Pro-Gun Organization Files Amicus Brief With Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi Case
Jose Nino
|
On October 2, 2023, the National Foundation for Gun Rights (the legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in this case at the start of November.
“This is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken since last year’s Bruen decision. It’s important that we are there to remind the Court to double down on what they said in Bruen, particularly the ‘text, history, and tradition’ standard, instead of watering it down,” declared Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “This case is only one of many lawsuits either underway or in the works challenging unconstitutional federal anti-gun laws. It is our hope the Court remains more loyal to the Second Amendment than to the longstanding federal gun control regime.”
The 6-3 Bruen decision upheld the constitutionality of carrying a handgun in public without the state having to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine the legality of such an action.
NFGR’s brief makes the Supreme Court aware that the Second Amendment is not a second-class liberty that receives a different treatment from other Bill of Rights safeguards, and 18 U.S. C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), the federal statute being challenged in this case, infringes on this right according to the plaintiffs.
The brief noted the following: “That the government’s amici are satisfied with – even applaud – the fact that under the statute a person can be stripped of his fundamental constitutional rights on such flimsy grounds betrays a mindset that does not really consider the right to keep and bear arms as a right to take seriously, much less defend vigorously.”
The brief then pointed out that the federal government would never even consider passing a parallel statute subjecting individuals under a restraining order to unlimited unreasonable police searches of homes. The brief made the following conclusion:
“Almost certainly it would never occur to the government or its amici to argue that a person has nothing to complain about so long as he has notice and a hearing before entry of a court order that serves as the basis for stripping him of his fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches. What is the difference? The difference is that § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) violates what is, in their view, the second-class Second Amendment right; whereas the hypothetical statute violates a first-class Fourth Amendment right that is worth defending.”
The brief also makes the Supreme Court aware of the multiple arguments the lower courts are using to try to go around the Bruen decision. The brief called on the Court to clarify and reemphasize the standard that Bruen established.
“The ink wasn’t even dry on Bruen before gun control fanatics slithered out of the woodwork to churn out new gun laws hoping to poke holes in the decision and weaken the Second Amendment protections the Supreme Court just affirmed,” declared Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “It is our hope that SCOTUS slaps down all the bogus gun control arguments that have popped up since Bruen, once and for all.”
NAGR is one of the few organizations that can always be counted on to fight for the right to bear arms. One can expect them to oppose all forms of gun grabs that pop up at the state or local level. Such vigilance is needed if we’re serious about preserving our freedoms.
The brief can be viewed here.
Share: