Loveland, CO – Today, the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial cleared Kyle of all charges against him, confirming that Kyle acted in self-defense against violent attackers during the Kenosha, WI riots in 2020.
“Today, the American justice system worked as designed, and a young man who has been lambasted, defamed, and threatened by the media and anti-gun Left was declared innocent of all the charges against him. When we saw the video evidence of Kyle defending himself and others in Kenosha, WI, NFGR made the decision to support him right away, and we’re thrilled to see that he is now a free man,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights raised over $50,000 for Kyle Rittenhouse to help pay for his legal fees back in 2020. The National Foundation for Gun Rights, the legal wing of the National Association for Gun Rights, exists to defend the Second Amendment in the court system.
“Self-defense is a God-given right, and Kyle defended himself in the face of grave danger and bodily harm. We hope that Kyle will now be allowed to live a free and prosperous life, and that all Americans will understand that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting – it’s about the right to defend oneself from tyranny and lawless criminal actors. The best gun laws in the world mean nothing if they’re not enforced and unconstitutional laws are not forcefully challenged – and the National Foundation for Gun Rights was founded to do just that.” concluded Brown.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 503(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.
The prosecutors react to their star witness’ confirmation that Kyle acted in self-defense.
On Monday, the world heard Gaige Grosskreutz, the one remaining “victim” of the Rittenhouse shooting, testify under oath that Kyle did not fire until Gaige charged him with a gun pointed straight at him.
It was a remarkable moment. And the reactions underscored the impact of that testimony, with Kyle wiping tears, the prosecutor dropping his head into his hand, and Twitter exploding with disbelief.
But Gaige had simply repeated a fact that anyone who had done the most basic amount of research already knew. The Rittenhouse shooting is unusual in the sheer amount of video footage available to the public – almost from day one.
And from day one, it was clearly a simple story of self-defense.
For that reason, the National Foundation for Gun Rights came to Kyle’s assistance. NFGR exists to defend gun rights and gun owners in the courts, and it was clear that Kyle needed help.
But, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect aggressors, only cases of legitimate self-defense. So before stepping in to help Kyle, we did our due diligence.
Our legal analysis team at the National Foundation for Gun Rights watched the available videos and read news story after news story, painstakingly piecing together exactly what happened that night.
And we reached the same conclusion anyone who watched the evidence with an open mind reached: this was self-defense, at a time when self-defense wasn’t fashionable or safe.
Because Kyle unwittingly became the symbol of standing up to rioters hell-bent on destruction – and frankly, because he had the audacity to fight back instead of letting them attack him at will – he’s been the target of the woke mob ever since.
The Kenosha shootings were the culmination of months of left-wing rioting and unrest, while police and politicians were either unwilling or terrified to check the rabid wave of destruction.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans watched in disbelief, silently vowing that if the riots came to their town, they wouldn’t sit back and watch in horror as their businesses went up in flames at the hands of Marxist protesters.
When we put out a call to help Kyle prepare for his day in court, those Americans – who we are proud to call our members – sprang into action and donated over $50,000 for Kyle’s legal defense and the assistance of his family.
NFGR Executive Director Dudley Brown signs a check for Kyle Rittenhouse’s family.
This was not a popular thing to do. Anyone who stood with Kyle back then caught some of the vitriol aimed at him. In addition to receiving plenty of profanity-laced hate messages, we were threatened more than once with deplatforming by Big Tech.
Kyle had become the unwitting symbol of the peace-loving Americans who believe in protecting life and property with the Second Amendment at their back, and for that, the left was determined to destroy him.
Over the last year, the leftist media (assisted by the Kenosha County Prosecutor) carefully cultivated a picture of a reckless, hate-filled teenage vigilante, a white supremacist there to spread violence.
That’s all well and good, as long as you listen to the media and not the evidence.
Or until the prosecution’s star witness has an awkward moment of truth on the stand.
The Second Amendment is there so that you don’t have to lie helpless on the street while the Anthony Hubers of the world batter you with a skateboard, and the Gaige Grosskreutzes charge at you with illegally possessed guns.
That’s what this case is about, and we were the only gun rights group in the nation who listened to the available evidence and had the courage to stand with Kyle from day one in the face of the woke mob.
A face that now, thanks to the witness testimony in court, is dripping with egg.
In response to a legal warning from the National Foundation for Gun Rights, the City of Spearfish, SD, just repealed an illegal ordinance banning concealed carry in their town!
Since at least 1982, the City of Spearfish has banned the concealed carrying of firearms within the city limits, despite South Dakota’s 1983 preemption law, which specifically prevents cities and localities from passing and enforcing local-level gun control.
This was brought to our attention by a Spearfish resident, who shared that local citizens were concerned about this local ban and how it affected their ability to bear arms in a Constitutional Carry state.
Our Executive Director, Dudley Brown, is originally from Spearfish, and remarked:
“All local level gun bans are horrendous, but to see this in my own hometown, in a state which has a rich history of gun rights and passed Constitutional Carry into law a few years ago, is especially heinous. The current city council is duty bound to remove these outdated and illegal prohibitions on a constitutional right.”
Dudley sent the City Council a letter pointing out the illegal nature of the concealed carry ban, and calling on the council to repeal it immediately or face us in court.
At their very next meeting, the Spearfish City Council gave first reading to a repeal ordinance!
Since then, the repeal ordinance has received second (and final) reading and been published in the local newspaper as required by law.
It is set to go into effect November 26, 2021, and Spearfish residents will be free to exercise their Second Amendment rights free of any threat of local prosecution.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the first major gun case the Supreme Court has taken in over ten years.
This case challenges New York’s restrictive concealed carry law, which bans ordinary citizens from carrying a firearm unless they can show “good cause” – and the New York courts have said a desire for self-defense isn’t good enough.
So the question before the high court is this: Does the Second Amendment protect the right to BEAR arms as well as to CARRY them?
The answer is an unequivocal YES, as the National Foundation for Gun Rights legal team told the Supreme Court in a hard-hitting amicus brief filed back in July (click to read it).
What happened in oral arguments?
The good news is that a number of the Justices asked pointed, even scathing questions that highlighted the fact that gun rights are protected by the Constitution.
Even Chief Justice John Roberts (widely regarded as the weakest link on the Court for gun owners) actually sounded pro-gun with quotes like this:
“[T]he idea that you need a license to exercise the right [to bear arms], I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”
The Biden administration and New York’s legal counsel teamed up to defend New York’s carry regime, doing their level best to spin the Supreme Court into thinking it’s constitutional to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry firearms.
At one point, Justice Alito caught New York’s legal team distorting history in an attempt to shore up their argument for gun control:
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah. Well, I’m going to give you an example, which is — you know, it’s troubling. I can see how it would slip through. I’m not accusing you personally of anything.
But, on page 23, you say that in founding-era America, legal reference guides advised local officials to “arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed.” And this is a citation to John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina, 1814.
So I looked at this manual, and what it actually says is “you shall arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed offensively.” And somehow that word “offensively” got dropped —
MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, our —
JUSTICE ALITO: — from your brief.
MS. UNDERWOOD: I will —
JUSTICE ALITO: Do you think that’s an irrelevant word?
Of course, it’s not an irrelevant word. Justice Alito went on to point out that including the word “offensively” means the founding-era law actually doesn’t support gun control. (Which, presumably, is why the New York legal team left it out.)
At another point, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, speaking of the problems with government officials giving permission to exercise rights, said:
“Well, that’s the real concern, isn’t it, with any constitutional right? If it’s the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”
What does this mean for gun rights?
As encouraging as these moments were, they provide very little insight into how the Court will actually rule.
After all, the Supreme Court is known for asking tough questions only to issue a narrow ruling that doesn’t do much for gun rights – in other words, a piecemeal approach to “appease” both sides.
And based on other questions raised by the Justices, some of them seem to be at least considering the possibility of a middle-of-the-road ruling that dodges the real issue – which will almost certainly include glaring loopholes the gun grabbers will seize upon.
There is also the possibility that – despite grilling the gun-grabbers today – Chief Justice Roberts could shock us all with an anti-gun ruling.
This means we still have our work cut out for us.
Even in the best-case scenario – if the court issues an historic pro-gun ruling – state legislatures, D.C. politicians, and gun control groups alike will immediately start trying to get around it – or will even defy it outright, just as they did after the last major pro-gun Supreme Court ruling in 2010.
This means we have to be ready to sue in many more places when the final ruling is handed down, likely in the spring of 2022.
Bottom line? Yesterday was a good day for gun owners at the Supreme Court, but this case and what it means for the Second Amendment is FAR from being decided.
National Foundation for Gun Rights Warns of Lawsuit if South Carolina General Assembly Passes “Gag Act” into Law
Enactment of S 174 would trample South Carolinians’ right to political speech and association free from government intrusion
Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights and allied law firm the Dhillon Law Group, Inc. informed the South Carolina Senate that if they pass Senate Bill 174 (commonly known as the Gag Act) into law, the Foundation will file a lawsuit as the law constitutes an infringement on multiple Constitutional rights.
“The Gag Act is a blatant violation of the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, and if the South Carolina Senate thinks they can get away with stripping the right to free speech and privacy away from ordinary citizens who join political groups, they better be prepared to face us in court,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.
If passed into law, the Gag Act would force organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights, Palmetto Gun Rights, and other grassroots groups and citizen organizations to disclose the private information of their members, as well as restrict citizen lobbying during state elections.
Part of the letter reads, “Senate Bill 174 (S 174) would flagrantly violate the constitutional rights of those who dare to speak to the public and associate with each other regarding their country’s and South Carolina’s pressing political challenges. We urge the Senate to reject this bill, which defies Supreme Court precedent rejecting unnecessary, invasive, vague, overbroad, and burdensome political disclosure requirements that unlawfully chill First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Specifically, S 174 is a multi-pronged assault on South Carolinians’ constitutional rights and must be rejected.”
The National Association for Gun Rights has a vested interest in protecting the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and privacy rights of its members, as well as protecting the privacy rights of its state chapter, Palmetto Gun Rights.
The letter concludes:
“If SB 174 is enacted, we have been authorized to file a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the deprivation of constitutional rights. Once we prevail in protecting those rights, we will seek our reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). We thereby strongly encourage you to reconsider moving forward with the proposed legislation.”
A full copy of the letter sent to the legislative leadership of the South Carolina Senate can be found here: South Carolina Senate Letter
The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 503(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.
National Foundation for Gun Rights sends Cease and Desist letter to Spearfish City Council, Mayor and City Attorney
Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding the Spearfish City Council, Mayor, and City Attorney stop illegally restricting law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms while in Spearfish.
Since at least 1982, the City of Spearfish has had a city ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in Spearfish. This ordinance flies directly in the face of South Dakota’s 1983 preemption law, which specifically prevents cities and localities from passing and enforcing local-level gun control.
“Preemption laws are written for a reason – but apparently the City Council, Mayor, and City Attorney for Spearfish aren’t terribly worried about having unconstitutional laws on the books which restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms while out in public,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.
Dudley Brown grew up in Spearfish before relocating during college.
“All local level gun bans are horrendous, but to see this in my own hometown, in a state which has a rich history of gun rights and passed Constitutional Carry into law a few years ago, is especially heinous. The current city council is duty bound to remove these outdated and illegal prohibitions on a constitutional right.
If they don’t, you can rest assured the National Foundation for Gun Rights will bring swift legal action against the city.” said Brown.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights is exploring all legal options to strike down City Ordinance 11-86, which bans citizens from exercising a constitutionally protected right.
“Punishing law-abiding gun owners, defying state laws, and making Spearfish a safe haven for criminals is not something I’ll stand by and let happen. I hope they’re ready to face the legal consequences if they refuse to act.” said Brown.
As you know, back in June the City of San Jose voted to have their city attorney research and draft an ordinance imposing an annual tax and liability insurance mandate on gun owners within the city limits.
We responded immediately. Our lawyer sent them a cease-and-desist letter warning them to prepare for legal action if they attempt to tax the Second Amendment rights of San Jose citizens.
Mayor Liccardo responded by pretending it was all our fault:
“In the realm of sensible gun regulation, the gun industry and their lawyers ensure that no good deed goes unlitigated. I suppose that I should not be surprised that they have threatened to sue the city before they’ve even seen a single word in the ordinance.” (San Jose Inside)
Mind you, the City Council adopted a long, detailed list of exactly what they wanted (which you can view here), so everyone has a pretty good idea of what’s going to be in that ordinance.
Mayor Liccardo’s spokeswoman said the city was moving ahead with the ordinance, so we began planning for legal action.
Our legal counsel is currently preparing documents to be ready to file as soon as the ordinance is passed.
We’ve also put out a call to gun-owning city residents willing to serve as plaintiff (click here to apply!), and YouTuber Reno May promoted our upcoming lawsuit and plaintiff search on his awesome channel:
We have been incredibly humbled by the outpouring of responses, which our legal team is working their way through. San Jose gun owners are NOT happy about their city council’s mad dash for extreme gun control, if the number of plaintiff volunteers is any indicator!
Now, it’s a waiting game. Will the San Jose City Council think twice about taking on an expensive legal fight with little chance of success? Or will they insist on throwing away their constituent’s hard-earned tax dollars on experimental gun-control-by-litigation projects?
The city attorney is supposed to present the draft ordinance sometime in September, so we are watching the city council agendas and meetings very closely.
Finally, putting the best lawyers in the courtroom to fight for gun rights isn’t cheap. We need as many citizen partners to step up to the plate and back this lawsuit financially – even if they don’t live in San Jose.
Trust me, if San Jose gets away with taxing Second Amendment rights, it won’t be long before Bloomberg-funded progressive mayors all across the United States will push to impose similar gun violence taxes on their cities.
Back in March, a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that bump stocks were not machine guns and that executive agencies couldn’t create law:
“Federal criminal laws are not administrative edicts handed down upon the masses as if the administrators were God delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai…
It is not the role of the executive — particularly the unelected administrative state — to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.”
Unfortunately, the full court vacated this ruling and agreed to rehear the case en banc (by all the Sixth Circuit’s active judges).
NFGR’s amicus brief focuses on an overlooked aspect of the case – that forcing gun owners to discard their bump stocks (or lose them in a “tragic” boating accident) is an unconstitutional form of theft, and violates the “Takings” clause of the 5th Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”).
There’s a very good reason the ATF conveniently “didn’t think about” compensating bump stock owners: it would have added a hefty $312.1 million price tag to the regulation! As our brief notes, that may well have made the government think twice about unconstitutionally banning this harmless gun accessory.
The impact of this case goes far beyond bump stocks. At stake is whether a federal agency (such as the ATF) – controlled by bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people – can unilaterally make laws, especially laws that violate the Constitution.
President Biden’s ATF is currently in the process of rolling out even more unconstitutional gun regulations targeting home-built firearms and stabilizing braces for commonly owned pistols.
These regulatory attacks will keep coming unless the federal courts stop the ATF from overstepping its constitutional role and attacking the Second Amendment, and GOA v. Garland will almost certainly end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
For most of the gun control crowd — living in gated communities far away from the harsh realities of violence commonplace in major urban centers — the idea of owning a firearm for self-defense seems like a bizarre concept.
But for everyday people who can’t afford private security, having the ability to bear arms is a necessity.
Just ask Theresa Bragg, a 30-year-old African American mother of four children. Bragg lives in River Rouge, a rough suburb of Detroit, Michigan. Known for its daily cacophony of gun fire, it’s rife with all sorts of criminal activity.
Michigan mother of four Theresa Bragg
Bragg picked up on her town’s rough environment rather quickly and legally purchased an AR pistol for home defense purposes.
The mother of four had the previous misfortune of getting tangled up in an abusive relationship with John Leverette when she was 18.
Bragg’s ex-boyfriend was a nasty character. A member of the Crips street gang, Leverette had a lengthy rap sheet. Unfortunately, Leverette brought his violent behavior to the home — as evidenced by the multiple beatings he subjected Bragg to, resulting in severe injuries and emergency room visits.
Theresa Bragg’s violent ex-boyfriend, John Leverette, making a gang sign. (Source: Facebook)
Leverette even threatened to put a hit out on Bragg if she told law enforcement about his domestic violence incidents. Bragg eventually broke up with him, but the specter of Leverette loomed large on her horizon.
It eventually reared its ugly head on May 2, 2021, when Leverette illegally entered Bragg’s house unannounced, completely strung out on heroin. The Crip member demanded to know where the former couple’s children were located, information Bragg was not legally obligated to tell him.
At the time, the children were at a birthday party, but Bragg kept that information to herself, and her refusal to reveal this information angered Leverette to the point that he threatened to kill her after she didn’t tell him where the children were located.
Fearing for her life, Bragg went to her room and grabbed her legally owned AR-Pistol – and when she confronted Leverette, demanding he leave her house, he became aggressive and charged at her. Knowing that she was in grave danger from yet another violent attack from Leverette, Bragg fired at Leverette until the threat was stopped.
As a result of defending herself against her assailant, John Leverette died inside Bragg’s home.
Bragg immediately called 911 to report the situation and notify authorities.
The incident was a distressing moment for Bragg, but the entire situation could have gone in reverse — with Bragg losing her life — had she been unarmed as the notoriously violent Leverette attacked her yet again.
However, Kym Worthy, the Wayne County Prosecutor, is charging Bragg with first-degree murder with pre-meditation – simply because this young mother of four exercised her right to self-defense against a certified gangster who was about to kill her.
Bragg’s encounter with her violent ex was a life-or-death decision, and one that many abused women eventually face. There is strong evidence linking domestic violence to homicide, and the Second Amendment exists to empower vulnerable women to protect themselves and their children.
For people like Bragg, who live in troubled areas like River Rouge, the right to bear arms is a literal life saver.
Police departments in high-crime hot spots are often corrupt, underfunded, and cannot be relied on to act decisively in dangerous encounters with criminals. In the latter case, we are reminded of the popular pro-Second Amendment adage, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
This incident is one of the many cases of defensive gun use that millions of lawful Americans engage in. According to the research that criminologists Dr. Gary Kleck and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted throughout the 1990s, they discovered that there were roughly 2.2 to 2.5 million instances of firearms used in self-defense in any given year. Of these cases studied, there were 1.5 to 1.5 million cases of handguns used in self-defense against criminal assailants.
Bragg’s self-defense incident comes against the backdrop of a political environment where the radical Left is not only calling for the defunding of police but is also using progressive prosecutors to destroy lawful individuals’ right to self-defense in the courts.
Today, Democrat-run cities have essentially turned into criminal safe spaces. The current social upheaval American metro areas are experiencing is what the late conservative journalist Sam Francis described as anarcho-tyranny — where governments refuse to control real criminals while punishing the innocent with draconian laws such as gun control.
Bragg armed herself amid this chaos to protect herself and her children, yet Kym Worthy doesn’t understand this and is targeting Bragg for simply exercising her God-given right to self-defense.
According to her legal defense team, Bragg’s case is winnable, but they will need substantial resources to make sure Bragg is acquitted. The National Foundation for Gun Rights has stepped up to the plate to assist Bragg by writing her defense team a check of $10,000, and hopes to do more.
The case challenges New York’s permit laws, which prohibit concealed carry without a permit – but deny permits unless the applicant can demonstrate a “special” need to carry a gun (which does not include a general desire for self-defense, according to state courts). As a result, ordinary citizens are functionally prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
NFGR’s amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment is NOT a second-class right — as state legislatures, lower federal courts, and even the Supreme Court itself have treated it — and that the right to public carry is protected by the Second Amendment as understood by the Founders.
