Category: Press Releases

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 7^th 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 7^th 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. ###

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.

###

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.

### 

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.

### 

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 5^th 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.

###

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.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 18, 2022

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights Sues Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County

National Foundation for Gun Rights Sues Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County
Joined by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Foundation for Gun Rights opposes local level gun bans

August 18, 2022

Loveland, CO – Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) joined with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) in filing lawsuits against the cities of Louisville and Boulder, as well as Boulder County. New gun control laws recently passed by Louisville and Boulder ban certain semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. Boulder County recently banned the sale or transfer of semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines.

Members of both organizations and citizens of the respective cities joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuits – challenging the constitutionality of the laws and arguing that their right to keep and bear arms is being directly infringed upon. Last month, NFGR and RMGO filed lawsuits against the Town of Superior over a similar ordinance, and against Gov. Jared Polis and the State of Colorado to overturn the 2013 Colorado magazine ban.

“As an organization our mission is simple: enforce and expand pro-gun precedents issued by the courts and defend gun owners in the courts. And we’re doing just that in these lawsuits,” said Hannah Hill, Research and Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Law-abiding gun owners are being disarmed throughout these cities in Colorado, and the government officials issuing the new gun control ordinances are ignoring the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions – we’re here fight back.”

RMGO and NFGR are funding all three of the lawsuits, challenging their constitutionality in light of the recent Supreme Court decision NYSRPA v. Bruen.

In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court rejected “intermediate scrutiny” – the cost/benefit analysis framework that allowed lower courts to rule against the Second Amendment – and established that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms; thereby invalidating the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control.

Gun control lobbyists are pouring massive amounts of money into Colorado in an effort to help enforce these illegal gun grabs and keep them on the books.

“Everytown for Gun Control and Michael Bloomberg know that the Bruen decision eviscerated the ‘standing’ they had to put unconstitutional strangleholds on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “So they’re scrambling, spending millions of dollars to pass and uphold local-level gun control laws — hoping that ordinary citizens won’t pay attention as they demolish gun rights one town at a time. But we’re paying attention and I’m looking forward to destroying them in court.”

The full text of the three lawsuits filed be can found at the following hyperlinks: Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County.

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.###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 28, 2022

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights Funds Lawsuit Against Polis and State of Colorado

July 28, 2022

Loveland, CO – Today, the National Foundation for Gun Rights, along with citizens Benjamin Gates and Travis Swartz, filed a lawsuit against Governor Jared Polis and the State of Colorado over the 2013 magazine ban which outlaws the sale of standard capacity magazines in Colorado.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) will be solely financing this case, which challenges the constitutionality of the law in light of the recent Supreme Court decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. NFGR and RMGO are also currently suing the Town of Superior over their magazine and rifle ban, and were recently granted a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the ordinance.   

“When an Obama-appointed judge agrees that Superior is way out of line in banning magazines and rifles, that means it’s game over for gun control,” said Hannah Hill, Research and Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “This lawsuit is the first step in our goal of overturning mag bans nationwide. It’s time for state legislatures to recognize that they actually do have to follow the Second Amendment, and if they plan to double down on rights-shredding laws, they need to prepare to face us in court.”

In the landmark Bruen decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected “intermediate scrutiny” – the cost/benefit analysis framework that allowed lower courts to rule against the Second Amendment – and established that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms; thereby invalidating the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control.

The lawsuit funded by the National Foundation for Gun Rights and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners argues that Colorado’s 2013 magazine ban flies directly in the face of the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding Coloradans to own standard capacity magazines. The law should be repealed in light of the Bruen decision and the historical text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.  

“We’ve known for years that the magazine ban is an atrocious infringement against our gun rights, and our members are continuing the fight against this heinous law,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “The Bruen decision is a 4-ton wrecking ball for us to use against gun control laws – and we’re going to destroy every single unconstitutional law which stands in our way. We founded NFGR to defend gun owners in the courts and use our legal expertise to eviscerate anti-gun rulings — and repealing Colorado’s magazine ban is just one of many legal projects NFGR is working on in the battle to restore the Second Amendment.”

The National Foundation for Gun Rights plans to also sue other local governments in Colorado which have imposed magazine bans and so-called “assault weapons” bans next, and is currently finalizing the details for those lawsuits.

The full text of the lawsuit filed against Gov. Polis and the State of Colorado in federal district court can be viewed here.   

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.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2022

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights demands Sheriff Lemma restart Concealed Weapons Permit fingerprinting

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights is demanding that Sheriff Dennis Lemma of Seminole County, FL, immediately reinstate fingerprinting services for concealed weapon permit applications.

On December 28, 2021, The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office announced that they were suspending public fingerprinting services indefinitely due to “the recent surge of COVID-19.” As fingerprinting services are a required part of obtaining a license to carry, this is a direct infringement on the public right to bear arms.

“This is merely an excuse to trample on the Second Amendment rights of Seminole County citizens,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights and the National Association for Gun Rights. “Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or Florida’s Constitution and laws allow a local sheriff to indefinitely suspend a citizen’s right to bear arms in public. Sheriff Lemma needs to immediately reinstate the required services for the issuance of carry permits, or prepare to face us in court.”

Hannah Hill, NFGR’s policy director, added, “By indefinitely suspending fingerprinting services, Sheriff Lemma joins the ranks of fascist politicians across the country who gleefully see the pandemic as an opportunity to trample the inalienable rights enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. Today, we put the good sheriff on notice that he doesn’t get to cancel the Bill of Rights in his county – and we are prepared to argue that in court if necessary.”

If Sheriff Lemma does not immediately reinstate fingerprinting services for concealed weapons permit applications, the National Foundation for Gun Rights will be exploring legal action.

To read the full cease-and-desist letter, click here: http://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NFGR-SeminoleSheriff-CeaseDesist-Letter.pdf

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.

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.

###