Category: News

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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli

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: http://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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli

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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli

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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli

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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli
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

Posted on | by Cole Maerli
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.

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

National Foundation for Gun Rights Asking Supreme Court for Emergency Relief from Assault Weapons Ban

Posted on | by GRFadmin

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 877-405-4570
Email: pressdept@gunrightsfoundation.org

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) is asking the United States Supreme Court to provide emergency relief from two assault weapons bans in place in Illinois.

NFGR argues that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. NFGR’s lawsuit also challenges an AR-15 sale ban enacted by the City of Naperville, IL.

NFGR initially requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois blocking both the state and local bans on behalf of fellow plaintiff, Naperville gun store owner Robert Bevis, whose livelihood has been severely impacted by both bans. The district court trampled multiple Supreme Court precedents to rule against gun rights, so foundation attorneys appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, pleading that Plaintiff Bevis was facing the loss of his business without speedy relief.

The Seventh Circuit declined to temporarily block the two semi-auto bans pending its review of the preliminary injunction appeal, so NFGR is filing an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The assault weapons ban is a blatant violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing to address the causes of gun violence,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Between them, Illinois and the City of Naperville are about to drive a law-abiding gun store owner into bankruptcy just because they don’t like his business. That’s grossly unconstitutional, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.”

The Emergency Appeal may be found here: http://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Motion-in-S-Ct.pdf

The National Association for Gun Rights’ legal defense arm, the National Foundation for Gun Rights works to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 501(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

###

Fighting “Assault Weapons” Bans at the 7th Circuit

Posted on | by Hannah Hill

“Go home. There’s nothing unconstitutional about this gun ban.”

That’s exactly what a federal judge said in response to our lawsuit challenging semi-auto and mag bans in the state of Illinois.

In one of the worst rulings our legal team has ever witnessed, the Bush-appointed judge defied both the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling and the Second Amendment by upholding Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” Ban.

National Foundation for Gun Rights attorneys lost no time in filing an emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

“End All Semi-Auto Bans” Litigation Blitz

This lawsuit — Bevis v. Naperville, IL —  is one of seven lawsuits the National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed across the United States to end semi-auto and mag bans once and for all under the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.

Our first lawsuit in Colorado saw early victories, with an Obama-appointed judge issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking a gun ban in the first post-Bruen victory for gun rights, followed by another TRO issued by a Biden appointee. Both TROs acknowledged that under Bruen, gun bans don’t have a leg to stand on. Then Everytown’s lawyers got to work.

Enter the anti-gun legal horde

Intent on finding loopholes in Bruen, national anti-gun organizations like Everytown, Giffords, and March for Our Lives (David Hogg’s organization) jumped in on all our lawsuits, filing hundreds of pages of dreadful legal arguments in nearly all our semi-auto ban lawsuits. The arguments they brought ranged from legal fiction to ludicrous absurdity.

For instance, Giffords argued that “Plaintiffs’ test also dangerously fails to consider the potential of the firearms industry over-saturating the market to manufacture ‘common use.’” (In other words, manufacturers sold too many guns and they did it on purpose to artificially protect AR-15s under the Second Amendment — a bizarre argument that makes no sense.)

The US Conference of Mayors tried to blame the violence problem in our country on “domestic extremists that harbor anti-government sentiment” and who “self-radicalize via online engagement” –basically calling us and all our supporters domestic terrorists because we don’t trust the government and we share memes on Facebook.

Federal judge: “Gun bans consistent with the Second Amendment”

Unfortunately, a federal judge in Illinois listened to the anti-gun organizations’ outrageous arguments and mangled the Supreme Court’s standard in Heller and Bruen to rule against gun owners.

The Supreme Court previous said in Heller that states can ban weapons if they are “dangerous AND unusual,” like bombers or tanks. The federal judge twisted this to say that a state can ban guns that are “dangerous OR unusual.”

Since all guns are dangerous, all guns are obviously “dangerous OR unusual.” In other words, this judge basically said that a state can ban any gun it wants — a result completely in defiance with what the Supreme Court actually said.  

Emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit

As of this writing, our legal team is in the process of filing an emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit to block the Illinois semi-auto ban, along with a local semi-auto ban passed by the City of Naperville, IL, where our plaintiff (a local gun store owner) lives.

The case, as our lawyers emphasize to the courts, is simple. The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings all prohibit gun bans of commonly owned weapons — like America’s Rifle, the AR-15.

If the Seventh Circuit judges refuse to acknowledge this, we will appeal directly to the Supreme Court to defend the rights of gun owners by ending the leftist attacks on semi-automatic weapons for good. You can read our appeal here.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE
National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

National Foundation for Gun Rights Preparing to Sue New Mexico

Posted on | by GRFadmin
National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 17, 2023

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 877-405-4570
Email: pressdept@gunrightsfoundation.org

Santa Fe, NM – Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights sent a legal warning to leaders in the New Mexico legislature over proposed gun control bills advancing in the legislature. Personally addressed to Speaker of the House Javier Martínez, President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart, House Judiciary Chair Christine Chandler, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Joseph Cervantes, the letter warns that NFGR will sue the State of New Mexico if the legislature enacts any so-called “assault weapons” or standard capacity magazine bans.

Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has promised to sign gun control bills which make it to her desk.

“Our legal foundation is currently engaged in litigation aimed at overturning state and local laws banning these weapons and magazines, and we are prepared to add New Mexico to that list,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “We’re not going to sit by and watch more politicians infringe on the God-given rights of their constituents – and we’ll sue if we have to, our letter makes that crystal clear.”

The National Foundation for Gun Rights recently filed seven lawsuits in five federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and semi-auto gun bans. This nationwide legal effort aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good.

Sent today, the legal warning concludes with the threat of a lawsuit should any bill banning the sale, acquisition, or possession of so-called “assault weapons” or standard-capacity magazines be signed into law.

“Our attorney is standing by with his finger on the button ready to file a challenge to their unconstitutional law before the ink is even dry on the governor’s signature,” said Hannah Hill, Research and Policy Director at the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Our mission at the National Foundation for Gun Rights is to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts. We will follow through on that promise should New Mexico ignore the Second Amendment and Bruen decision from last summer.” 

A copy of the legal warning sent to legislative leadership in New Mexico can be viewed at: http://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/NM-legal-warning.pdf

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

###

Pistol Brace Rule Effective Today

Posted on | by GRFadmin

The ATF has official entered the Pistol Brace Rule into the Federal Registry as of today, January 31, 2023. This means that the 120-day “grace period” for registering pistol/pistol brace configurations as short barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA) without paying the $200 tax stamp begins today.

Essentially your chance to register your common pistol on a national gun registry without paying their tax begins today.

DISCLAIMER: The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) do not provide legal advice. This document should not be viewed as legal advice. The National Foundation for Gun Rights does NOT encourage anyone to break the law and encourages all gun owners to seek private legal council for advice on how to handle their specific legal or firearms related situation.

NFGR-ATFPistolBraceBan-OnePagerDownload

To help us continue fighting for your rights please donate here.