US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

SCOTUS Conference on Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

US Supreme Court rules to uphold Second Amendment

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held conference on our case against Illinois’ ban on so called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines for the first time.

In our appeal for certiorari at the Supreme Court, we have asked the justices to strike down the 7th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Illinois’ ban. You can read our petition for certiorari here.

Now, there are a couple of things that can happen with this:

  • The Court accepts our petition, and we will move forward to an oral argument before the justices.
  • The Court “punts” our case for further conference dates to discuss whether to take it.
  • The Court could deny our petition for certiorari.

If the Court does “punt” the case for further conference, that is far from a bad thing. As much as we would like the Court to take our case as soon as they can, their discussing it at further dates can be an indicator that they are seriously considering taking it.

The landmark decisions from Heller and Bruen are being ignored, misapplied, or outright defied by the lower courts across the country. This is undoubtably something that the justices at the Supreme Court have noticed, and something they will have to correct.

The Supreme Court is going to have to answer the questions on “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans sooner or later. If they choose not to take this case, and instead remand it back to the lower courts, our multi-circuit strategy will have the “assault weapons” ban issue right back on their desks in no time.

The Supreme Court releases an order list on Mondays with their decisions from the previous conference date. Your NFGR team will be closely monitoring the release of these orders and will keep you posted.

Stay tuned for updates on this case, we hope to hear good news soon.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest and continue the fight for the Second Amendment!

Massachusetts Judge Rules Against the Second Amendment

U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Saylor just upheld the Massachusetts “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazine bans in a ruling that denied our motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read the ruling here.

Our legal team is preparing to appeal this ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal must be filed 30 days from the date of the ruling.

This ruling manipulates Supreme Court precedents Heller and Bruen in order to conclude that the gun ban signed into law by then-Governor Mitt Romney is consistent with the Second Amendment.

For instance, Judge Saylor used the Heller finding that handguns are “the quintessential self-defense weapon” to conclude that this means “legislatures have some greater degree of latitude when regulating firearms that are not handguns.”

The ruling builds on this, going so far as to claim that if a handgun is the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” firearms with features not found on a handgun make it less useful for self-defense.

That conclusion is particularly problematic because the actual quote from Heller states that while judges may speculate on why a particular gun is Americans’ choice of self-defense weapon, it is the people’s choice and not the role of judges to second-guess their decisions:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. (D.C. v. Heller, emphasis added)

The Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes require “a more nuanced approach,” and Judge Saylor took this to mean that concealed carry restrictions and fire codes on the storage of gunpowder somehow allowed the government to impose an outright ban on standard-capacity magazines.

Though it is disappointing to receive a bad ruling, this was the expected outcome as Judge Saylor called our interpretation of the Second Amendment a “suicide pact” during oral arguments.

We will be appealing this case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals as soon as we can, and we will not stop fighting for the Second Amendment rights of the people of Massachusetts.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment!

Fighting “Assault Weapons” Bans at the 7th Circuit

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

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

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

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

“End All Semi-Auto Bans” Litigation Blitz

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

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

Enter the anti-gun legal horde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit

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

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

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

Massachusetts “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the state of Massachusetts to overturn their so called “assault weapon” and magazine ban. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Massachusetts is in the 1st Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit, including Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

Connecticut “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their so called “assault weapon” and magazine ban. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Connecticut is in the 2nd Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit including New York and Vermont.

Highland Park, IL “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the city of Highland Park, IL to overturn their so called “assault weapon” and magazine ban. We have amended our complaint to incorporate the state “assault weapon” ban as well. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Highland Park is in the 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit, including Wisconsin and Indiana.

Naperville, IL “Assault Weapon” Sale Ban

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the city of Naperville, IL for an “assault weapon” sale ban. We have amended our complaint to incorporate the state “assault weapon” ban as well. Our plaintiff, Robert Bevis, is a local gun store owner who stepped up to challenge this unconstitutional ban by speaking with his city council to try and stop this terrible law. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Highland Park is in the 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit including Wisconsin and Indiana.

Hawaii “Assault Pistol” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the state of Hawaii to overturn their so called “assault pistol” and magazine ban. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit, including AK, WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV, ID, and MT.

Colorado Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the state of Colorado to overturn their magazine ban. We are also suing Superior, Louisville, and Boulder over so called “assault weapon” and magazine bans as well as Boulder County to overturn similar laws dealing with possession, sale, and transfer of so called “assault weapons.”

With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like these will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws and ordinances ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller.

Colorado is in the 10th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit including WY, UT, NM, OK, and NE.

Lawsuit Against Superior, CO “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing Superior, Louisville, and Boulder to overturn their so called “assault weapon” and magazine ban. We are also suing in Boulder County to overturn similar laws and those dealing with possession, sale, and transfer of so called “assault weapons.” Both parties have agreed to move forward with these cases at the same time because of their similarities and all the municipalities have agreed to stay enforcement pending resolution of the preliminary injunction motions.

With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like these will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws and ordinances ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller.

Colorado is in the 10th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit including WY, UT, NM, OK, and NE.