The Second Amendment Foundation does a lot of its work in the courtroom. It fights battles on that front while other gun rights organizations fight in the legislatures. These are both important battlegrounds, and no one seems to be exclusively choosing one or the other. They all fight the same fight in slightly different ways, and we need them all.
But I will say that the SAF has clearly been busy. After all, I got two different press releases from the organization on two different filings they announced on Wednesday.
First, there’s the filing in the US District Court for summary judgment in a case challenging the National Firearms Act:
he Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a motion for summary judgment in one of the organization’s two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Since 1934, the NFA has required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” (AOW) to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place.
“The Court has all the facts it needs to hold major portions of the NFA unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Since the tax for the affected arms is zeroed out, the only reason they remain under the NFA is to create an unconstitutional registration scheme. We’re hopeful the court recognizes this blatant infringement for what it is – a violation of congressional power and Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
This is, of course, an accurate summation. The NFA was always defended not as a gun control law, but a tax, and rested on the federal authority for Congress to levy taxes.
Now that the tax is done, the implication that the NFA should still apply in any way to suppressors and short-barreled long guns should be rendered moot.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said it best when he argued, “We believe so strongly that silencers, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns should be removed from the NFA that we have filed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the registration scheme.”. He added, “It can’t be a tax without a tax and can’t be gun regulation because it runs afoul of the Second Amendment.”
That’s an important case all on its own, but the SAF was also busy urging the Supreme Court to take up the organization’s challenge of Illinois’ assault weapon ban. Via a press release:
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The case has been distributed for conference to be held on Friday, Dec. 5.
SAF and its partners filed their cert petition in August, and the reply brief was submitted in response to Cook County’s attempt to dissuade the Hight Court from hearing the case. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.
“Despite Cook County’s attempt to avoid constitutional accountability, we think Viramontes is a suitable vehicle for the Court to settle the assault weapons ban issue once and for all,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Supreme Court has already indicated its interest in doing exactly that, and we’re hopeful this case provides the opportunity for the Court to step up and put an end to these pernicious hardware bans.”
Honestly, the Court needs to take up this case. It was pretty clear to most of us that the only reason they didn’t address the assault ban question last session was that they planned on taking it up in the future. That seems to have been the promise made to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and this is a prime opportunity for the other justices to keep that promise.
The SAF is asking for the Court to keep that promise, too, essentially, and it’s time. It was time last session, but the Court declines to grant cert. Now they can fix that and address the issue.
Especially because it meets all the things the Court likes to see before granting cert, including conflicting opinions and a clear matter of constitutional rights.
Anti-gunners would rather they didn’t, of course, because after Bruen, it’s pretty clear that they’re going to lose this one. Even though the Court isn’t as pro-gun as I’d like, the exceptions they made regarding Rahimi and privately made firearms–the latter of which was administrative and not a Second Amendment issue, as presented to the Court, in fairness–it’s going to be hard to see a weapon “in common use” being banned as something they’re going to overlook, especially when there’s little history, text, and tradition to support such a ban.
I hope the SAF gets everything it wants in these cases, because both are good for gun rights.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
