Scathing Barnett v. Raoul Brief Filed

Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois (FFL-IL) and Guns Save Life have joined the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and other petitioners in filing a reply brief in support of their effort to have the Supreme Court review and reverse the Seventh Circuit’s disastrous ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville. There, the appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction gun owners won from Judge McGlynn by deciding that Illinois could ban many of the most popular firearms in the country because if a gun is used by the military, it is entirely unprotected by the Second Amendment. While disappointing, and completely not in line with Bruen,  the ruling was also not shocking given that the panel included one of the same judges the Supreme Court reversed before in McDonald v. Chicago. Because of the Bevis ruling, popular firearms and magazines remain illegal to acquire in Illinois for now.

Getting the Supreme Court to review a case before a final judgment is usually a tall order, as the Court prefers to avoid wading into preliminary matters. But some factors unique here may entice the justices to wade in now. Following the filing of our petition for certiorari in February, Illinois filed an opposition brief a couple of weeks ago which practically seemed to dare the Court to take action now.

The California Rifle & Pistol Association published an excellent summary of where things may go from here. To read it, click here.

The Supreme Court could take any number of actions from here. It could grant certiorari in full and hear the case in its next term. If that happens, the parties will submit more complete briefs on the merits, and oral argument will be heard likely sometime in the fall.  Another alternative is for the Court to grant certiorari, vacate the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, and remand it back to that court for further proceedings. This would be a scenario in which the Supreme Court is not quite ready to hear the case but does want to give the Seventh Circuit guidance on how to correct errors in its legal analysis. Finally, there is always the possibility that the Court opts to deny review entirely, preferring to hear the case following a final judgment. Lawyers are currently working hard in the trial court to move the case to a final judgment as fast as possible, should it be forced to take that longer path. Regardless, FFL-IL , Guns Save Life, NSSF, and Second Amendment Law Center are committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of Illinois residents.

The Second Amendment Law Center has been key in developing amicus briefing for cases all over the country considering some of these complex cases. Please join us as we coordinate the issues in these cases and file briefs to support the work going on across the country. Support our efforts by donating below…and remember to subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

SCOTUS To Hear "Ghost Gun" Case

Today, the Supreme Court announced that this fall it will hear an appeal from the Biden administration on the case challenging a new definition of a firearm that includes unfinished parts. The administration, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), pushed the new definition back in 2022 and it was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, where it ultimately was deemed unconstitutional.

The Court first intervened in the case last August when it voted 5-4 to let the regulation remain in place while the legal fight continued. Now, the Court will hear the case on its merits, providing yet another opportunity to clarify the appropriate application of the Bruen standard.

“As the administration and anti-2A legislatures continue in their increasingly outlandish attacks on lawful gun owners, we welcome any chance for the Supreme Court to provide direction on the proper application of Bruen,” stated 2ALC President Chuck Michel. “The Second Amendment Law Center looks forward to leading an impactful amicus brief campaign in this case.”

Bruen’s reliance on assessing “historical analogs” for modern-day restrictions places increasing importance on the amicus briefs, which provide context can prove crucial to the eventual outcome of cases. In the case of Wolford v. Lopez, the judge cited 2ALC’s package of amicus briefs in her ruling as she struck down significant portions of Hawaii’s “sensitive places” law.

2ALC is already working to round up amicus participants and WE NEED YOUR HELP! Amicus briefs for Supreme Court cases are complex and costly. PLEASE support our efforts by donating below…and remember to subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

2ALC Files Amicus Brief in Antonyuk v. James

The Second Amendment Law Center has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of granting cert in Antonyuk v. James, the challenge to New York’s Bruen-response law, and correcting the lower courts ruling in that case. 2ALC is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, FFL-IL, the Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols. The coalition’s brief argues that cert is necessary now because a handful of antigun states are openly rebelling against Bruen and trying to eliminate the right to carry a firearm in public.

For example, consider our experience in California with Senate Bill 2 where California politicians attempted to designate most of the state of California as a “sensitive place” where a CCW would be invalid. Given the tactics being used by anti-gun-owner states the amicus brief urges the Court to decide these issues now.

The brief also covers how the Second Circuit ignored Bruen reach its conclusions on the sensitive places analysis, and argues that the Court should clarify that Bruen is a one-step test. Read it here

Support our efforts by donating below…and remember to subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

2ALC & Allies File Amicus Brief in Garland v. Cargill

The Second Amendment Law Center joined several other pro-2A organizations in filing  an “amicus” legal brief in Garland v. Cargill, a case is set for argument before the Supreme Court in late February.

At issue in the Cargill case is a proposed re-classification of a bump stock device to fall under the definition of “machinegun” as spelled out in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).  As argued by the government, a bump stock is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.”
While the case focuses on the regulatory authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) and does not directly involve any Second Amendment claims, our amicus brief advises the Court about the significant risk to Second Amendment rights if it rules in ATF’s favor.

Unfortunately, this is not the first or only example of ATF attempting to redefine firearm parts to fit the narrative of the Biden Administration.  The agency previously sought the same treatment for incomplete lower receivers and pistol braces. As detailed in our brief, if a bump stock qualifies as a “machine gun,” it could render most or all semiautomatic rifles as illegal, simply because they could be converted to fully automatic.

While that may sound like a tough leap to make, a recent Seventh Circuit ruling upholding Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban concluded that the semi-automatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M-16 were virtually indistinguishable and, as such, that semi-automatic rifles can be banned.

In keeping with the standard set in Bruen, our amicus brief explains the history of ownership of so-called “military” small arms, and argues that expanding the ATF’s authority could create millions of “accidental” criminals.

Joining 2ALC on this brief are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Guns Save Life. Other briefs in this case are expected as well.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Mr. Cargill, and to reaffirm that commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned.  You can read the brief HERE.

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

Supreme Court Hears U.S. v. Rahimi Oral Arguments

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v Rahimi. The case represents the biggest post-Bruen Second Amendment case that the Court has taken, and the consequences of the Court’s ruling could be significant. But based on the Justices’ questioning of the lawyers, it looks like several good things for gun owners will come out of the decision.

In the Rahimi case, the Court considers whether a federal law that bars those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is constitutional under Bruen‘s history and tradition-focused test for Second Amendment challenges.  A unanimous Fifth Circuit panel struck down the law. Similar cases challenging other prohibited person categories, like non-violent felons and cannabis users, are now pending before the Court, and the Court will have to decide whether to accept those cases for review as well.

If it does, 2ALC will be there.

As the Fifth Circuit explained in its Rahimi decision: “Bruen forecloses any . . . analysis [of salutary policy goals] in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an “outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

As we have previously noted, hopefully, the upcoming SCOTUS ruling in Rahimi will settle some outstanding issues regarding exactly how the clarified Bruen test for evaluating the constitutionality of any gun control law should be applied. As they try to weaken Bruen’s methodology so more gun control laws can survive 2A review, many state lawyers have twisted the test to their advantage and some progressive judges have willingly bought into the ploy. Indeed, today’s questions from the Justices explored that topic on several occasions and from several perspectives. The government’s solicitor continuously pushed for allowing a higher “level of generality” when comparing modern-day restrictions to the “history and tradition” of firearm regulation — which would allow for a much more permissive standard to be applied and more bad laws to be upheld. In other words, the government wants the required historical analogy law that indicates the Founders would tolerate a modern law to be loosely applied so that almost any informal and localized policy or practice will satisfy Bruen’s history and tradition test.

The majority of Justices did not seem to be buying it. So we are hopeful that even if the Court upholds the constitutionality of the specific federal law being challenged in Rahimi, the ruling will be very narrow and will not change the Bruen methodology that applies in all 2A cases significantly.

“If modern gun control laws can be justified by what some folks ‘might have been’ thinking in and after 1791, then the import of Bruen is lost,” remarked 2ALC President & Senior Legal Counsel Chuck Michel. “If the government’s approach were adopted, it would relegate the Second Amendment to the status of a second-class right. The Second Amendment has been called “Liberty’s Teeth. Governments want to leave the Second Amendment toothless.”

We can’t let that happen. The Second Amendment Law Center is proud to have coordinated an amicus brief campaign in support of this case, and we are already gearing up in case SCOTUS takes another prohibited person test case. 2ALC is already engaged doing amicus briefs in cases across the county and stands ready to engage once this case is decided since it will most certainly impact how lower courts apply Bruen in all 2A cases of crucial importance nationally.

Please support our efforts by joining our Founders Circle…and remember to subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

Amicus Brief Filed in US v. Rahimi

The Second Amendment Law Center filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court yesterday in the case of United States v. Rahimi, the next landmark Second Amendment case relating to the gun rights of someone subject to a civil restraining order.. Read our brief here.

Twenty other amicus briefs were also filed yesterday urging the court to strike down class-based bans on gun possession. You can see them all here. 2ALC helped recruit amici and coordinate efforts to get these briefs filed.

As most of you know by now, the stakes could not be higher for the Second Amendment with this case. The Bruen decision last year set a new standard and methodology for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control laws. But how that standard should be implemented by courts in actual cases still needs to be settled. How the Bruen methodology is applied to evaluate the constitutionality of a gun law often makes the difference between winning and losing a case.

Some courts are getting it drastically wrong. 2ALC has been coordinating amicus brief campaigns in multiple cases in multiple states to show some courts how to do it right.

The issue in Rahimi is whether “class-based” prohibitions on Second Amendment rights are a Second Amendment violation because they do not give individuals in the class due process. The law challenged in the Rahimi case prohibits all individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm. Other class prohibition laws ban anyone who uses marijuana, people with nonviolent felonies, and certain misdemeanors.

To be clear, if judged individually, Mr. Rahimi almost certainly should lose his 2A rights, and likely all his rights since he should probably be in prison for his violent conduct. The problem with class prohibitions is that not all members of these classes deserve to lose their rights. These laws shoot the dogs with the wolves. And if the government can designate an entire class of people as “dangerous” and strip them of their 2A rights, then it can create a class out of any politically disfavored group. In the past, the government has banned guns from native American Indians and freed slaves.

Consider how ultra-progressives have misused the phrase “assault weapon” to ban an ever-expanding class of firearms. Anti-gun politicians know very well how to manipulate terminology. Gun owners in general are already being demonized by progressive politicians. So will an anti-gun government deem anyone with a particular type of firearm as “dangerous” and take away their 2A? Maybe a class of “paramilitary patriots” should be disarmed? What other label could they come up with? They could start small and expand the class, as they have done with “assault weapon” bans.

The critical question in the Rahimi case is how the Supreme Court applies the Bruen test, and whether SCOTUS will clarify how lower courts should apply it.

2ALC thanks all of the groups and individuals who submitted amicus briefs. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on November 7th. A decision is expected in June 2024.

Please join our Founders Circle to support 2AC’s efforts to protect the Second Amendment. We’ll send you a collectible challenge coin! to show you are a part of the 2A team. Join TODAY and subscribe at 2ALC.org.

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

Briefs Due October 4th in U.S. v. Rahimi

The next major Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court is heating up. Amicus briefs are due this coming Wednesday, October 4th, in the case of United States v Rahimi. 2ALC is coordinating an amicus brief campaign and expects there could be as many as 30 or more briefs filed in this critical 2A case. Stay tuned next week for updates and analysis as the briefs are filed!

In the Rahimi case, the Court will consider whether a law barring gun ownership for people subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional under Bruen‘s history and tradition-focused test for Second Amendment challenges.  A unanimous Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel previously struck down the law, and the government requested the Supreme Court to reconsider the 5th Circuit’s ruling.

Supporting the case to strike down this law does NOT equate to advocating for domestic violence offenders and certainly should not be taken as supporting Mr. Rahimi’s actions. Courts will retain the right, as they should, to prohibit gun ownership in individual cases where that is warranted. And deonstrably dangerous individuals can have their Second Amendment rights taken away, provided they are afforded due process. But stripping rights from entire classes of people is the slipperiest of slopes and can be used to condemn and disarm any politically disfavored class. In the past, it was Native American Indians and freed slaves. Will “paramilitary patriots” be next?

The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling in Rahimi may help settle some outstanding issues regarding how the clarified Bruen test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws should be applied. Straightening out the lower courts on the proper methodology to use when judging the constitutionality of a gun control law would be helpful. Several lower courts have gotten it wrong. But this case may be a mixed blessing because the case asks the Court to decide whether and when an entire class of people can be prohibited from possessing firearms without consideration of individual circumstances. Mr. Rahimi is not a sympathetic character. Bad facts can make bad laws. And that is what the gun ban lobby is hoping for - that the Court will water down the Bruen methodology so more useless gun bans will be upheld as constitutional.

2ALC still needs your help! Amicus briefs take a lot of time to prepare, and cost thousands of dollars just to print, because you have to use a printer that specializes in printing briefs for SCOTUS. Joining the 2ALC Founders Circle is a GREAT way to contribute. And remember to subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

The Struggle is REAL: Briefs in Rahimi Case Call for Heller, Bruen to be Overturned

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear its first major 2A case since the Bruen decision last summer. The case, United States v Rahimi, will consider whether those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders can be banned as a class from possessing firearms without individual due process. A unanimous Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel struck down the law, and the government asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.

Briefs are now being submitted in the case, which is expected to be heard this fall. On Monday over 40 amicus briefs were filed supporting the government. Those anti-2A amicus briefs skew to the extreme. Some even urge the Supreme Court to overturn the Heller and Bruen decisions — the two major 2A cases decided by the Court.

Now it’s our turn. 2ALC is coordinating an amicus brief campaign to support the case and respond to the briefs filed against us.

The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling in Rahimi may help settle some outstanding issues regarding how the clarified Bruen test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws should be applied. But this case may be a mixed blessing because the case asks the Court to decide whether and when an entire class of people can be prohibited from possessing firearms without due process or consideration of individual circumstances.

You can support our efforts by donating below.

This is a great time to do so, as 2ALC has just launched our Founders Circle and every donation of $75 or more will receive a stunning commemorative challenge coin acknowledging your part in 2A history!

Also, remember to subscribe for updates by signing up below!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

2ALC's Chuck Michel Talks About Key SCOTUS Cases In Latest Video

By now, most (if not all) of you reading this have heard that the Supreme Court is taking up the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, it’s first major 2A case since Bruen. The Court will hear the case this fall and 2ALC is already working on amicus briefs to support that effort.

Recently, the Court also let stand a new “rule” promulgated by the Biden Administration through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms that treats precursor parts as firearms. These parts, which gun control advocates have taken to calling “ghost guns” were being regulated by ATF as though they were actual firearms until a District Court judge in Texas barred the regulation from being enforced.

The Biden Administration then brought the case to the Supreme Court asking for the ban to be lifted. In a somewhat surprising result, the Court voted 5-4 to overturn the ruling and let ATF move forward with enforcing their new regulation. Justices Roberts and Barrett, who often support pro-2A issues, this time voted with the majority and let this move forward.

In a video released earlier this week, 2ALC President and Senior Legal Counsel Chuck Michel joined CRPA TV host Kevin Small to talk about both of these cases, the issues involved, and what lies ahead. Click here to watch now.

Thanks to our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association for producing the video. If you are reading this and you are a gun owner in California, make sure you join CRPA to stay engaged in 2A issues in the state!

BACK TO SCOTUS – 2ALC ALREADY PUTTING TOGETHER AN AMICUS BRIEF CAMPAIGN FOR THIS IMPORTANT CASE TO BE HEARD IN THE FALL

The Supreme Court has decided to hear another Second Amendment case next term: United States v Rahimi. The decision to hear Rahimi comes just one year after SCOTUS decided the game-changing Bruen case. That might be good news for Second Amendment supporters, or not.

The Rahimi case involved a federal criminal prosecution under section 922 of the United States Code. A unanimous Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel struck down the law, holding that:

“Bruen forecloses any . . . analysis [of salutary policy goals] in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an “outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

Since the government lost the case in the Court of Appeals, it asked SCOTUS to hear the case. So now the Supreme Court will reconsider whether 922(g)(8)‘s bar on people subject to restraining orders possessing firearms is constitutional under Bruen‘s history and tradition-focused test for Second Amendment challenges. 

In the process, the Court will likely have to decide whether and when an entire class of people can be prohibited from possessing firearms without consideration of individual circumstances. This case could affect other prohibited classes of people: cannabis users, non-violent felons, people with restraining orders, and certain misdemeanor convictions. It doesn’t help that Mr. Rahami is not a sympathetic character and is certainly not a poster child for Second Amendment rights. As the saying goes: bad facts can make bad law.  

While the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling in Rahimi will likely have to directly address whether the government can bar certain classes of people from possessing firearms there is more to it than that. Beyond that specific issue, the ruling in Rahimi may help settle some outstanding issues regarding how the Bruen test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws should be applied.

Remember that in the Bruen case, the central issue was whether the government could require people applying for a permit to carry a firearm in public could be required to show a special need beyond simple self-defense. But in deciding that, the Court clarified the test that should be used to determine the constitutionality of all gun laws. It took an “originalist” approach, requiring the government to show that there was a history and tradition of regulations like the one being challenged. In other words, the test now is designed to determine whether the Founding Fathers would have tolerated a law like the modern one being challenged. But governments attempting to justify gun bans have already twisted the Bruen test to make it easier for pre-inclined courts to uphold gun bans. Some clarification would be helpful to shut down the games the government is playing in other 2A cases.

But the Rahimi case could be dangerous to 2A rights. Anti-gun-owner advocates hope the Court will reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. They believe that because they are reluctant to give someone like Rahimi back his gun rights, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts may join Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson in upholding the law. How they could do that, without limiting the Bruen analysis and making the Second Amendment weaker, is the big question.

And that’s where the efforts of the Second Amendment Law Center come in. Mr. Rahimi is represented by the federal public defender’s office. That office has no particular expertise in 2A litigation. Amicus briefs are going to be critical.

The case will probably be argued before the Court in November or early December.  Although requests to extend the briefing schedule could affect the deadlines. Opening briefs in Rahimi (the government’s brief and any supporting amicus briefs) will likely be due in mid-late August.  Rahimi’s response and supporting amicus briefs would be due one month later, in September.

2ALC is already working to round up amicus participants and draft amicus briefs. Support our efforts and subscribe for updates below! 

Keep me up to date on 2ALC's actions!

* indicates required