What Is The Supreme Court's Next Move?

The Fight for Fundamental Freedoms Continues!

The landmark Bruen decision was a significant step forward, but it's clear that the Second Amendment remains a contested ground in many courts across the country. Lawmakers, bureaucrats, and gun ban advocacy groups courts continue to advance their disarmament agenda making courts grapple with, circumvent, and misapply Bruen’s clear instructions. So we must remain vigilant and committed to the fight to protect our constitutional rights and freedoms.

The Supreme Court will undoubtedly provide further clarity on the Bruen standard in another case, and we hope the Court will put an end to the evasive tactics that have become so commonplace in some lower courts. Cases like Snope v. Brown offer promising opportunities for the Court to address these issues head-on.

Preparation is Key

When the Court does take up a case, we must be prepared. The Bruen framework emphasizes the "history and tradition" of firearms restrictions, making rigorous legal and historical research indispensable. Our opponents employ emotional arguments and biased “experts” to distract from the clear intent of the Founding Fathers.

This is where the Second Amendment Law Center shines! Our team of legal advisors stands ready to provide the deep and impactful legal and historical research that can WIN THIS BATTLE!

Many many groups are working with us in this fight. Its a historic time.

We need you on our team. Are you with us?

Support 2ALC TODAY and help us secure a future where the Second Amendment is truly recognized as among our must fundamental right.

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

2ALC & Allies File Brief In U.S. v. Ayala

The Second Amendment Law Center joined the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus,  in filing an amicus brief in a criminal case appeal in the Eleventh Circuit known as United States v. Emmanuel Ayala.

The case challenges ban on concealed carry in post offices. Mr. Ayala is a postal worker with a Florida CCW permit who is being criminally prosecuted for carrying while at work. The district court ruled for Mr. Ayala, finding no relevant history supporting a ban on peaceable carry of firearms in post offices. The United States is now appealing that ruling.  

Our brief argues that the district court’s ruling was entirely correct and should be affirmed for several reasons. First, the district court was right to zero in on the fact that although post offices have existed since the founding era, no restriction on carrying in post offices became law until late into the 20th century. Second, the government’s argument that it can ban carry anywhere where it is the property proprietor has been rejected by several courts. Third, the government argues safety is a reason it should be allowed to ban carry at post offices, but it has failed to demonstrate Mr. Ayala is dangerous. Nor could it, as given he has a CCW permit, he was vetted as part of the CCW application process and is part of a group that is overwhelmingly law-abiding.  

It has always been ridiculous to restrict carry in post offices, particularly for those with CCW permits. And the "balancing" test being urged here by the State’s argumant is flatly prohibited under Bruen.  We hope the Eleventh Circuit will rule accordingly and affirm the district court.

This is yet another example of courts skirting around the Second Amendment in jurisdictions across the country.  2ALC and our allies will fight wherever we can to prevent decisions like this from weakening Bruen and, as a result, our own fundamental rights.  

Please stand with us by DONATING to help us keep up these fights!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

2ALC & Allies File Amicus Brief To Defend Bruen

Today, a coalition of civil rights advocacy groups, including the Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in a unique criminal case: US v. Kittson. The Kittson case involves an individual who is criminally charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits the possession or transfer of an unregistered fully-automatic firearm. The United States District Court in Oregon upheld the ban despite Mr. Kittson’s Second Amendment arguments, and now he is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Read our brief here.

The district court ruling caught our attention not so much because of the result. It isn’t surprising that, given the way some courts are misconstruing the Supreme Court’s ruling in  NYSRPA v. Bruen, certain courts are not yet ready to overturn machine gun bans. But the district court’s refusal to properly apply Bruen’s methodology and the historical tradition analysis is particularly troubling. In the district court’s ruling, the same federal judge who upheld Oregon’s new magazine capacity law ruled that machine guns are not “arms” covered under the Second Amendment’s plain text, and that prior Ninth Circuit caselaw precedent is still good law even after Bruen contradicted it. The judge improperly skipped the historical tradition analysis that Bruen requires entirely.

Our amicus brief focuses on why and how the district court failed to apply the methodology mandated by the Bruen decision correctly. First, we point out that machine guns are undoubtedly bearable “arms” that are covered under the Second Amendment, so the Bruen historical tradition analysis must be conducted. And we advised the Ninth Circuit of the proper contours of that historical tradition analysis to be used should it decide to remand the case back to the district court. We contend that the Ninth Circuit should order the district court to analyze whether machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” weapons. If they are not, they cannot be banned. We ask that the Ninth Circuit also inform the district court that any arm merely being used by the military, without more, is not sufficient reason to ban it. Even if the machine gun ban is ultimately upheld, it deserves the benefit of a full historical tradition analysis first.

District courts should not be allowed to get away with ignoring what the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision demands.  The analytical legal process matters, and these abuses will continue to be copied in other cases if they are not corrected.

While 2ALC’s main focus is on the civil Second Amendment cases that we litigate on behalf of all law-abiding gun owners, last week’s excellent decision in US v. Duarte, holding that the law disarming non-violent felons is unconstitutional,  was a reminder to us that a lot of Second Amendment case law and legal precedent will also be made in criminal matters, where overworked public defenders can benefit from our expertise. So, the Second Amendment Law Center will both continue to monitor criminal matters for amicus brief opportunities.

PLEASE STAY TUNED by subscribing to our updates below. And, if you are able, PLEASE DONATE to help support this effort!

Keep me up to date on National news!

* indicates required

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