Category: Courts

SAF Vows to Take Maryland’s Semi-Auto Ban to the Supreme Court

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has announced they will seek Supreme Court review in Bianchi v. Wilkinson, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban, after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

“Today’s decision from the 4th Circuit is unsurprising given their prior decision in Kolbe,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.
“We believe, much like in Kolbe, the court’s analysis is flawed and that the challenged law is unconstitutional. We will be filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, as this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to settle this debate once and for all.”

In the 65-page opinion, judges for the majority wrote: “The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”

Chief Judge Diaz drafted a concurring opinion, with five other judges joining. Judge Richardson drafted a dissenting opinion, with four other judges joining stating: “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal…In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”

Joining SAF in the case are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Field Traders, LLC., the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is named. “The court relied heavily on the distinction between ‘military style’ arms and those appropriate for self-defense use,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This distinction runs completely contrary to the mandates of Heller and Bruen, and now sets the stage for another petition for SCOTUS review of the case.”

Federal Appeals Court Again Upholds Maryland AR-15 Ban

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again found Maryland’s so-called assault weapons ban is constitutional.

In a ten-to-five ruling on Tuesday, a full panel of the appeals court determined the Old Line state’s ban on AR-15s and similar firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. It found the banned guns fall outside the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Using similar reasoning to the last time the panel ruled on the same law in 2021, the majority decided semi-automatic assault weapons are too similar to military weapons to fall under the Second Amendment.

“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for the majority in Bianchi v. Brown. “Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

A lot has changed in Second Amendment jurisprudence since the appeals court ruled on the ban in 2021. The most significant was the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new test for Second Amendment cases. The Court then vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Bianchi and sent it back down for reconsideration in light of the new test. The Fourth Circuit delivering the same result once again could provide reason for The Court to take up the case, especially since it has now reached a final conclusion on the merits.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to take up Second Amendment cases in recent months and declined to grant certiorari in all of its pending gun cases last month. That included denying a request to take up a collection of cases challenging the Illinois assault weapons ban. However, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that reluctance was based on the fact those cases were at the preliminary injunction stage rather than final judgment.

“This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

The Fourth Circuit did address what types of arms are protected or, at least, which ones aren’t. The majority looked primarily at the Supreme Court’s holding in 2008’s DC v. Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms while striking down the city’s handgun ban, as well as dicta in the case.

“As recognized in Heller, ‘the Second Amendment right … extends only to certain types of weapons’; it is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Judge Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority. “Arms typically used by average citizens for self-defense are generally within the ambit of the Second Amendment, presumably because these arms had proven over time to effectively amplify an individual’s power to protect himself without empowering him to singlehandedly reign terror upon a community.”

Judge Wilkinson pointed to Heller‘s description of short-barrel shotguns and “M-16 rifles and the like” as weapons the government can ban. He said there was a common thread that connected those firearms, which also extends to semi-automatic AR-15s and the other guns Maryland bans.

“What brings all the weapons beyond the scope of the Second Amendment together, and what separates them from the handgun, is their ability to inflict damage on a scale or in a manner disproportionate to the end of personal protection,” he wrote. “As such, they are weapons most suitable for criminal or military use.”

The majority then turned its attention to the Bruen test, which requires modern gun laws to be rooted in the history and tradition of firearms regulation dating back to the Founding Era in order to withstand scrutiny. In what has become the post-Bruen go-to legal reasoning to uphold modern gun bans, the majority asserted it could take a broader view of historical analogues because it argued assault weapons are a modern invention that has fueled the modern problem of mass shootings. It then pointed to early regulations on gunpowder storage and the carrying of Bowie knives as substantially similar to Maryland’s ban on the sale of modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

“In sum, then, 18th and 19th century legislatures’ passed laws in a number of states that restricted the use or ownership of certain types of weapons,’ once it ‘became obvious that those weapons … were being used in crime by people who carried them concealed on their persons and were thus contributing to rising crime rates,’” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “These legislatures—in balancing individual rights and public peacekeeping—permitted individuals to defend themselves with firearms, while ridding the public sphere of excessively dangerous and easily concealable weapons that were primarily to blame for an increase in violent deaths.”

Ultimately, as they did before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen decision and remanded the case, the majority concluded Maryland’s assault weapons ban is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment is an integral component of the Bill of Rights. But as our nation’s history has shown, it is ‘neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.’ The Amendment has not disabled the ability of representative democracy to respond to an urgent public safety crisis,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “To disregard this tradition today—when mass slaughters multiply and the innovation of weaponry proceeds apace—could imperil both the perception and reality of well-being in our nation. We therefore hold that Maryland’s regulation of assault weapons is fully consistent with our nation’s long and dynamic tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons whose demonstrable threat to public safety led legislatures to heed their constituents’ calls for help.”

The dissenting judges disagreed with that conclusion and slammed the majority for treating the Second Amendment as lesser than other protections offered in the Bill of Rights.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,” Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the dissent. “Appellants seek to own weapons that are indisputably ‘Arms’ within the plain text of the Second Amendment. While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”

ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states. Continue reading “”

Courts Attacking Second Amendment Right to Legally Acquire Firearms

There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen test is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.”  Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.

Right to Buy

The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”

That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.

Continue reading “”

Court Hands SAF, FPC Another 2A Victory for Maryland Citizens

A federal court in Maryland has handed a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a challenge of the state law restricting carry in certain locations. The court declared three provisions in the statute to be unconstitutional. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.

Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III for the District of Maryland, a Barack Obama appointee, issued the 13-page ruling and a separate order granting summary judgment enjoining the state from enforcing provisions in the law which restrict the carrying of firearms in: (1) locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

“We are pleased that the court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” says SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”

SAF is joined by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla. The case was consolidated with a similar case known as Kipke v. Moore.

“We’re delighted by the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more step in SAF’s ongoing effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

Courts Attacking Second Amendment Right to Legally Acquire Firearms

There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen test is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.”  Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.

Continue reading “”

N.J.’s ban on AR-15 ‘assault’ rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules

A federal court judge on Tuesday ruled New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, a decision that could force the state to lift its decades-old prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons.

The judge’s ruling was limited in scope — it applies only to one type of firearm, the Colt AR-15, and allows “for use of self-defense within the home.”

It marks the latest clawback of New Jersey’s famously strict gun laws following several recent pro-Second Amendment decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was hailed as a partial victory by gun rights advocates who challenged New Jersey’s ban, arguing in court papers the law “blatantly violates the fundamental rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin said Tuesday his office would appeal the ruling, arguing it “weaponizes the Second Amendment to undermine public safety.”

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” Platkin said.

In a 69-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Sheridan, a George W. Bush appointee, criticized “the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes.”

However, Sheridan wrote, he was bound by the higher court’s rulings in two cases, known as Bruen and Heller.

“This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision,” the judge wrote.

The judge’s ruling concerned dual challenges to New Jersey’s Assault Firearms Law, enacted in 1990, and a 2018 law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy that limited magazine sizes to 10 rounds.

While Sheridan ruled the AR-15 ban unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court rulings, he upheld the state’s large-capacity magazine ban under the same framework.

The Supreme Court’s ruling “forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership,” he wrote, noting that AR-15 rifles are commonplace in gun-friendly states.

But the judge’s ruling only applies to the Colt model because of the “variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents” and because the evidence in this case concerned the AR-15.

The gun rights groups, including the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the national Firearms Policy Coalition, filed notice appealing the judge’s ruling upholding the magazine ban, court records show.

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement Tuesday.

“FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

New York judge declines to appoint monitor for NRA, bans former CEO Wayne LaPierre from working with group
Ruling came amid four-year legal battle between gun rights group and New York state

A New York judge on Monday decided not to assign an outside monitor to oversee the National Rifle Association (NRA), but banned Wayne LaPierre, the former CEO of the gun rights group, from employment with the organization for ten years.

The split decision from Judge Joel Cohen came on the final day of arguments in the second stage of the civil trial of the NRA brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Cohen said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA wasn’t a correct remedy, saying it would be “time-consuming, disruptive and will impose significant costs on the NRA without corresponding benefits.”

He also voiced concerns about potential government intrusion into the gun rights organization.

“Today’s developments validate the NRA’s reform efforts and commitment to good governance – and recognize the First Amendment stakes of this case,” NRA attorney William A. Brewer III said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Based on the record established at trial, the court rejected the NYAG’s request for a monitor.”

LaPierre said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA’s finances would be the “equivalent to putting a knife straight through the heart of the organization and twisting it.”

“General James will have achieved her objective to fulfill that campaign promise of, in effect, dissolving the NRA for a lack of money and a lack of members,” he said.

In a statement, NRA President Bob Barr said the group is committed to improving its “good governance.”

NY Attorney General Letitia James during an inauguration ceremony in 2019
Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

“As the NRA committed to the court, we will continue to pursue improvements to our commitment to good governance,” Barr said. “We thank the board for its support and salute our loyal members. Freedom prevails, again.”

LaPierre resigned from the organization earlier this year, citing health reasons. James brought a corruption case against the former CEO, who was accused of siphoning millions of dollars from the NRA to fund a lavish lifestyle complete with trips on private jets and other luxury gifts.

Prior to being elected, James vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” The NRA has accused James of weaponizing her office to target the group.

In 2020, she brought a lawsuit accusing NRA leadership of violating state and federal laws to divert millions of dollars to their own pockets.

A jury ordered LaPierre to repay almost $4.4 million to the organization, while the NRA’s retired finance chief, Wilson “Woody” Phillips, was ordered to pay back $2 million.

Following Monday’s ruling, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Doug Hamlin said the group plans to move “full speed ahead” with its mission.

“We have a mission to fulfill and elections to win up and down the ballot,” he said. “This is a major step toward rebuilding the trust of the members, donors, industry, and our staff.”

Supreme Court to hear disputes over ghost guns, veteran disabilities, pollution during new term

The Supreme Court will return from its summer recess in October and hear legal battles involving ghost guns, veteran disability claims and water pollution in the justices’ first sitting of the new term.

On Friday, the court released its October calendar, which includes four notable disputes:

Ghost guns

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Companies for D.C. Shooting

In April, 2022, a 23-year-old from Fairfax, Virginia opened fire from a Washington, D.C. apartment, injuring four people before taking his own life. One of the victims of the shooting filed a $75 million lawsuit several months later that sought to blame a number of companies in the firearms industry responsible for the crime, including Daniel Defense, Magpul Industries, and Vista Outdoors.

In her initial complaint, Karen Lowy and her attorneys claimed that the companies “have deceptively and unfairly marketed their assault rifles, rifle accessories, and ammunition in ways designed to appeal to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males—the same category of consumers Defendants have watched, time after time, commit the type of mass shooting that unfolded again at the Edmund Burke School.”

Now a federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit, ruling that Lowy failed to back up those claims with facts.

Here, a third party bridges the alleged causal chain between defendants’ conduct and plaintiffs’ injuries. At the beginning of the alleged causal chain, defendants marketed their weapons and weapons accessories to potential consumers in Virginia.

At the end, Shooter injured plaintiffs by firing at an elementary school. This chain relies on Shooter, a third party not before the Court, to link defendants to plaintiffs’ injuries.
Accordingly, to establish standing against defendants, plaintiffs must allege that defendants’ conduct had a determinative or coercive effect upon Shooter’s actions.

Much of plaintiffs’ complaint concerns defendants’ marketing to Virginia residents generally and “young men like the Shooter,” id. { 57, but few paragraphs allege the effect of defendants’ marketing on Shooter specifically.

To link Shooter’s actions to Defendant Daniel Defense, LLC, for example, plaintiffs plead that Daniel Defense “advertised to Virginia residents such as the Shooter,”  and allege “[upon information and belief, the Shooter relied on Defendant Daniel Defense, LLC’s advertisements to purchase the DDM4 V7 rifle and DD magazine.”

These allegations fail for two reasons.

First, concerning Shooter’s reliance on defendants’ marketing, plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory. Generally, a plaintiff may plead “based on ‘information and belief if such plaintiff is in a position of uncertainty because the necessary evidence is controlled by the defendant.”

But, like all other allegations, allegations pled upon information and belief “may not be wholly conclusory.” If “not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of [plaintiffs’) legal conclusions,” allegations pled upon information and belief fail.

Such is the case here: no factual allegations in the complaint support the conclusion that Shooter relied on defendants’ marketing. The complaint does not suggest defendants control such evidence of Shooter’s reliance and does no more than speculate that Shooter, like other young men in Virginia, observed defendants’ advertisements.

Without more support, these pleadings fail to raise plaintiffs’ right to relief above the speculative level and can proceed no further.

Second, viewed most optimistically, plaintiffs allege that Shooter relied on defendants’ advertisements when choosing to purchase defendants’ products. The Court cannot transform that allegation into an allegation that defendants’ marketing had a “determinative or coercive effect” on Shooters’ decision to shoot at plaintiffs. While the bounds of Article III’s causation requirement may at times seem opaque, “[c]ausation
makes its most useful contribution to standing analysis in circumstances that show a clear break in the causal chain.

Here, the actions of a third party injured plaintiffs. As explained above, completing the causal chain requires plaintiffs to allege
defendants’ conduct had a determinative or coercive effect on that third party’s injurious actions. This complaint, however, fails to make that allegation.

Maybe defendants’ advertising coerced Shooter to purchase defendants’ products (and that allegation, as discussed above, is speculative), but absent is any allegation that defendants’ advertising coerced Shooter to attack the elementary school. Without that allegation, plaintiffs’ alleged causal chain is incomplete, and plaintiffs lack standing against these defendants.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton went on to say that even if Lowy had been able to produce evidence that the shooter was motivated to shoot people because he saw a gun ad, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would have precluded the case from going forward. I’m glad to see that Hilton didn’t solely rely on the PLCAA in his decision to dismiss the case against these companies, but instead highlighted the vacuous nature of the claims that the shooter must have been goaded into his criminal activity by the marketing of companies like Daniel Defense and Magpul.

The only person to blame for this shooting is the shooter himself, and because he took his own life Lowy won’t be able to get justice in a criminal court. As frustrating as that undoubtedly is, it doesn’t justify scapegoating gun, ammo, and accessory companies for his crimes, and Judge Hilton made the right call in dismissing Lowy’s lawsuit.

NRA Challenges ‘Engaged In The Business’ Rule In Alabama Court

The National Rifle Association on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ/ATF’s Final Rule redefining who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms.

The NRA, along with two individuals, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Specifically, Butler v. Garland argues that the rule, which arguably bans most private sales of firearms, violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

Along with the NRA, the individual plaintiffs are Don Butler and David Glidewell. Butler, from Talladega, Alabama, is an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector. Glidewell, from Ragland, Alabama, is also an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector, according to the complaint.

Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the lawsuit is a follow-up on the promise made by NRA when the Final Rule was announced.

Continue reading “”

House Oversight Chairman Investigating White House Collusion in Chicago’s GLOCK Balk

The head of the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee isn’t playing games when it comes to The White House avoiding answers to questions about potential collusion with antigun groups to target GLOCK, Inc., with a frivolous lawsuit.

Last week, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee James Comer (R-Ky.) fired off a letter in response to The White House’s political gamesmanship. In short, Chairman Comer demanded that Stefanie Feldman, the Director of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, quit stalling and provide answers over “potential collaboration” between Biden administration officials and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chairman Comer announced an investigation into potential collusion between the Biden administration, gun control groups and the City of Chicago to bring a lawsuit against GLOCK, Inc., alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals unlawfully attach an illegal “switch” to handguns. The Oversight Committee learned that White House officials met privately with GLOCK representatives to demand a design alteration to their handguns.

Special-Interest Backed Lawfare

“On the very day the suit was filed, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt posted on X, ‘Federal officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.’”

Chairman Comer said this indicates that Everytown had inside access to White House meetings. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is staffed by a former Everytown lobbyist, Rob Wilcox. Letters demanding more information were sent to Steven Dettelbach, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman.

Chairman Comer sent these letters demanding answers on June 14. Instead of answering those questions, White House Deputy Counsel Rachel Cotton responded by making counteraccusations that Chairman Comer was shilling for the gun lobby. Cotton provided no answers, only listing off the Biden administration’s gun control efforts and goals, adding Congress “should open a real investigation into an actual danger to our communities: the proliferation of illegal devices that convert handguns into machineguns in a matter of seconds.”

That’s a purposefully misleading attack on not just the House Oversight Committee but also GLOCK. The illegal devices are “autosears,” which are illegal to possess, illegal to attach to a firearm and illegal to use without compliance with the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Cotton, as an attorney, should know that these aren’t produced by GLOCK or any other firearm manufacturer. In fact, they are largely illegally imported from China or illegally manufactured by individuals.

Continue reading “”

So That’s Why Chicago Dropped Its Lawsuit Against Glock

Earlier today we reported on the city of Chicago’s odd decision to quietly drop its joint lawsuit with Everytown Law against gunmaker Glock, which came with no fanfare or press releases… unlike the announcement of the lawsuit earlier this year.

Shortly after our story was published, the gun control outfit did issue a press release; this one touting its new and expanded lawsuit against the gun maker. I’m not going to give them the traffic by linking directly to the press release, but you can find it at Everytown Law’s website if you want to take a look. Here’s the most pertinent piece of their statement, however:

The City of Chicago, alongside Everytown Law and Motley Rice LLC, announced the expansion of the City’s first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Glock, the manufacturer of the most popular handguns in the United States. Three additional defendants were named in the complaint submitted yesterday in Cook County Circuit Court – Glock Ges.m.b.H, the Austrian Glock entity and part owner of the U.S. Glock subsidiary, and two Chicago-area gun stores on Glock’s roster of preferred dealers, Eagle Sports Range in Oak Forest, Illinois and Midwest Sporting Goods in Lyons, Illinois.

… The City seeks a court order requiring Defendants to cease sales and marketing of easily converted Glock pistols to Chicago civilians and an order requiring Eagle Sports Range to stop marketing Glocks modified with an auto sear at its location and online. The City also seeks penalties for these actions. The City first filed its lawsuit against Glock in March of this year, and Glock removed the case to federal district court. The City is now filing its expanded lawsuit after voluntarily dismissing the federal court action.

In their latest complaint, Chicago and Everytown Law claim that Eagle Sports Range is actually “marketing a Modified Glock to its customers”. Reading further, however, it sounds like the range is merely offering customers the opportunity to rent and shoot full-auto firearms on-site.

From the beginning, a major component of Eagle Sports Range’s business plan has been promoting its “full auto experience,” which allows customers to rent machine guns and fire them at its indoor range (a range which it has allowed convicted felons to use).

As part of its “full auto experience,” Eagle Sports Range markets the use of a Modified Glock at its range. Eagle Sports Range customers can thus “demo” a Modified Glock at the store’s range, purchase a semi-automatic Glock from the store’s inventory, and then easily and illegally modify their new Glock pistol at home with an auto sear purchased off the internet.

I doubt very much that Eagle Sports Range is offering an illegally modified Glock for use at its range, though if the company has a Type VII FFL it could legally modify a pistol to fire full-auto without running afoul of the law. But as even the city of Chicago reluctantly admits, it would be against the law for any customer to modify a Glock of their own to shoot full-auto. In fact, it’s a crime punishable under federal law by up to ten years in prison.

The only traces of Eagle Sports Range’s “full auto experience” that I’ve been able to find online are a YouTube video from 2017 that’s wracked up a grand total of less than 4,000 views in the seven years it’s been online, and a press release from that same year announcing that the range had a “Glock 18, a Short Barrel M4, AK47, or a 9MM Carbine” available to rent and use at the range itself. The Glock 18 isn’t a “modified Glock”, however. It’s produced as a full-auto pistol; one not available for sale to average consumers.

Chicago and their partners at Everytown Law are trying to stop city residents from being able to purchase some of the most common and popular handguns in the country, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re playing fast and loose with the facts.

I’m looking forward to seeing Glock’s response to the latest iteration of the litigation, as well as what Eagle Sports Range and Midwest Sporting Goods have to say about the legal attacks on their businesses, but keep in mind that this lawsuit could be just the first round of a broader strategy to ban semi-automatic handguns.

As we’ve previously reported, about a dozen blue-state AGs have sent what amounts to a pre-litigation demand letter to Glock, and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention has reportedly been pressing the ATF to issue a rule classifying Glocks as machine guns as well. The Supreme Court may have nixed a handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, but the gun control lobby is clearly searching for a way to enact a sweeping gun ban regardless of what the Court has to say about it.

What Do You Mean, You Don’t Know

John Frazer served as NRA General Counsel from January 2015 until May 21st of this year. That is when Doug Hamlin separated the positions of General Counsel and Secretary and appointed Michael Blaz as the new General Counsel. Frazer retained his position as Secretary.

Frazer was on the stand today in the remedial phase of the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit. He was asked about how much money the NRA had paid Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, since 2018. Additionally, he was asked how much the NRA had paid for the defense of Wayne LaPierre and himself.

As reported by Erik Uebelacker of Courthouse News who has been following the trial:

While I might give Frazer a pass on how much has been paid to Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, for their work on the NYAG’s case, it is only because the Special Litigation Committee was formed to make decisions on that case – and only that case – due to Frazer and Wayne being named defendants. However, William Brewer and his firm have done plenty of other legal work for the NRA ranging from the multiple lawsuits against AckMac to the Vullo case that went before the Supreme Court. Brewer’s firm even handled the lawsuit against former NRA President Oliver North which is currently on hold pending the outcome of the NYAG’s case.

He certainly ought to have an idea how many billable hours have been spent on his defense by William Fleming of Gage Spencer and Fleming LLP. How hard is it to multiply hours billed times a per hour fee? Moreover, to say he has no idea how much has been paid to Brewer is ludicrous. He might not know the exact figure but he certainly has to know a ballpark figure.

If he doesn’t, then what was he doing as General Counsel all these years? Unless I’m greatly mistaken, doesn’t the Office of General Counsel have to approve bills submitted for NRA legal work before it is passed on to the Accounting Department for payment?

Frazer was never a grifter like Wayne. I will give him that. However, I do expect a certain level of responsibility from an officer of an organization when he is being paid a substantial 6-figure salary. That responsibility includes making sure the members’ dues spent on outside lawyers is well spent. It is impossible to do this if, as Frazer testified, he didn’t know how much was being spent on his defense, on Wayne’s defense, and on the myriad of legal issues being handled by Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors.

To all those who have insisted that membership and revenues are down because Tish James initiated a lawsuit against the NRA, think again. It is down because members, both Life and annual, have had the blinders pulled off their eyes and don’t want to waste their hard earned cash on an organization that seems intent on just pissing it away. Can you blame them when the former General Counsel says he has no idea how much has been spent on legal expenses?

NRA Trial Reveals Reformers Have More Work to Do

When a slate of reform-minded candidates won election to the NRA’s board of directors earlier this year, there was genuine hope that it would make a turning point for the organization, which has seen both membership and revenue plummet over the past few years. But testimony delivered during this week’s civil trial in New York has revealed that the board’s old guard still holds at least some sway over the direction of the organization, and there is much more work to be done to get the NRA back on track.

Take, for instance, the testimony of new NRA president Bob Barr, who was not the reformer’s pick to serve as the top elected official of the organization. While most of the reform-minded board members were cautiously optimistic that Barr would go along with the necessary changes to renew members’ confidence in the organization, Barr revealed that the NRA hasn’t even tried to collect the millions of dollars that Wayne LaPierre owes the group.

It wasn’t just the misspending on the part of top NRA officials like former executive vice president Wayne LaPierre that have caused many gun owners to let their memberships lapse or refuse to donate, it’s definitely a major factor. So why hasn’t the NRA tried to claw back the money the jury says is owed to the group? It’s not like they couldn’t use the cash.

Barr made another revealing comment; this one about new EVP Doug Hamlin, who was the choice of reformers. As John Richardon of Only Guns and Money relayed, Trace reporter Will Van Sant quoted Barr calling Hamlin a “placeholder” during testimony.

The National Rifle Association’s new chief executive Doug Hamlin is a placeholder, according to the testimony of former NRA president Charles Cotton that points to fault lines in the gun group’s leadership.

In May, board members chose Hamlin, who led the NRA’s publications arm, as Wayne LaPierre’s replacement. Hamlin is allied to a small, self-described reform bloc at the group.

“The intent is to try to get, frankly, some high-powered person to take it over,” testified Cotton, a LaPierre defender whom the reformers consider part of an old guard. Cotton made his remarks in a New York courtroom where the final phase of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s lawsuit against the NRA is underway. —Will Van Sant

When I spoke to Hamlin on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co a few weeks after his election, I asked him about whether he considered himself to essentially be a placeholder, or whether he planned on sticking around. Hamlin replied that he served at the pleasure of the board, but he certainly didn’t sound like someone who took the job on a short-term basis.

Hamlin and Barr have both taken the stand in New York this week, and Hamlin was far more willing to criticize his predecessor for his misuse of NRA funds.

The New York attorney general called each to the witness stand to show how their differences could hold the NRA back from making progress toward financial transparency — part of the state’s broader goal of having a court-appointed monitor oversee the NRA and banning LaPierre from its leadership for life.

For instance, Hamlin was more willing to criticize LaPierre’s reign during his testimony.

“Mr. LaPierre breached the trust of the NRA and its members, correct?” state attorney Monica Connell prodded.

“Yes,” Hamlin replied, adding that he agreed LaPierre’s conduct placed the NRA in a “very difficult decision” and was partly responsible for the group’s declining membership.

Meanwhile, Barr maintained that LaPierre discharged his duties to the NRA in good faith, conceding that LaPierre may have made a few mistakes along the way. He took issue with the attorney general calling LaPierre “corrupt” following the verdict against him in February.

“I believe it was, shall we say, a mischaracterization,” Barr testified Wednesday.

Hamlin and Barr also appeared to be on different pages about the NRA’s potential relocating of its headquarters, a move that Knox and other board members believe should only be done with significant input from the board.

Hamlin, who previously ran the NRA’s in-house publishing arm, testified that he wasn’t even aware of the NRA’s intent to sell its Virginia headquarters until a few weeks ago. He axed plans to sell the Fairfax property when he took the NRA’s reins earlier this year. Barr testified that he thought Hamlin’s decision was “rushed.”

Still, these disputes weren’t an issue for Barr, a former U.S. representative from Georgia, who told the court he could “absolutely” work productively with Hamlin. “It’s similar to working in the Congress,” Barr said. “You have disagreements.”

I’m not sure pointing to Congress as a model of efficiency and comity is a great example, to be honest.

Beyond the trial, Barr has also appointed former NRA president Charles Cotton, who, as Van Sant points out, is considered one of the leaders of the old guard, to serve as chairman of several key BoD committees, including the Ethics and Audit committees. Not only that, as Richardson pointed out, Barr named just one of the Four for Reform candidates to any of these key committees.

I find this disappointing as their election is being used by the NRA in its court filings to assert that things have changed and no special monitor was needed. While Rocky’s appointment is good and proper, why was not Jeff Knox put on Bylaws and Resolutions as he probably knows more about the Bylaws than any member of that committee. Likewise, would not it have been wise to put Judge Phil Journey, the only jurist on the Board, on the Legal Affairs Committee.

With the exception of the Finance Committee which has has four known reformers on it (out of 15 total members), the remaining committees have one and perhaps two known reformers on them. If Barr wanted to signal to the members of the NRA and to Judge Cohen that things had changed at the NRA, this certainly was not the way to do it.

While I don’t have a crystal ball on what will happen in the remedial phase of the New York trial, I think the odds are better than even that a special monitor will now be appointed to oversee the NRA’s finances. It should be noted that this monitor will have nothing to do with functions and programs of the NRA including its political functions.

While this will put me at odds with some friends on the Board who are reformers, I think that the special monitor will be a requirement if the NRA is ever to crawl out of the morass it finds itself in.

I said when Barr was elected that he wasn’t my first choice, but I was hopeful that with reformers elected by the board to every other leadership position he would be a part of the effort to regain the trust of members. After the revelations over the past week, I can’t say I still harbor those hopes.

And honestly, as much as I want to see the NRA succeed, why should any individual or company donate a penny in support so long as the NRA isn’t demanding the return of the millions of dollars LaPierre owes the organization and its dues-paying members? Barr wasn’t asked that question on the stand, but everyone who’s stood by the organization or felt it was time to return to the fold deserve an answer.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: Carry Bans for Under-21s Violate the Second Amendment

Minnesota’s ban on concealed carry for adults younger than 21 violates the Second Amendment, according to a three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a district court decision that found the state’s statute unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision, giving the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, MN Gun Owners Caucus, and several individual plaintiffs a huge victory… as well as teeing up a potential appeal to the Supreme Court by Minnesota Attorney General and longtime anti-2A advocate Keith Ellison.

The opinion, authored by Eighth Circuit Judge Duane Benton, is relatively brief and mercifully short of legalese. First, the panel weighed in on standing, and rightfully allowed the litigation to proceed even though the original plaintiffs have now reached the age where they can apply for a carry license. Plaintiffs aging out is a real problem when challenging restrictions on young adults, but the 2A groups found a 19-year-old to serve as an additional plaintiff in Worth v. Jacobson, and the panel ruled that the “organizational plaintiffs have an unbroken chain of standing” thanks to the addition.

With standing resolved, Duane and the other two members of the panel then turned to the question at hand; whether Minnesota’s prohibition on concealed carry for adults younger than 21 passes constitutional muster. The panel dismissed the claims by the state that young adults aren’t part of “the People”, nor do they possess the full flower of their individual rights until they turn 21. As Benton pointed out, “Reading the Second Amendment in the context of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment unambiguously places 18 to 20-year-olds within the national political community.” And if they’re a part of the national political community, then they possess the right to keep and bear arms.

Unless, of course, Minnesota could demonstrate a national tradition that prohibited some adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights based solely on their age. The state pointed to various ordinances and regulations, including 18th and 19th century prohibitions on college students keeping guns on campus, but the court found all that none of them were a close enough analogue to pass muster.

 Minnesota did not proffer an analogue that meets the “how” and “why” of the Carry Ban for 18 to 20-year-old Minnesotans. The only proffered evidence that was both not entirely based on one’s status as a minor and not entirely removed from burdening carry—Indiana’s 1875 statute—is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Carry Ban is within this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 65 (a “single” “postbellum” “state statute” is insufficient weight to meet the state’s burden).

Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that 18 to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms. The Carry Ban, § 624.714subd. 2(b)(2), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, is unconstitutional.

This is the first Second Amendment case to be decided since the Supreme Court used two fairly dissimilar 18th century statutes to uphold the modern prohibition on gun possession for those subject to a domestic violence restraining order in Rahimi, and it’s good to see that the Eighth Circuit didn’t try to abuse the Court’s narrow decision to uphold the state’s carry ban by citing statutes that barred minors from possessing guns or other historical laws with a tenuous connection at best to the law the plaintiffs challenged.

FPC President Brandon Combs hailed the decision, saying it “confirms that age-based firearm bans are flatly unconstitutional. All peaceable people have a natural right to carry firearms in public, and adults under the age of 21 are no exception,” while Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President and founder Alan Gottlieb called the ruling “a significant victory for the rights of young adults.”

Now the ball is is AG Ellison’s court. Will he seek an en banc review of the panel’s decision… and would the Eighth Circuit even grant his request given that both the trial court and the appellate panel are in agreement? Unless Ellison is willing to take the loss, his choices are limited to asking the Eighth Circuit for a do-over with the entire appellate court weighing in, or taking his appeal directly to the Supreme Court. He has a tough decision to make, because now that the Eighth Circuit panel has issued its ruling, it won’t be long before the state is formally enjoined from prohibiting young adults from applying for and receiving their concealed carry license.

Trump Dodges Another Bullet: Jack Smith

Everything really is going Donald Trump’s way in the six weeks since his conviction on May 30. Trump pulled in a vast fundraising haul after the conviction, jumping ahead for the first time in the campaign cash race while his conviction barely dented his standing in the polls. The intermediate appeals court in Georgia issued a stay order halting Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump.

\The Supreme Court took two big bites out of Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump in D.C., with an immunity ruling and a decision on the obstruction-of-a-proceeding statute that will both require further, time-consuming litigation to see how they have narrowed the case. Acting Justice Juan Merchan delayed Trump’s state-court sentencing in New York from mid July to mid September in order to consider whether Trump’s conviction violated his immunity from having evidence of official acts introduced at his trial. His opponent melted down so badly in their first debate that Joe Biden is still fending off calls to drop out of the race, and has reportedly seen his fundraising dry to a trickle with big donors.

Then, Trump survived an assassination attempt and emerged looking vigorous and defiant. He will probably raise another mountain of cash after the shooting in Butler, Pa., which left a flustered Biden scrambling to pause his attack ads and reconsider the vitriol of his attacks on Trump. MSNBC even sidelined Morning Joe for the day out of fear of going overboard against Trump. And now, rolling into today’s curtain-opening of the Republican convention and announcement of Trump’s running mate, Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown out what once seemed the strongest of the cases against the former president: the retention of boxes of classified and sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office.

Continue reading “”