Category: Courts

FPC Secures Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule, Will Seek Clarification on Scope of Ruling

NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 23, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order granting an Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s federal lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) recent rule reclassifying braced pistols as National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated short-barreled rifles. The injunction, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.

FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Per the the Fifth Circuit’s Order, “IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument Calendar. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.”

FPC intends to seek clarification as to who is covered under the scope of the injunction.

“We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation. “We intend to ask the Court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is. The fight is far from over, but this is a huge victory in the battle against the ATF’s unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule!”

AGs ask court to dismiss Mexico lawsuit claiming U.S. firearms industry is responsible for cartel violence

(The Center Square) – A Mexican government lawsuit blaming American firearm manufacturers for cartel violence is bogus, 20 Republican attorneys general argue. In a new brief filed with the First Circuit Appeals Court, they asked the court to dismiss the case.

Last September, Chief District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit filed against several U.S. gun manufacturers. The defendants include Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., D/B/A Interstate Arms; Century International Arms, Inc.; Baretta Holdings Spa, Glock Ges.M.B.H; and Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Llc.

The Mexican government is seeking $10 billion in damages for cartel violence in a country where guns can only be purchased legally at one gun store in Mexico City run by the Mexican Army. In 2018, the store sold 38 firearms on average, a day, compared to an estimated 580 weapons smuggled into Mexico from the U.S., the Los Angeles Times reported.

Mexico’s lawsuit isn’t a new claim. In 2016, the former Mexican president also argued that cartel firearm trafficking was “strengthening the cartels and other criminal organizations that create violence in Mexico,” the Times reported.

Law enforcement officials have explained to The Center Square that Mexican cartel violence is perpetrated through the illegal purchasing and trafficking of firearms, largely financed through human and drug trafficking and smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border. People and drugs are trafficked and smuggled north; illegal weapons, cash and other contraband move south, officials have explained.

The AGs argue, “Mexico advances a legal theory that is unsupported by fact or law.

“On the facts, American gun manufacturers are not responsible for gun violence in Mexico. Rather, policy choices by the Mexican government, policy failures in the United States, and independent criminal actions by third parties are alone responsible for gun violence in Mexico,” they state in the brief.

Continue reading “”

US Senator Tries to Undermine Branch of Government Intended as a Check on HIS Branch of Government

As anyone who has an elementary school level education understands, our Founders established our federal government to have three branches—the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary—each designed with their own duties, and also designed to act as a check on the others from trying to assert too much power.

In a fairly simplistic breakdown, Congress determines what laws should be in place, the President makes sure the laws are put into place and enforced, and the Supreme Court determines if the laws comport with the US Constitution.

Sadly, some politicians simply ignore this dynamic, and hate being less powerful than they believe they should be.

Case in point: US Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Murphy has long been a staunch advocate of diminishing the Second Amendment. He has supported virtually every anti-gun proposal that has come before him for consideration, including banning guns. But, thus far, he has failed to achieve much success in imposing the Draconian restrictions on law-abiding gun owners he would like to see passed at the federal level.

There are, however, a handful of states that are under the political control of anti-gun zealots; states such as California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. These states have, as our readers know, passed laws that infringe on our rights protected under the Second Amendment; ranging from annoying bureaucratic impediments to exercising the right to arms to actual bans on some of the most popular firearms people choose for self-defense.

That said, while our Founders may have given deference to the states to manage their own affairs, it has been long established that there are certain things that are sacrosanct—like individual rights—and states can be limited as to their authority on establishing laws in certain areas.

So, after a trio of Second Amendment-affirming decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court based on challenges to laws at the state and city level—in the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen—the days of anti-gun states and localities being able to violate Second Amendment rights with no accountability may be numbered.

This seems to terrify Sen. Murphy, and so much so that he has taken up the tactic of making thinly-veiled threats towards the US Supreme Court and questioning our nation’s very foundations of government.

Continue reading “”

A conversation with constitutional attorney Stephen P. Halbrook

FULL IMPACT
ALMOST 11 MONTHS AFTER BRUEN, COURTS LAY DOWN LAW

It’s been almost 11 months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a decision authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which could be the most important Second Amendment victory in recent memory.

Bruen builds nicely on the groundwork already put down by the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision. Heller established decisively that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. McDonald affirmed that local governments cannot outright ban possession of firearms and more importantly, incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. Henceforth, whether a state has a right to bear arms provision in its state constitution, all states must comply with the Second Amendment.

Then, 12 years after McDonald, along comes Bruen, which declared New York State’s restrictive concealed carry law — designed more to prevent lawful carry than license and allow it — unconstitutional. And it has a critical section, which did away with what amounted to an invention by the lower federal courts to protect restrictive gun control laws by establishing “means-end” scrutiny in addition to the historical meaning and perspective.

In Thomas’ words, “In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

“Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach,” Thomas continued. “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

Continue reading “”

Mock v. Garland – FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule

LEGAL UPDATE: We filed a motion for injunction pending appeal with the Fifth Circuit today in our lawsuit challenging the ATF’s pistol brace rule, where we ask for it to be granted by May 24th

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging the ATF’s pistol brace rule.

Plaintiffs: William Mock, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, and Firearms Policy Coalition

Defendants: Attorney General Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice, ATF Directer Stephen Dettelbach, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Litigation Counsel: R. Brent Cooper and Cody Wisniewski

Docket: N.D. TX case no. 4:23-cv-00095, Fifth Circuit case no. 23-10319 | CourtListener Docket

The school wants to protect personnel and building info reported to be in it, so, okay redact stuff like that.

Nashville school tries to block shooter’s manifesto. Why?

The Covenant School in Nashville was the site of a horrific atrocity. That’s not even a matter of debate. Anyone who tries to claim it wasn’t is too delusional to waste your time on. We might have different takes on what happened, but we know and agree that it did.

What we also know is that the killer wrote a manifesto outlining what they planned and why. The public has been clamoring for it. We want to see inside the mind of a mass killer and see if we can figure out what makes people do these kinds of things.

The school, however, is trying to block the release.

Over the weekend, the Covenant Presbyterian Church and associated Covenant School filed a motion to block the public release of the manifesto of the transgender shooter who attacked the school, court documents revealed…

Monday court filings revealed that the Covenant Church requested that the court prevent the documents from being released to the public, citing privacy concerns.

The motion, filed against the Tennessee Firearms Association, and another filed against the Nashville Police Association stated that the manifesto “may include and/or relate to information owned by Covenant Church,” such as “schematics of church facilities and confidential information” regarding employees.

The church claimed the manifesto’s release could “impair or impede its ability to protect its interests and the privacy of its employees.”

A judge is scheduled to hear the church’s motion on Thursday.

I’m one of those who have wanted to read the manifesto. While many of us have suspicions as to the killer’s motives, I want to see for myself what the killer said. I want to know what was going on in that sick and twisted excuse for a mind.

So part of me hopes the manifesto is released.

However, the school in question has concerns, and I can’t dismiss them out of hand. After all, could this manifesto be used as a blueprint for Nashville Part 2? Could this reveal information that would be bad for the students and staff?

Then there’s what isn’t said, which is why another part of me hopes we don’t see the manifesto. That’s the part familiar with the idea of social contagion.

Basically, the premise is that the more we cover these kinds of things, the more they happen. It’s similar to when we see a rash of suicides anywhere. The first one happens, then the coverage and discussion plants the idea in other minds and you see more and more.

There’s a good chance that social contagion accounts for much of what we’ve seen over the last few years.

Releasing the manifesto would increase the coverage of Nashville, thus potentially leading to still more mass shootings elsewhere. Even if Nashville never sees another, there could be actual ramifications for releasing the manifesto that will cost lives.

That said, is there a middle ground?

For example, ignoring the whole social contagion thing–which may or may not be an issue–could a redacted manifesto be released to the public? Remove anything related to security or any mention of specific people related to the school and release the rest so as to alleviate security and privacy concerns, but still share the motivations of this demented monster.

Then we all get something out of this.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I just know that we need to figure something out and do it soon.

Supreme Court Decides Against Early Intervention in Illinois AR-15 Ban Case

The Supreme Court has declined to issue an emergency injunction request against an Illinois city’s “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday.

The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which has challenged a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms enacted by Naperville, Illinois. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case is filed in, requested a brief from the city in defense of its law after the gun-rights group asked the Court to intervene because a lower court upheld the ban.

“The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied,” the order in NAGR v. Naperville reads.

Barrett’s request for a brief in the case opened the possibility that the Court might be willing to jump the line and block the city’s ban on an emergency basis. That would have been a rare move, which the Court also declined to do in two recent Second Amendment cases challenging New York’s latest gun restrictions. The Court taking the less aggressive path of allowing the case to play out on the merits in the lower courts before deciding whether or not to get involved represents a setback for gun-rights advocates who had hoped they could achieve a quick win on the issue of assault weapons bans.

Naperville said it is “pleased” with the decision and vowed to continue defending its ban.

“The City’s ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of our community,” Linda L. LaCloche, director of communications for the city manager’s office, told The Reload. “We will continue to defend the ordinance against legal challenges and expect future court decisions as the legal process runs its course.”

The case against Naperville’s ban is separate from the newer statewide ban. Naperville enacted its ban in August 2022. State lawmakers passed their ban in January 2023. Both have faced significant backlash from gun-rights supporters but the statewide ban has come under even more intense scrutiny since its passage.

The statewide ban has since been ruled unconstitutional in state and federal court, though those rulings have since been stayed by higher courts. Oral arguments in the case against the statewide ban were heard at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. It has also faced backlash from a majority of Illinois sheriffs who say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

The Naperville ordinance has fared better by comparison. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected NAGR’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the Supreme Court has done the same.

The Court’s denial of NAGR’s request in the Naperville case was done without any comment or noted dissents. That sets it apart from one of the emergency injunction denials in the New York Second Amendment cases. In Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted the Court’s decision not to intervene on an emergency basis reflected its deference to lower court proceedings rather than an endorsement of New York’s new gun restrictions.

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito wrote.

The pair said the New York law in question presents “novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments” and went on to praise the district court’s ruling against much of the law as “a thorough opinion.” It noted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued “unreasoned summary stay orders” against the injunctions in Anyonyuk and several other cases involving the New York law before encouraging the plaintiffs to refile for emergency relief if the lower court drags its feet.

“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Alito wrote.

In NAGR v. Naperville, none of the justices said anything about the district court’s decision to uphold the city’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular firearms. That provides less insight into how the justices may feel about the case itself beyond agreeing not to get involved at this point.

NAGR did not respond to a request for comment on the Court’s denial.

Comments O’ The Day

Again, just like in NY SCOTUS has chosen their procedure preferences over the rights of millions of Americans

Justices will not get involved with lower courts giving the anti-gun states whatever they want. We get screwed until a case on the merits reaches cert petition.

Maryland governor signs gun-control bills tightening requirements, NRA sues

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed gun-control measures into law on Tuesday, and the National Rifle Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit against them.

The governor signed legislation approved by state lawmakers this year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last year ended a requirement similar to a Maryland law for people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public.

One of the measures Moore signed Tuesday removes the “good and substantial reason” language from Maryland law that the court found unconstitutional in the Bruen case. But the Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, also tightened gun laws to prevent someone from carrying a concealed handgun in certain areas.

“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore, a Democrat, said at a bill-signing ceremony.

Moore said the measures he signed into law demonstrate that the state won’t back down from the challenges of addressing gun violence plaguing the nation.

“In Maryland, we refuse to say these problems are too big or too tough,” Moore said. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”

One of the bills signed by the governor generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying or transporting a gun in an “area for children or vulnerable adults,” like a school or health care facility. The new law, which takes effect Oct. 1, also prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a “government or public infrastructure area,” or a “special purpose area,” which is defined as a place licensed to sell alcohol, cannabis, a stadium, museum, racetrack or casino.

The law also prohibits a person carrying a firearm from entering someone’s home or property, unless the owner has given permission. There are exemptions for law enforcement, security guards and members of the military.

The NRA contends in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland that the state passed the legislation “in defiance of” court rulings that its gun-carry permitting law was unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Gun rights advocates win major challenge to N.J.’s tough concealed carry law.

A new law limiting concealed carry of guns in New Jersey suffered another defeat in federal court Tuesday as a judge ordered state officials not to enforce its tight restrictions pending a flurry of legal challenges from gun rights advocates.

The ruling means New Jerseyans with proper permits are free to concealed-carry handguns at beaches, public parks, bars and restaurants — places from where Gov. Phil Murphy and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature sought to ban firearms in an effort to curb gun violence.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found restrictive concealed carry laws on the books in states like New York and New Jersey violated the Second Amendment, Democratic leaders in the state fast-tracked a new measure that made it easier for citizens to obtain carry permits, but tightly limited where guns were allowed.

But in a 235-page ruling made public Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb officially put its enforcement on hold.
Gun rights advocates declared victory, praising the decision as a “smackdown” of “draconian laws.”

Continue reading “”

To these types, the court become ‘illegitimate’ when it rules opposite to what they want. That’s childish ‘stampy footing’ as most proggies do when they don’t get their way. The court, by definition, isn’t illegitimate, but if you don’t like how they rule, you either follow the methods provided in the Constitution, or get yourself classed as domestic enemy of the same.

Democrat Senator Says People Will ‘Revolt’ If Supreme Court Blocks Gun Control.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed over the weekend that the American people would “revolt” if the United States Supreme Court continued to block new gun control laws.

Murphy made the comments to NBC’s Chuck Todd during Sunday morning’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” — after which he dug in even further, going on to attack the credibility and legitimacy of the current court.

Murphy referenced a 2022 Supreme Court decision — authored by Clarence Thomas in the 6-3 majority — that struck down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry, along with the more recent decision from Virginia District Court Judge Robert Payne. Payne ruled that a ban on gun sales for 18-20-year-olds would effectively impose restrictions on certain citizens that “do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

Complaining that the courts had often halted any progress toward stricter gun control measures by interfering in anything legislators were able to get done, Murphy said, “If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.”

The Connecticut Senator then turned his attack on the Supreme Court directly, adding, “A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode.” He went on to promise that legislators would continue to “regulate who owns weapons and what kind of weapons are owned” — with or without pushback from the courts.

It’s not about popularity or even the usefulness of a thing. It’s about bureaucraps exercising arbitrary power at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge. We are either a nation of laws, or we’re nothing more than another dictatorship under the rule of man, instead of the rule of law.

Analysis: Despite Trump Claim, Bump Stock Ban is Important

Former President Donald Trump (R.) hand waved his decision to unilaterally ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting as “very unimportant.” But the ban was enormously consequential both legally and politically.

On Wednesday, Trump was asked about his ban by a Republican primary voter at CNN’s town hall.

“As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing,” Trump replied. “NRA I went with them, and they said, ‘it doesn’t mean anything, or actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.’ So, we did that.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported instituting the ban via executive order after balking at a legislative ban they argued went too far. Trump listened to NRA and issued an order to have the ATF craft a rule banning the devices as unregistered machineguns–possession of which could lead to upwards of ten years in prison under the National Firearms Act (NFA). However, he turned a deaf ear when the NRA complained the rule went too far by refusing to exempt those who’d legally bought the stocks before Trump ordered the rule.

The result was a total confiscation order for bump stocks from the Trump Administration. Despite previously ruling bump stocks were legal to buy without special regulations under the Obama Administration, the ATF declared under Trump the stocks are actually machineguns and aren’t legal to buy and never were. Only destroying the stock you owned or turning it over to the ATF without compensation were offered as remedies to avoiding potential federal felony charges.

The ATF had made its fair share of contradictory or incoherent rules and determinations before the bump stock ban–it had once claimed pressing a pistol-brace-equipped gun to your shoulder constitutes redesigning it on the fly.

However, the bump stock ban was one step further than many of the agency’s previous proclamations. It was based on a lie. One that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has since called out.

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ Nightmares–African Americans See Racism in Democrat Attacks on Clarence Thomas.

An idea for a poll: Survey black Americans to see if they think racism is any way behind the three-decade-long, never-ending criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

This shouldn’t be a controversial notion. Progressives and Democrats have long attributed racism to criticism of black government officials they like. Only last month, former White House chief-of-staff Ron Klain said racism is behind the criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris (of course along with sexism).

The left never tires of telling us how deeply racism infects the nation, that American institutions are embedded with systemic racism, that white people can’t recognize the unconscious racist attitudes they harbor about people of color, that white children develop racial bias as early as 4 years old, that racism permeates even math and science, that “white privilege” remains an ongoing injustice, and on and on.

With racism so deeply entrenched in American society, criticism of black politicians and government officials can be — even sometimes must be — based on race, according to progressive thinking.

That is, it applies when the criticism is aimed liberal office holders and public figures, according to the progressive narrative. You never heard that accusation when black conservatives are attacked.

That’s a double standard at the heart of liberal cries of racism.

But, if America is so deeply and intrinsically racist, as the far left never hesitates to remind us, why would any black official, including conservatives, be immune from race-based attacks?

Which brings us to the case of Justice Thomas.

Now it’s true that there is a bigger picture at work at the present. The most recent criticism of Justice Thomas comes amid a broad-based Democrat and left-wing assault on the Supreme Court, a full-scale, no-holds-barred campaign to delegitimize the nation’s highest court.

Like the segregationists of the 1950s and ’60s who sought to undermine the high court because of its rulings ending segregation in schools and public places, today’s progressives attack the independence and integrity of the court because they hate its prominent rulings, most notably the one returning the issue of abortion to the people to deal with through their state legislatures.

But the brunt of the anti-court blitz falls on Justice Thomas. And it’s just the latest example.

Continue reading “”

“Infringed” – finally – defined by a federal court;  From the summary judgement that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.

JOHN COREY FRASER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Defendants.

****

The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed”  U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.

The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way.9 Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.

*****

Fraser v. ATF
Judge strikes down the federal law banning FFL handgun sales to young adults, saying that doing otherwise “would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.47.0

Federal judge upholds constitutionality of law against possessing guns without serial numbers
Judge William Martínez agreed that guns lacking serial numbers are not ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’

Although a major U.S. Supreme Court decision last year made it easier to strike down gun safety regulations as unconstitutional, a federal judge agreed on Monday that a law banning the possession of guns that lack serial numbers does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Within months of his indictment for possessing a firearm with an “obliterated” serial number in Denver, Jonathan Avila moved for dismissal of the criminal charge, arguing the law violated his constitutional right to bear arms.

But in a May 8 order, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez disagreed, noting the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right to own weapons for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

“Reason and the experience of law enforcement counsel is that obliterating a firearm’s serial number serves another purpose: making the identity of a person who possesses a particular firearm more difficult to determine,” Martínez wrote. “This feature makes firearms with obliterated serial numbers useful for criminal activity.”

Consequently, he determined guns lacking serial numbers are not within the Second Amendment’s protection.

Martínez is one of many federal judges who have had to grapple with the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The court’s conservative majority voided New York’s licensing regime for the public carry of weapons, but also laid down a new legal framework for analyzing the constitutionality of gun regulations broadly.

The government, when defending the constitutionality of a firearm law, “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority.

He added that if a law addresses a “general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century,” the lack of a regulation from the 1700s comparable to a modern restriction is “relevant evidence” that current policies are unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Frustratingly, the same judge who issued the foolish opinion which was overturned by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago has once again stepped in to enforce unconstitutional gun control. This is not the last laugh, and we are fully invested in ensuring this law is defeated. GOA will continue to fight until lower courts, executives, and lawmakers at all levels fall in line with the Bruen precedent.

Erich Pratt GOA Senior Vice President