief they state that AR-15-platform rifles, standard gear for most police officers, are not “weapons of war” and that the police officers who carry them “are not an army of occupation, wielding the weapons of militarized mass killers.”

Most interesting is that the Connecticut ban does not apply to police officers, and they have gone out of their way to let the court know that the reason police officers carry these rifles is precisely why they are an exceptional choice for self-defense in civilian hands.

The state of Connecticut has requested to delay their opening brief until February 21, 2024, so it will be several months before we see more movement in this case.

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the Courts!

National Foundation for Gun Rights

NAGR Files Official Comment on ATF “Engaged in the Business” Rule

National Foundation for Gun Rights

The National Association for Gun Rights has filed an official comment on the ATF’s “Engaged in the Business Rule.”

Read NAGR’s official comment here >>

The ATF’s new rule aims to essentially force every firearm sale – even private sales – to go through the background-check process.

The key change the ATF is using to change this rule is a very small change Congress made to the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 2022. Part of the definition of the term of what it means to be a dealer of firearms was changed from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit.

Essentially, the ATF has rewritten the rule so that those who enjoy collecting firearms as a hobby are now forced to register as an FFL to pursue their hobby. This would mean they have to keep books, conduct background checks, and are subject to ATF inspection whenever the agency pleases.

The ATF has also acted to change the rules without an act of Congress. The exceptions the ATF are attempting to remove are those that did not have the votes in Congress to change, a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In conclusion, our letter demands that the ATF abandon the proposed regulations, and instead match the regulatory definition to that of Congress.

Click here to read NAGR’s official comment >>

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight the ATF in the courts!