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!

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

National Association for Gun Rights Petitions Supreme Court to Strike Down Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Washington, D.C.– Today, the National Association for Gun Rights submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and strike down the Illinois “assault weapons” ban.

Specifically, NAGR’s petition asks three questions of the court:

  • Is Illinois’ handgun ban constitutional, in light of Heller’s ruling that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional?
  • Is the “in common use” test in Heller hopelessly circular and therefore workable?
  • Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of semi-automatic firearms and magazines, both of which are owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes?

From the cert petition: “Bruen called on the Nation’s legislatures to engage in a sober reassessment of their power to impose burdens on the right to keep and bear arms. The Illinois legislature ignored that call. Indeed, instead of tapping on the regulatory brakes, Illinois stomped on the gas and passed a sweeping arms ban that included a ban on the most popular rifle in America.”

“As we’ve said from the beginning, this is a very simple case. Under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents, you can’t ban so-called ‘assault weapons.’ The 7th Circuit had to actually rule that AR-15s aren’t guns at all in order to uphold the gun ban. That’s how open and shut our case is, and we look forward to the Supreme Court striking down these unconstitutional gun bans once and for all,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director, National Foundation for Gun Rights (legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights).

NAGR’s appeal draws attention to numerous ways the 7th Circuit violated not only the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents and asks the Justices to address those errors:

  • The 7th Circuit said that that AR- and AK-platform firearms are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.
  • The 7th Circuit said that the “in common use” test in Heller is faulty circular reasoning and can’t be used.
  • The 7th Circuit said that Bruen’s history and tradition test is hypocritical because it uses interest balancing banned by the Supreme Court.
  • The 7th Circuit failed to properly conduct the “history and tradition” test in this case.
  • The 7th Circuit said that arms can be banned consistent with the Second Amendment if a court thinks they are “particularly dangerous.”
  • The 7th Circuit used interest balancing – which Bruen specifically said courts can no longer use.
  • The 7th Circuit said that guns can be banned if they’re similar to weapons used by the military.

“Ever since Bruen, the lower courts have upheld ‘assault weapons’ bans in every single contested case. If that doesn’t spell outright defiance of the Supreme Court and an absolute unwillingness to obey the Constitution, I don’t know what does. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in, enforce its own precedents, and smack down the activist judges who think they’re above both the Supreme Court and the Constitution,”  said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Click here to read the petition.

The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s second largest pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members and supporters nationwide. ###

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

RMGO and NAGR File Lawsuit Challenging Colorado’s “Ghost Gun” Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

DENVER, CO — Rocky Mountain Gun Owners [RMGO], Colorado’s only no-compromise gun rights lobby, announced today that they have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s newly enacted homemade firearm ban, Senate Bill 23-279. The federal court lawsuit aims to overturn the ban, which infringes on Second Amendment rights.

Three members of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, along with the National Association for Gun Rights, joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on the ground that it infringes their right to keep and bear arms.

“This law is an outright assault on the constitutional rights of peaceable Coloradans. It’s not just an overreach; it’s a direct defiance to our Second Amendment freedoms,” Rhodes stated. “We believe that this law, much like others that attempt to restrict gun rights, will not stand up under scrutiny, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen.”

The lawsuit specifically references the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a precedent that any gun control law must be consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen prohibits judges from giving any credence to government arguments that the benefits of a firearm regulation outweigh the burden on citizen’s constitutional rights.

“In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that any law infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Senate Bill 23-279 clearly does not meet this standard. If homemade – unserialized – guns weren’t legal at the time of our nation’s founding, we would all have a British accent,” Rhodes emphasized.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners asserts that the new legislation infringes on the rights of gun enthusiasts, collectors, and hobbyists who engage in the lawful creation and possession of homemade firearms. They argue that the bill lacks clarity and unfairly targets peaceable citizens.

“The fight for our constitutional rights is never easy, but it’s always worth it,” Rhodes continued. “We’re committed to ensuring that Coloradans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without undue governmental intrusion. This lawsuit is yet another testament to that commitment.”

RMGO is urging supporters and gun rights advocates to stand with them as they challenge the unconstitutional law. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for gun legislation and Second Amendment rights, not just in Colorado but across the United States.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization headquartered in Littleton, Colorado, with a mission to hold politicians accountable and achieve maximum liberty for individuals to defend themselves, their family, and their property without having to ask the government for permission to do so. Since its founding in 1996, RMGO has led the fight against anti-gun politicians with the support of more than 200,000 members and grassroots activists statewide.


 The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.


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!

2nd Circuit Update: Police File Amicus Brief Against Connecticut Semi-Auto Ban

The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police filed an Amicus brief in support of our case against Connecticut’s ban semiautomatics and standard capacity magazines. You can read their brief here.

Our case at the Second Circuit is in its opening briefing stage following our appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction in August.

In Judge Arterton’s district court ruling, she opined that AR-15s and similar rifles are only sought out for their militaristic features and are not useful for self-defense.

The law enforcement amicus brief rebuts this by stating, “AR-15s are not exclusively or predominantly used in military service, nor are they otherwise reserved for the military—they’re not used at all.”

Judge Arterton also stated that the AR-15 was designed to produce “maximum wound effect.”

The supporting amicus brief from the two police organizations refutes this by showing that 5.56 is in fact a smaller round than previous infantry rifles and that even high-ranking members of the military find it too small. The amicus quotes Major General Robert Scales as stating, “The civilian version of the 5.56mm bullet was designed as a ‘varmint killer’ and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough.”

In the opening of their amicus brief they state that AR-15-platform rifles, standard gear for most police officers, are not “weapons of war” and that the police officers who carry them “are not an army of occupation, wielding the weapons of militarized mass killers.”

Most interesting is that the Connecticut ban does not apply to police officers, and they have gone out of their way to let the court know that the reason police officers carry these rifles is precisely why they are an exceptional choice for self-defense in civilian hands.

The state of Connecticut has requested to delay their opening brief until February 21, 2024, so it will be several months before we see more movement in this case.

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

National Foundation for Gun Rights

NAGR Files Official Comment on ATF “Engaged in the Business” Rule

National Foundation for Gun Rights

The National Association for Gun Rights has filed an official comment on the ATF’s “Engaged in the Business Rule.”

Read NAGR’s official comment here >>

The ATF’s new rule aims to essentially force every firearm sale – even private sales – to go through the background-check process.

The key change the ATF is using to change this rule is a very small change Congress made to the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 2022. Part of the definition of the term of what it means to be a dealer of firearms was changed from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit.

Essentially, the ATF has rewritten the rule so that those who enjoy collecting firearms as a hobby are now forced to register as an FFL to pursue their hobby. This would mean they have to keep books, conduct background checks, and are subject to ATF inspection whenever the agency pleases.

The ATF has also acted to change the rules without an act of Congress. The exceptions the ATF are attempting to remove are those that did not have the votes in Congress to change, a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In conclusion, our letter demands that the ATF abandon the proposed regulations, and instead match the regulatory definition to that of Congress.

Click here to read NAGR’s official comment >>

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight the ATF in the courts!

Supreme Court Justice Barrett Considering NAGR Case to Overturn Illinois’ Gun Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Washington D.C. – Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is considering granting an emergency injunction filed by the National Association for Gun Rights, to stop enforcement of a ban on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines.

This follows the 7th Circuit’s 3-judge panel ruling that AR-15s are not “arms” as far as the Second Amendment is concerned.

“The 7th Circuit just said that ARs are not guns entitled to Second Amendment protection. It doesn’t get much more outrageous than that – and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appears to agree. She just sent a huge signal that lower-court defiance of Bruen and Heller will not be tolerated,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

Illinois and Naperville have until Wednesday, December 6, to submit their best arguments for why the Supreme Court should not step in and block their gun bans.

The application for injunction references 2022’s Bruen decision, “Bruen rejected means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context, reiterated Heller’s text, history and tradition framework, and called on lower courts to stop treating the right to keep and bear arms as a ‘second-class right.'”

The Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal may be found here.

“Justice Barrett has been watching this case closely, and last time we asked her for an emergency appeal the 7th Circuit only dodged a SCOTUS smackdown by expediting the case. Well, the 7th Circuit has ruled now – and they got it wrong, big time,”  said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“We look forward to reading Illinois’ attempts to explain why gun bans are consistent with the Second Amendment, and we are confident that this unconstitutional law won’t fly with Justice Barrett,” said Brown.

         The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.


National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Federal Judge Denies ATF Request for a Stay, Court Doubles Down on NAGR Preliminary Injunction

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Fort Worth, TX – Today in a United States District Court, Judge Reed O’Connor denied a request from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for a stay in the case of National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) v. Garland. On October 7th, Judge O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s enforcement of a ban on Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) for members of NAGR. The ATF requested a stay. That argument was rejected.

In his ruling, Judge O’Connor states, “[The ATF’s] plea that the injunction interferes with Defendants’ ability to seize FRTs merits no sympathy.”

“Serves them right,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “The ATF thinks that if they whine loud enough, they can simply ignore the court and continue imposing their trigger ban on gun owners. I’m thankful Judge O’Connor saw right through that charade.”

Judge O’Connor went on in his ruling to say, “… the Court previously determined in two separate orders that the ATF’s interpretation of ‘machinegun’ is very likely unlawful. [The ATF] have still not made any showing—let alone a strong showing—that this conclusion is incorrect. Simply rehashing arguments twice rejected does not eventually transform those points into a cognizable showing—let alone a strong showing—that [The ATF] are likely to succeed on the merits.”

“We are going to win this case, and I look forward to the Court’s final ruling when we can put the ATF down the shredder,” continued Brown.

The National Association for Gun Rights is waiting to hear from the Court on a summary judgement motion the ATF’s trigger ban permanently, halting the ATF’s FRT ban until the conclusion of the case. NAGR submitted that request on November 3rd.

“It’s clear the ATF will continue to harass our members, regardless of what the courts say, which is why we requested summary judgement earlier this month to prevent the ATF from enforcing their ridiculous ban on anyone,” concluded Brown.

The entirety of Judge O’Connor’s ruling can be read here:

         The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.


7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction in Illinois Assault Weapons Case

At the close of last week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied our motion for preliminary injunction against the state of Illinois’ and the city of Naperville’s bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” You can read the ruling here.

The majority opinion, authored by Wood and supported by Easterbrook, deemed that the banned firearms and magazines in the so-called “Protect Illinois Communities Act” are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.

This is an utterly ridiculous statement, and as dissenting Judge Brennan states, “[t]he banned firearms propel bullets by explosive force from gunpowder, yet the government parties ask us to conclude that these rifles and pistols are not ‘Arms.’”

Following the request of the government, the majority opinion decided that the firearms in question are not “arms” at all, and with that conclusion ruled that our case and our fellow plaintiffs’ cases are likely to fail on those merits alone.

The majority did this by drawing an imaginary line that puts weapons useful for civilian purposes on one side, and weapons useful for military purposes on the other side. For example, they justified the regulation on handgun magazines by stating since the M18, the standard sidearm in the military has standard magazines of 17 or 21 rounds, that magazines that size can be reserved for military use without infringing on the Second Amendment.

Perhaps most concerning in the majority opinion is the constant citation of the Friedman decision from 2012. This decision was authored by none other than Judge Easterbrook and was abrogated by the Supreme Court under the Bruen decision.

While not receiving the injunction is certainly disappointing, this was the expected outcome. We drew a panel with two known antigun judges, and as expected they misapplied the Bruen standard in coming to their decision.

We will be deciding in the coming days if we are appealing this case to the Supreme Court, or if we will instead appeal to an en banc panel in the 7th Circuit.

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

NFGR Files for Summary Judgement in Forced Reset Trigger Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed for summary judgement in our case, NAGR v. Garland. You can read the motion here.

We previously received a preliminary injunction in this case on October 7th, blocking the ATF from enforcing their classification of Forced Reset Triggers as NFA regulated machine guns against our individual plaintiffs and their families, our members, and all downstream customers of commercial members.

The ATF has continued enforcing this rule, and they have even targeted several of our members since Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued the preliminary injunction.

This is why we have filed our motion for summary judgement as soon as we have, we want the ATF to be blocked from enforcing this unconstitutional rule against anyone. Your inalienable human rights should not be subject to membership of any organization.

Judge O’Connor has already stated that we are “likely to succeed on the merits” in this case, and that the ATF has no legal grounds for this trigger ban. We are simply asking the court to follow through with these statements to ensure protection from ATF enforcement for all Americans.

It is quite obvious that the ATF has no intention of voluntarily abiding by the court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction, so it is time for strong, decisive action from the court to stop the ATF’s tyranny.

The ATF has appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This means that they are trying to take away the temporary relief ordered at the district court, but our motion for summary judgement will move concurrently towards a ruling on the merits.

If you are a member who has been contacted by the ATF after the injunction was issued on October 7th regarding an FRT, please call our ATF hotline at 877-205-6554.

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