SAF Lawsuit Targets Contra Costa County Ban on Red Dots, Weapon Lights and 1911 Pistols

SAF is challenging Contra Costa County’s CCW restrictions on red dots, weapon-mounted lights, and SAO 1911/2011-style pistols.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Contra Costa County, California, over three concealed-carry bans that strike at common defensive handguns and accessories: red dot sights, weapon-mounted lights, and single-action-only 1911/2011-style pistols.

SAF says the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office bars local CCW permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dots or mounted lights and separately bans SAO 1911- and 2011-style pistols from being carried under county-issued permits.

These are ordinary tools millions of Americans use to carry responsibly. Red dots help shooters make accurate hits. Weapon lights help identify threats before a trigger is pressed. The 1911 platform is one of the most proven defensive handguns in American history. The complaint calls red dots and lights “popular, safety-enhancing attachments,” and that is exactly what they are.

The lawsuit names Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff David Livingston in his official capacity. SAF is joined by two Contra Costa County residents and carry permit holders, Andrew Moore and James Treuel. Both men say they are legally licensed, both want to carry handguns with modern defensive features, and both are blocked by the sheriff’s policies.

According to the complaint, Moore is approved to carry a Sig Sauer P365 Legion and a Smith & Wesson 2.0. Treuel is approved to carry a Sig Sauer P365 and an HK USP Compact. The problem is that the county’s rules stop them from adding red dots or lights to those carry guns. Even though those features are common among armed citizens and law enforcement.

From Contra Costa County Sheriffs CCW Application Instructions. Found on Step Five: Training, Weapons and Range Qualification tab.

SAF Says Contra Costa CCW Rules Violate Bruen and Heller

SAF’s constitutional argument is direct: Contra Costa’s policies violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, the government does not get to ban common arms or accessories simply because a local official dislikes them. Once the conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the government must point to a historical tradition supporting the restriction. SAF says Contra Costa cannot do that.

The complaint says the county’s bans have “no textual or historical pedigree” and represent “novel schemes developed in recent years or decades.” That is the heart of the case. Contra Costa is not enforcing some founding-era rule. It is creating a modern permission-slip regime that tells peaceable citizens they may carry only the county-approved version of a defensive handgun.

Kostas Moros, SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, put the issue plainly.

“Contra Costa County is the only jurisdiction in America that forbids law-abiding CCW permit holders from using red dot sights, firearm-mounted lights, or carrying the venerable 1911 platform,” said Moros. “These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features and firearms used by millions of Americans and even adopted by multiple California law enforcement agencies. There is zero historical tradition supporting these restrictions, and they cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.”

That last line is the one Contra Costa will have to answer in court. Where is the historical tradition of banning citizens from carrying a handgun because it has a better sighting system? Show me the founding-era analogue for prohibiting a mounted light that helps identify a threat in the dark? How about the constitutional basis for banning a 1911-style pistol, a platform carried and trusted for more than a century?

California CCW Permit Holders From Other Counties Get More Freedom

The strangest part of the policy may be the resident-versus-visitor problem. SAF points out that California CCW permits are valid statewide. That means a permit holder from another California county can travel through Contra Costa County with a red dot-equipped pistol, a weapon-mounted light, or an SAO 1911/2011 pistol. But a Contra Costa resident with a Contra Costa permit is barred from carrying the same setup.

In plain English, Contra Costa treats its own residents worse than visitors. The complaint says the policies “single out Contra Costa County residents whose rights are hobbled by these unconstitutional policies.” That is not public safety. That is bureaucratic discrimination against the very citizens the sheriff’s office is supposed to serve.

Contra Costa’s CCW Policy Shows Post-Bruen Resistance

This case also highlights how far local governments will go after Bruen to preserve discretionary gun control. When they can no longer deny ordinary citizens the right to carry outright, some officials look for new ways to make carry less useful, less practical, and less effective. A right to carry should not become a right to carry only the least modern, least capable setup a sheriff’s office will tolerate.

SAF is asking the federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. SAF wants the court to declare the bans unconstitutional, stop Contra Costa officials from enforcing them, recognize that rights were violated, and require the defendants to pay the costs of forcing citizens into court.

Contra Costa County residents should not have to surrender red dots, weapon lights, or proven 1911-style pistols to exercise a constitutional right. The Second Amendment does not stop at the county line, and neither should the right to carry effective defensive arms.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/5JSPBKe
via IFTTT

Feds Lost Young Adult Handgun Ban Case – Now Gun Groups Want the Full Win

SAF and FPC are asking the Fifth Circuit to expand an injunction against the federal handgun ban for law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. iStock-1528484408

The federal government lost its defense of the handgun ban for young adults in the Fifth Circuit, declined to appeal that loss to the Supreme Court, and is now attempting to preserve as much of the unconstitutional restriction as possible.

The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association filed an opening brief on June 22, asking the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a district court injunction that protects only a fraction of the organizations’ affected members.

The case, now captioned FPC v. ATF and formerly known as Reese v. ATF, concerns the federal ban preventing federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20.

Although young adults may acquire handguns through limited alternative means, the federal government bars them from using the principal lawful commercial market available to other adults. SAF and FPC properly describe that restriction for what it is: a federal handgun purchase ban targeting young adults.

Young Adults Already Won

In January 2025, a unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the federal handgun ban for young adults violates the Second Amendment.

The court held that 18-to-20-year-old adults are among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. It also found that the government produced “scant evidence” of any comparable Founding-era restriction. That should have ended the matter.

The federal government could have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, but it declined. The case instead returned to the district court for entry of judgment consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

That is where the government began fighting over who would receive the benefit of the victory.

The district court eventually entered an injunction protecting only members of the plaintiff organizations who live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, the three states within the Fifth Circuit. The injunction also covers only people who were members when the judgment was entered on January 27, 2026.

Every other affected SAF and FPC member remains subject to a federal handgun ban already held unconstitutional in litigation brought by their own organizations.

“What the government has said outright here is ‘we acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit has held the law to be unconstitutional, but we want to still enforce it against almost everyone,’” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “The government has done everything possible to keep disenfranchising thousands of adults through ridiculous demands on the plaintiff organizations, all to no avail.”

That blunt assessment accurately captures the government’s position. It lost on the Second Amendment but still wants to deny most successful plaintiffs any meaningful relief.

An Injunction Designed to Disappear

The January 27 membership cutoff makes the judgment even more absurd. Because the case concerns 18-to-20-year-olds, every person presently protected by the injunction will eventually turn 21. As those members age out, the protected population will steadily decline until the injunction provides relief to virtually no one.

Meanwhile, young adults who later join SAF or FPC will remain subject to the same unconstitutional ban.

The appellants argue that this arbitrary expiration mechanism defeats the purpose of associational standing. Organizations are allowed to sue on behalf of their members precisely because forcing every injured individual to file a separate lawsuit would be costly, inefficient, and unnecessary.

The Fifth Circuit previously allowed the organizations to establish their continuing standing by identifying a new member after the original individual plaintiffs turned 21. It makes little sense to recognize changing membership to keep the lawsuit alive, then deny relief to similarly situated members who join later.

Nationwide Relief Is Not Universal Relief

The government has attempted to place the requested injunction under the politically loaded label of a “universal injunction.” The appellants explain why that characterization is wrong.

SAF, FPC, and LSA are not asking the court to prohibit enforcement against every person in the United States. They are requesting protection for their affected members, the people on whose behalf they brought and won the case.

The Supreme Court made the distinction clear in Trump v. CASA. A universal injunction protects everyone, including nonparties. A traditional party-specific injunction may operate nationwide while protecting only the parties before the court.

In other words, the critical question is whom the injunction protects, not where those people live.

SAF and FPC have members throughout the country. Limiting relief to three states leaves the victorious organizations and most of their affected members without a complete remedy.

The government cannot escape a judgment simply because members of the organizations it lost to live outside the Fifth Circuit.

Government Wants a Paper Victory

The appellants warn that preserving the district court’s limitations would encourage repetitive litigation. Gun-rights organizations could be forced to file the same lawsuit in multiple jurisdictions and return to court repeatedly as young members age out and new members join.

That would waste judicial resources while allowing the government to keep enforcing an unconstitutional law.

“We have been fighting this absurd handgun purchase ban on adults who are 18-20 years old for more than half a decade now,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said. “There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People,’ and it’s high time the government stopped fighting the inevitable.”

“The Trump Administration is fighting as hard as it can to continue violating the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Even though the Fifth Circuit already held that these bans are unconstitutional, the government is trying to limit the decision’s reach so it can keep disarming peaceable adults across the country.” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This is how the United States government celebrates 250 years of American independence—by acting like the tyrants we defeated. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue Fighting Forward until this ban is eliminated and the rights of all peaceable adults are fully restored.”

The organizations are asking the Fifth Circuit to remove both limitations and protect every affected member, regardless of residence or when that person joins.

Young adults already won the constitutional argument. The federal government should not be permitted to turn that victory into a judgment that protects almost no one and eventually expires on its own.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/BA2ln7q
via IFTTT

Pepper Spray Fails, Armed Texas Woman Shoots Ex During Alleged Home Attack

Fort Worth police say the woman tried pepper spray before shooting her alleged attacker. iStock-2234846058

A Fort Worth woman reportedly turned to her firearm after pepper spray failed to stop an ex-boyfriend who allegedly entered her home without permission and attacked her.

Fort Worth police responded to the 5500 block of Hidden Creek shortly after 7 a.m. on Saturday, June 13. The woman had called 911 and reported that she had shot someone inside her home.

According to police accounts provided to WFAA and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the woman’s former boyfriend entered the residence without her permission and began physically assaulting her.

She initially attempted to defend herself with pepper spray. When that failed to stop the alleged attack, she drew a firearm and opened fire, striking the man three times.

Emergency personnel transported him to a hospital in critical condition. Police have not publicly identified either person, and no updated information about the man’s medical condition was available as of June 22.

Authorities also have not announced any charges against the woman.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.5F U-Notch Comp 9mm Luger Pistol 4.5" Barrel 10+1-Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 662.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 9mm Optic Ready Pistol with Compensator - Black - 15rd - 4.5"	Primary Arms	$ 679.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 9mm 4.50" 10rd Pistol, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 725.99 $ 653.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.5F U-Notch Comp 9mm Luger Pistol 4.5" Barrel 15+1-Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 693.99

Pepper Spray Reportedly Failed to Stop the Attack

The shooting remains under investigation, meaning several important facts have not yet been released. Police have not disclosed how the man entered the home, whether the woman had previously obtained a protective order or whether investigators recovered other evidence supporting her account.

Reports describe a woman facing an unauthorized intruder and alleged attacker inside her own home. It also demonstrates why firearms remain an indispensable equalizer for people facing larger or stronger assailants.

Gun-control advocates often tell Americans that they should rely on police or use some supposedly less dangerous method of resistance. This woman reportedly tried exactly that. She used pepper spray before resorting to her firearm. It apparently did not stop the attack.

Pepper spray can be useful, but no defensive tool is guaranteed to work. An attacker may fight through it, avoid the spray or continue an assault before its effects become debilitating.

Police Cannot Arrive Before Every Attack

Police cannot be expected to arrive before every violent encounter unfolds. In this case, officers responded after the woman had already been forced to make that decision herself.

Texas law generally allows deadly force when someone reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury or certain violent crimes. State law also provides significant protections when an attacker unlawfully and forcibly enters an occupied home. Whether those protections apply will ultimately depend on facts established by investigators and prosecutors.

The basic lesson is difficult to ignore. The woman reportedly attempted to use pepper spray, but the alleged assault continued. Her firearm gave her another option when the first one failed.

A restraining order, locked door or canister of pepper spray may provide some protection. But when an attacker refuses to stop, a firearm may be the only tool capable of ending the threat before it is too late.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/WQBuCTr
via IFTTT

After Hemani, Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ Faces a Bruen Reckoning

The Supreme Court’s Hemani ruling may influence how the justices evaluate Hawaii’s default ban on licensed carry in Wolford v. Lopez. iStock-2281848066 (L) iStock-1367537836 (R)

If you want to understand how firearms laws survive or die in America today, you have to throw out the old way of thinking. Courts are no longer allowed to balance public safety against individual rights. Instead, under the landmark Bruen standard, the Supreme Court uses a strict “History and Tradition” test.

Think of this test as a two-step formula. First, does the plain text of the Second Amendment protect the person and what they are doing? If yes, the burden shifts entirely to the government. To keep a modern gun law on the books, the government must dig through American history (specifically around 1791 or 1868) and prove that the Founders had a well-established, similar regulation. If there is no historical twin or close cousin, the modern law is unconstitutional.

The Drug User Gun Ban (United States v. Hemani)

In a striking 9-0 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court completely upended how federal gun laws apply to regular drug users, using cannabis as the primary example.

The Real-World Scenario

Imagine a person living in a state where recreational marijuana is legal. On a Friday night, they sit at home watching TV, completely sober. Upstairs in their nightstand, they keep a licensed handgun for self-defense and a small amount of marijuana.

Under the old rules: Because federal law bans any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, this person was automatically committing a serious federal felony, even while sitting completely sober in their own living room.

How the History Test Blew It Up

The federal government tried to save the law by pointing to 18th-century “habitual drunkard” laws, arguing that the Founders restricted heavy drinkers from having guns. But the Supreme Court unanimously dismantled that comparison:

Active Impairment vs. Flat Bans: The Founders only regulated guns when someone was actively dangerous or publicly intoxicated (e.g., “You cannot fire a gun in town while drunk”).

The Verdict: The Court found absolutely no historical tradition of stripping sober citizens of their constitutional rights just because they occasionally or regularly use an intoxicating substance. Because the historical analogy failed, the modern blanket ban was ruled unconstitutional as applied to Hemani.

Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” (Wolford v. Lopez)

With Hemani decided, the Court is turning this exact same history test toward Hawaii’s controversial “sensitive places” law, which treats public-facing businesses as default “no-gun zones.”

The Real-World Scenario

You are a law-abiding citizen with a valid concealed carry permit running errands. You pull into a gas station, walk into a pharmacy to pick up a prescription, and grab dinner at a local diner.

Under Hawaii’s Law: The moment you step onto the property of the gas station, pharmacy, or diner, you are automatically committing a crime unless that business has put up a sign explicitly saying, “Guns Allowed.” If there is no sign, it is a default criminal “No.”

How the History Test Applies Here

Hawaii is defending its law by pointing to 19th-century anti-trespass laws that banned people from carrying guns onto private plantations or farms without permission.

Commercial vs. Domestic Space: Gun rights advocates point out that the historical test requires looking at the intent of the old laws. 1800s trespass laws were meant to protect enclosed, private, domestic lands from intruders, not commercial businesses that throw their doors wide open to invite the general public in to spend money.

The Expected Verdict: If the court applies the history test as strictly as they did in Hemani, Hawaii’s rule will likely fail. While a private business owner always retains the right to put up a “No Guns” sign, the government cannot create a sweeping, default-closed setting for every public-facing business on the map.

Summary Comparison

250 Years of Freedom: A Patriotic Defense of the Second Amendment

This strict focus on “History and Tradition” isn’t just a dry academic exercise for lawyers; it is a vital shield safeguarding the fundamental liberties of every American. As our nation marks its historic 250th anniversary this year, we are reminded that the United States was born from a fierce, unyielding devotion to individual freedom.

When the Founders drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they declared that our rights come from our Creator, not from the grace of a government. And when they ratified the Bill of Rights, they placed the Second Amendment right alongside freedom of speech and religion for a profound reason: the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of a free state.

As the Supreme Court holds the line against government overreach, these rulings ensure that the core tenets of American liberty survive intact. A quarter-millennium after our founding, the truth remains simpler than ever: a nation cannot remain truly free if its citizens are systematically disarmed. Embracing our heritage means protecting the absolute right of the people to defend their lives, their families, and their communities.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

from https://ift.tt/tCEfwcB
via IFTTT

Justice Thomas Questions Constitutional Basis of Federal Gun Ban

Justice Clarence Thomas’s Hemani concurrence questions whether Congress has Commerce Clause authority to regulate purely intrastate firearm possession. iStock-2213578640

Justice Clarence Thomas used his concurrence in United States v. Hemani to target a constitutional problem even larger than the federal government’s ban on gun possession by marijuana users: Congress may never have had the authority to federalize ordinary, intrastate firearm possession in the first place.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) could not constitutionally be applied to Ali Hemani merely because he regularly used marijuana. Thomas joined Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court in full. He then wrote separately to question whether the federal statute survives scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.

“As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce,” Thomas wrote. “The statute makes it a federal crime for unlawful drug users to possess any firearm or ammunition ‘in or affecting commerce.’ 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3).”

The Federal Government’s “Minimal Nexus” Theory

That language sounds like a connection to interstate commerce, but the government’s actual burden is remarkably thin. Under the prevailing interpretation, prosecutors need only prove that the firearm crossed a state line at some point in its history. The accused does not need to have bought it across state lines, transported it interstate, or used it in any commercial transaction.

Hemani allegedly possessed his firearm in his Texas home. The government relied on the fact that the gun had previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. For Thomas, that distant historical connection cannot turn local possession into interstate commerce.

“The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines,’” Thomas wrote.

Accepting that theory, he warned, would convert the Commerce Clause into a general federal police power constitutionally reserved to the states.

Thomas’s Warning Reaches Beyond Marijuana Users

Thomas’s argument reaches well beyond §922(g)(3). Section 922(g) contains the federal government’s broad list of prohibited persons, including convicted felons, fugitives, certain people subject to restraining orders, unlawful drug users, and others.

Thomas repeatedly discusses §922(g) as a whole and tells the Supreme Court and lower courts that they “should revisit the constitutionality of §922(g).”

His originalist analysis is straightforward. The Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate commerce “among the several States.” It does not give Washington a general power to regulate every firearm located inside a state merely because that gun once moved through the national marketplace.

Local Gun Possession Is Not Interstate Commerce

Thomas wrote that the commerce power cannot cover “mere gun possession” any more than it gives the federal government nationwide authority over “marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals.”

Local possession, standing alone, is not buying, selling, shipping, or any other form of interstate commerce.

He also argues that §922(g) conflicts with the Supreme Court’s modern Commerce Clause cases. In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that possessing a gun in a local school zone was not economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. Thomas sees no principled reason why the government can evade Lopez by adding a jurisdictional phrase and pointing to a firearm’s decades-old journey across a state boundary.

Thomas also dismantles the lower courts’ reliance on Scarborough v. United States. Courts have treated Scarborough as establishing that a firearm’s past interstate movement is constitutionally sufficient. Thomas says that gets the case wrong: “Scarborough’s holding was statutory, not constitutional.” It interpreted what Congress required, not whether Congress possessed the constitutional authority to require so little.

Thomas Invites a Broader Challenge to §922(g)

The concurrence does not strike down §922(g), and Thomas wrote only for himself. The issue was not formally presented in Hemani, so his analysis is not binding law. But it is an unmistakable invitation to gun-rights litigants to bring the right case.

Thomas closed by warning that it has been 26 years since anyone received relief from the Supreme Court through a Commerce Clause challenge. Congress’s enumerated powers, he stressed, must be “taken seriously.”

Hemani won because the government could not disarm him consistent with the Second Amendment. Thomas is asking the next, even more fundamental question: What constitutional authority did Congress have to regulate his purely local gun possession at all?

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/5tBunFa
via IFTTT

Sour Grapes: Jackson’s Hemani Concurrence Rips Bruen, Calls for Means-End Restoration

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Bruen Second Amendment test in her United States v. Hemani concurrence.

Those who thought the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani, striking down the federal prohibition on gun ownership by anyone using marijuana was too good to be true, need only to carefully read the concurring opinion from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to restore their skepticism.

Jackson’s five-page opinion, joined by fellow liberal Sonia Sotomayor, is pure sour grapes. It begins with this remark: “I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies our decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. 680 (2024). But I continue to believe that we veered off course in Bruen…I write separately to emphasize that means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric—offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”

Jackson, appointed by anti-gun-rights former President Joe Biden, makes it clear she believes Second Amendment questions should be decided by the discredited “Means-End Scrutiny” formula, which almost invariably favored government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. She maintains the “’history and tradition’ metric” (her words) established in the landmark Bruen ruling, announced almost exactly four years earlier, got it wrong. She argues that Bruen makes it difficult for government to do what government does: Erode fundamental, constitutionally protected rights.

“The difficulties Bruen has created are all the more striking when compared to the test it abolished: means-end scrutiny,” she writes

Bruen declared the century-old New York State gun permit law, requiring applicants to demonstrate some need to exercise a fundamental right, to be an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. That means it was always unconstitutional, and that for more than 100 years, honest New Yorkers were deprived of their right to bear arms by a bureaucracy which wanted them to remain disarmed.

Means-end scrutiny—an approach lower courts quietly embraced after the 2008 high court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller—perpetuated that legal perversion until Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion set things straight.

Bill Sack, director of Legal Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, summed it up via email.

“Justice Jackson is building a reputation for expressing her frustration when she can’t rule in favor of the government,” Sack told Ammoland. “She expressed concern in Murthy that the First Amendment ‘hamstrings’ the government from censoring speech, and now in Hemani she bemoans the Bruen test once again as it requires her to rule in favor of civil rights.”

His colleague at SAF, Konstadinos Moros, director of Legal Research and Education, added via email, “The Jackson and Sotomayor concurrence complains that Bruen is ‘unworkable’ while calling for a return to a standard (means-end scrutiny) that was actually unworkable. As just one example, from when Heller was decided in 2008 until Bruen was decided in 2022, the Ninth Circuit did not strike down a single gun law even though it heard dozens of cases. It was a test that even more strongly favored the government and drifted massively from the original intent behind the adoption of the Second Amendment. Perhaps that’s what Justice Jackson and Sotomayor would prefer, but it was not a ‘workable’ status quo for a meaningful Second Amendment.” 

Still, in her concurring opinion criticizing Bruen, Jackson doesn’t skip a beat, rattling off a quartet of cases in which the courts “regularly assess whether the government’s justification for a law is legitimate and whether the law’s operation is sufficiently tailored to promote that justification” when considering other constitutional rights. The cases she mentioned involved First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendment questions.

“Constitutional adjudication through means-ends scrutiny is squarely within the competence of courts,” Jackson insists in her concurrence. “There is no reason why an approach that has worked well enough in these other contexts would pose a problem only for Second Amendment adjudication.”

Well, yes there is a reason, gun rights activists repeatedly argue. They say it is stated clearly in the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Justice Jackson contends in the closing paragraph of her Hemani concurrence that the Bruen ruling is somehow a failure because it requires the courts to make decisions based on history, not modern governmental whims.

“Adding to Bruen’s weaknesses,” Justice Jackson writes, “is the fact that its framework provides no clear role for this kind of tailoring discussion. But such analysis is key. Scrutinizing the fit between a challenged law’s justification and its operation is an essential part of any sensible framework for Second Amendment adjudication. In a future case that squarely presents the question, we should consider whether to retire the failed Bruen experiment and return to an explicit assessment of Congress’s ends and means when deciding the constitutionality of firearm restrictions.”

Recall that liberal Justice Stephen Breyer dissented in the 2022 Bruen ruling, and that Jackson was appointed to fill his seat when he retired.

When Jackson wrote a concurring opinion in the 2024 Rahimi decision, she led off with this in the first paragraph: “This case tests our Second Amendment jurisprudence as shaped in particular by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022). I disagree with the methodology of that decision; I would have joined the dissent had I been a Member of the Court at that time.”

She followed up with this observation: “I write separately because we now have two years’ worth of post-Bruen cases under our belts, and the experiences of courts applying its history-and-tradition test should bear on our assessment of the workability of that legal standard. This case highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judges on the ground. Make no mistake: Today’s effort to clear up “misunderst[andings],” ante, at 7, is a tacit admission that lower courts are struggling. In my view, the blame may lie with us, not with them.”

Her concurrence is begrudging and is pure spoil sport. Justice Jackson’s dilemma is that she essentially finds herself in the same position as the government in Hemani. She’s stuck with a rule of law she doesn’t like.

As wisely observed by Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the government’s broad-brush prohibition on gun ownership by people who use marijuana squarely collides with the government’s traditional approach to people who use alcohol. CCRKBA joined in a January amicus brief supporting Texas-born Ari Hemani, who fought this case to the highest court in the land, and won.

“The federal statute, as the court rightly held, casts too wide a net,” Gottlieb stated in reaction to the Hemani ruling. “This one-size-fits-all approach to law enforcement has never worked. As we noted in our brief, historically the government has never prohibited sober people from owning firearms because they sometimes drank alcohol. The same logic applies here, especially since so many states now allow recreational marijuana use, and its use as a prescribed medical aid are widely recognized.”

Justice Jackson is clearly at odds with the Court’s landmark Bruen ruling and the guidelines it sets down for deciding Second Amendment cases. That’s probably not going to change as future cases come before the Court.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/v3Hl5gq
via IFTTT

Virginia Calls AR-15s ‘Weapons of War.’ American History Tells Another Story

Virginia calls AR-15-style rifles “weapons of war,” but Americans have privately owned military-pattern firearms since before the Revolution. iStock-2281848084

Jay Jones, Virginia’s attorney general, should be ashamed. The Boxtop School of Law and Massage Parlor should recall his degree and the Virginia bar should be looking into why he was admitted.

The shoddy ‘weapons of war’ excuse Jones used to justify Virginia’s new gun laws dishonors George Mason, one of the leading lights among the Founders and a champion of an armed citizenry.

Jones’ claims have no basis in fact, even if the Fourth Circuit used them to uphold Maryland’s ban. The choice of politics and prevarication over law to deprive a state’s citizens of their rights is reprehensible.

Jones’ justification is a lie; it’s a sham easily discredited with even a cursory search of our history dating back to Colonial America. To add insult to injury, it is a repudiation of George Mason, a Founding Era patriot and a champion of the people’s right to be armed.

Spotsylvania County Judge William Glover also has some explaining to do.

American colonists owned ‘weapons of war’ for years before the Declaration of Independence. Many owned British Land Pattern ‘Brown Bess’ muskets because they were relatively plentiful, less expensive than other muskets of comparable quality, suitable for most uses, and easily met the requirements for militia service.

Colonists were more likely to have the original Long Land Pattern Musket introduced in 1722. British troops had begun transitioning to the Short Land Pattern version in 1768. Other than four inches in barrel length, the muskets were the same. They were produced by the same contractors, just like Colt, which made both the M16 rifle and the AR-15 Sporter.

Among the colonists, the Brown Bess was generally a personally owned gun. The Continental Army’s primary long arm was the Charleville musket the French government supplied in the tens of thousands.

So-called ‘weapons of war’ continued to remain popular into the Nineteenth Century. There were thousands of Spencer carbines, Sharps rifles, 1853 Enfields, and Springfield Model 1861s in American households. The Henry Rifle used by the Union Army in the Civil War became the mass-market Winchester; the most popular rifle among American hunters well into the Twentieth Century.

During this period, hunters wanting a bolt-action rifle were dependent on U.S. government surplus sales. The first commercial market bolt-action didn’t appear until 1920.

The best example of the ‘weapons of war’ fallacy is the World War II M1 Carbine.

The M1 Carbine was designed for the military and exclusively produced for and sold to the U.S. military. Millions were issued and used in combat in World War II, Korea, and the early years of the Vietnam war. They were also issued to the National Guard, so they were used in militia service, as well.

The M1 Carbine was supplied solely with 15-round and 30-round magazines. In its M1A1 configuration, it had a pistol grip and folding stock. The M2 version was selective-fire and ticked all the boxes for an actual assault rifle.

Yet the M1 Carbine was not included in the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Because it had a pistol grip and folding stock, the M1A1 was included despite the fact the actions and barrels could be freely swapped between the different stocks.

In the eerily 1960s, the federal government began selling surplus M1s and M1A1s into the civilian market with an initial lot of about 240,000. Prices were as low as $20.00. M1s were sold in F.W. Woolworth stores; private citizens could order them by mail.

Looking at Virginia’s statutory excuse, we start with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller. In its opinion, the court said:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

In other words, the court said the Second Amendment protected only those weapons suitable for military service.

Jones is asserting a claim that the rifles the state wants to ban are exactly that. So Jones is also saying they are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.

Never let it be said the gun-grabbers are troubled by contradictions.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court expanded the protection of the Second Amendment to other types of firearms but carved out a poorly defined niche for firearms considered to be “dangerous and unusual.”

The AR-15 and similar rifles are functionally and operationally equivalent to firearms first offered to American hunters more than 100 years ago. Even detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds were available.

Considering the standard cartridges in the most common platforms are an average of 43% less powerful than popular deer hunting rounds, it’s hard to say they are particularly dangerous. Their popularity shows they are definitely not unusual.

But not a single army in the world uses a semiautomatic rifle as its standard-issue infantry weapon.

Now for the coup de grace.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the Bill of Rights to the states, was ratified in 1868. However, not all of the Enumerated Rights were fully incorporated until later.

The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment was fully incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process Clause in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).

The Supremacy Clause means the federal constitution trumps every state constitution and every treaty with a foreign power (Reid v. Covert (1957)).

Including Virginia’s.

[Note: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I will happily admit there are (lots of) deficits in my knowledge of constitutional law. However, when it comes to knowledge of firearms, their technology, and their history and tradition in America, I am more than a novice.]

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/B5EOSeh
via IFTTT