National Foundation for Gun Rights

NFGR Files Amicus Brief to Supreme Court

National Foundation for Gun Rights

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed an Amicus Brief in the case United States v. Rahimi. This is a prohibited persons case that has much wider implications than the plaintiff Rahimi himself.

In our brief we have asked the Supreme Court to readdress several areas of the Bruen decision to provide clarity to the lower courts in how they are to apply the decision in their rulings. You can read our brief here.

First among these misapplications comes the burden of proof question in the first step of Bruen. Even in a cursory reading of Bruen it is plain to understand that an individual’s conduct of owning or bearing an arm is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment, which many lower courts have not been following.

The second item we have requested the Supreme Court to address is common use. Many of the lower courts have been applying common use tests submitted by governments and anti-gun groups that have skewed the test to “actual” use rather than intended use.

In other words, these courts have been applying a metric that if you own an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine for the intended purpose of self-defense but have been lucky enough to not fire the rifle at an attacker, your rifle is not “used” for self-defense and therefore is not in common use.

Third, and possibly most important, we asked the Supreme Court to reiterate and emphasize that means-end scrutiny tests are not permitted in Second Amendment cases. Many lower courts have been inserting such tests under the guise of “history and tradition” or through other means to get the ruling they want.

Finally, we asked for the Court to provide clarity on weapons useful for militia service. In our lawyer’s words,

“(I)t would be extremely anomalous if Heller were interpreted to mean that (1) weapons in common use brought for militia service are protected by the Second Amendment, but at the same time (2) all weapons useful for military service are not protected by the Second Amendment.”

Our Amicus Brief provides important requests for clarity and reemphasis on these matters and will hopefully guide the Supreme Court in maintaining and securing our Second Amendment rights.

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

Judge Grants National Association of Gun Rights Temporary Restraining Order in New Mexico Carry Ban

September 13, 2023

Albuquerque, NM – Today, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Foster Haines (NAGR member and Albuquerque resident) were granted a Temporary Restraining Order against Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Secretary of Health Patrick Allen’s Executive Order 2023-130 and a subsequent Public Health Emergency Order issued by the Secretary, which bans the public carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days. 

NAGR argues the Order is unconstitutional on the merits of the Supreme Court’s ruling NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held New York’s ban on the public carry of firearms unconstitutional. Bruen also held that any gun regulation that does not fall into the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. 

“We are thrilled to win a temporary restraining order today from a federal judge blocking the governor’s wildly unconstitutional public health gun ban. This ruling emphasizes what our legal team has said all along – there’s not a shadow of an excuse under the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents for an executive to suspend the United States Constitution,” said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights (legal branch of the National Association for Gun Rights.)

“As our attorney said in court today, there is no exception to the Second Amendment. As a result of today’s temporary restraining order, the law-abiding gun owners of Albuquerque are able once again to exercise their right to bear arms,” said Hill.

Gov. Luhan Grisham had declared a state of emergency over “gun violence” and used emergency powers to carry out the ban. 

“Governor Grisham’s tyranny is temporarily in check today,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “Her own Attorney General has refused to defend her in court and the Biden appointed judge won’t back her play.” 

“The governor stirred a hornet’s nest with her abuse of ‘emergency powers’,” continued Brown. “Gun hating liberals in positions of power are put on notice: So-called ‘emergency powers’ are not to be used for their unconstitutional gun control tantrums.” 

The National Association for Gun Rights argues Gov. Lujan Grisham overstepped her Constitutional authority in issuing Executive Order 2023-130 and looks forward to its day in court. 

You can read the Temporary Restraining Order here.

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

### 

National Association for Gun Rights Sues Gov. Lujan Over Carry Ban

September 9, 2023

Albuquerque, NM – Today, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Foster Haines (NAGR member and Albuquerque resident) filed a lawsuit against Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Secretary of Health Patrick Allen for Executive Order 2023-130 and a subsequent Public Health Emergency Order issued by the Secretary, which bans the public carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days. 

Plaintiffs are asking for a Temporary Restraining Order and a repeal of the Order. 

NAGR argues the Order is unconstitutional on the merits of the Supreme Court’s ruling NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held New York’s ban on the public carry of firearms unconstitutional. Bruen also held that any gun regulation that does not fall into the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. 

“Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “Her Executive Order is in blatant disregard for Bruen. She needs to be held accountable for stripping the God-given rights of millions away with the stroke of a pen.” 

Gov. Luhan Grisham declared a state of emergency over “gun violence” and used emergency powers to carry out the ban. 

“This is the very danger of runaway executives who believe they have unilateral authority to suspend the Constitution under the guise of an ‘emergency,’” continued Brown. “This is exactly what we warned about during COVID. It’s a tale as old as time, give emergency powers, lose fundamental rights. Google ‘Caesar’ if you want to know how that turns out.” 

The National Association for Gun Rights argues Gov. Lujan Grisham overstepped her Constitutional authority in issuing Executive Order 2023-130 and looks forward to its day in court. 

Links to Complaint and TRO:

Complaint: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-1.pdf

TRO motion: http://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Motion-for-TRO.pdf


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

### 

National Association for Gun Rights granted Temporary Restraining Order in Lawsuit against the ATF

August 30, 2023

Washington, D.C.– Today the National Association for Gun Rights was granted a Temporary Restraining Order in its Lawsuit against the ATF, National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland, in federal court in the Northern District of Texas.

The TRO preserves the status quo in the case until “either September 27, 2023 or such time that the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), whichever is earlier,” according to the opinion handed down by the federal court in the Northern District of Texas.

NAGR argued that the 5th Circuit’s Cargill ruling (holding that bump stocks are not machine guns) should apply here. Judge O’Connor agreed: “The Fifth Circuit’s recent analysis of the exact statutory language at issue here shows that Plaintiffs [NAGR] are very likely to succeed on the merits… Because FRTs do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself, the Court finds that FRTs most likely are not machineguns under Cargill’s reasoning.”

In an open letter to all federal firearms dealers in 2022, the ATF stated: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently examined devices commonly known as ‘forced reset triggers’ (FRTs) and has determined that some of them are ‘firearms’ and ‘machineguns’ as defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA), and ‘machineguns’ as defined in the Gun Control Act (GCA).”Rare Breed Triggers began selling the Forced Reset Trigger in December of 2020, after having the design analyzed by multiple legal teams and firearms experts. By January 13th of 2021, the ATF had launched efforts to have FRTs outlawed. The ATF tried to justify this by saying that “multiple concerned citizens” reached out to them regarding Rare Breed’s FRTs, however FOIA requests proved that there was no record of a citizen ever contacting the ATF about the triggers.

“The court has spoken and found that the ATF’s definition is ‘likely unlawful’, because it is ,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“This Temporary Restraining Order is another step in our fight to get the ATF’s bogus redefining of ‘machinegun’ thrown out and inches us closer to stopping the ATF’s harassment of our friends at Rare Breed Triggers.”

The goal of the Texas lawsuit is to bring an end to the ATF’s FRT trigger ban and to protect NAGR’s members and supporters who own FRTs from an out-of-control ATF.

Under federal law, a machine gun is defined as “a weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”  This is the definition that has stood unaltered in the law for nearly nine decades that the ATF is now ignoring and trying to re-write through civil charges against our friends at Rare Breed Triggers.  There is no dispute that the Rare Breed Triggers’ FRT only allows one round to be fired for each function of the trigger.  “Chances are very good, based on what the court said in today’s temporary restraining order, that we can get this extended to a full preliminary injunction protecting all our members, and that’s what we’ll fight for next,” said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, legal arm 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.

###

Temporary Restraining Order in Hawai’i

A temporary restraining order has been issued in Hawai’i blocking enforcement of multiple sections of H.R.S. 134 until the litigation is finished. The National Foundation for Gun Rights filed an Amicus Brief supporting the plaintiffs in this case. You can read the ruling here.

H.R.S. 134 was created in response to the Bruen decision and is an attempt to ban the carrying of firearms by turning the entire state into a “sensitive place.” This law is a violation of not only the Second Amendment, but also the First Amendment as our Brief showed. You can read our brief here.

The temporary restraining order blocks enforcement of prohibitions on carrying firearms in banks, financial institutions, beaches, parks, all private property open to the public, their adjacent parking areas, parking areas open to the public, and parking areas that do not exclusively serve a state or government building.

Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi agrees that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers an individual’s right to carry a firearm in these places, and that there is no historical precedent for a ban.

This is a huge win for the Second Amendment and an excellent understanding of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen decision. District Courts have already struck down similar laws in both New York and New Jersey, and Judge Kobayashi is well on her way in doing the same for Hawai’i.

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

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Connecticut

The Federal District Court in Connecticut ruled against the Second Amendment in our case against the state’s semi-auto and standard capacity magazine bans. You can read the ruling here.

In her ruling, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, a Clinton appointee, twisted the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions in order to uphold gun control in a very long and convoluted ruling.

Bruen clearly states that “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct…”, meaning that the burden falls on the government to prove that the legislation falls within the text, history, and tradition of firearm regulation in the US.

Judge Arterton ignored this and said:

“Nothing in Bruen or any other cases that the plaintiffs cite grants them an automatic presumption that their conduct is constitutionally protected which defendants are the required to affirmatively rebut.”

This impermissibly puts the burden of proof on us.

She went on to make two particular outrageous assertions in her ruling:

  1. She calls gun owners liars, implying that just because an individual claims he owns a firearm strictly for the purposes of self-defense, that doesn’t actually mean that that’s what it will be used for.
  2. She said that gun owners have to actually USE their weapons for self-defense in order to fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

In other words, if an individual owns a firearm strictly for the purposes of self-defense, but is lucky enough to never actually be attacked, too bad. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect you.

If you want to read more of Judge Arterton’s judicial gymnastics, you can do so here.

We will be appealing to the Second Circuit, which also covers New York and Vermont. Our strategy is to get a semi-auto ban and magazine ban lawsuit to the Supreme Court and end these unconstitutional bans nationwide, so with our appeal to the 2nd Circuit, we are one step closer to that goal.

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights

NFGR Files Amicus Brief in Hawai’i Lawsuit

National Foundation for Gun Rights

The National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed an amicus brief in Hawai’i supporting the lawsuit against Hawai’i Revised Statutes Section 134, which effectively bans the carrying of firearms in the entirety of the state. Click Here to view.

H.R.S. 134 mandates that no person carrying a firearm shall enter private property unless given the express permission of the owner. This designation of all private property in the state as a “sensitive place” is a mockery of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen and denies the right to self-defense in nearly all areas open to the public.

Our brief highlights several ways in which the statute violates both Second and First Amendment rights. We also show how this statue fails to treat the Second Amendment the same as the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments as Clarence Thomas specifically explained it must be in the Bruen decision.

Law-abiding citizens of Hawai’i have the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. There is also no historical tradition that would allow for this regulation, as district courts have struck down similar statutes in New York and New Jersey.

The statute also violates the basic First Amendment principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what to say. With “sensitive places” being the standard for all private property, property owners who are fine with public carry are now compelled by the government to take a public position on the issue when they may prefer not to – which is the very nature of compelled speech.

Our Amicus Brief asks the district court to block the unconstitutional de facto ban on public carry in the state of Hawai’i. You can read the brief here.

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights

NFGR Files ATF Pistol Brace Lawsuit

National Foundation for Gun Rights sue ATF over pistol brace rule

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over their pistol brace rule in the Northern District of Texas. Click here to view.

This rule reclassifies pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, meaning that the ATF is seeking to regulate Americans by federal laws that were never intended to apply to them and their firearms.

Pistols with stabilizing braces are especially popular amongst veterans and other Americans with physical disabilities, making this rule discriminatory against them.

The ATF’s rule significantly expands the definition of a rifle and imposes potential criminal liability on millions of Americans without legislative authority.

We are seeking a preliminary injunction to protect our members from the ATF’s enforcement of this rule for the duration of the litigation.

Our suit comes on the heels of several other lawsuits to overturn the pistol brace rule, including Mock v. Garland, Britto v. ATF, SAF v. ATF, and Texas v. ATF. In these cases, federal courts (including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) have issued injunctions limited in scope only to the plaintiffs on those cases, their families, and (in the cases involving other gun rights organizations) their members.

Since those injunctions have been limited in scope to apply only to the plaintiffs of the other lawsuits, NAGR has partnered with Texas Gun Rights and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) to file our own lawsuit to protect our members from this unconstitutional ATF rule.

WILL has already successfully obtained an injunction protecting their plaintiffs from the ATF in Britto v. ATF, and is representing NAGR and our members pro bono in our lawsuit.

Check out Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty here!

And to contribute to our legal fund, click here.