For far too long, the Second Amendment has been treated like a second-class right, with local politicians banning guns in states and cities across the country.
But now, that is all coming to an end.
The National Association for Gun Rights has filed lawsuits in nearly half of the federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional gun bans everywhere!
This nationwide legal blitz aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good.
The Supreme Court handed us a 4-ton wrecking ball in their recent landmark ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
That ruling said that lower courts can’t turn the Second Amendment into a meaningless right -- and that from now on they have to rule based on the text and historical context of the Second Amendment!
I can’t overstate how huge of an opportunity this is for us.
Now it is up to gun owners like you and me to enforce this ruling by hauling every single California-style gun control law that’s ever been falsely upheld back to court.
That’s why we’ve filed a total of SEVEN lawsuits attacking gun bans across the United States.
Each of these carefully-crafted suits seek to overturn a so-called “assault weapons” ban and magazine ban.
That’s right.
NAGR is enforcing that pro-gun Bruen ruling nationwide.
Here are the unconstitutional laws we’re filing lawsuits against:
*** Massachusetts’s “assault weapons” ban and mag ban
We’re seeking to overturn the same assault weapons ban signed into law in 2006 by then-Governor Mitt Romney, and the magazine ban. A win in the 1st Circuit will protect gun rights across the upper Northeast.
*** Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban and mag ban
In 2013, Connecticut lawmakers took their wrath out on law-abiding gun owners by expanding an already draconian gun ban to include over 100 more commonly owned guns, and magazines of over 10 rounds.
While previous liberal courts upheld the law, there is no way this law can withstand the precedent established in the Bruen decision. Taking it down could restore freedom to the 2nd Circuit, including Vermont and New York.
*** Hawaii’s “assault pistol” ban and mag ban
This gun ban is so sweeping it bans pistols with common attachments owned by millions of Americans, and bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
The California-heavy 9th Circuit doesn’t have a gun-friendly history, but recent signals indicate that all could change. Winning here could put a stop to gun bans in California, Oregon, and Washington State too.
***Highland Park, Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban and mag ban
Illinois municipal bureaucrats have long sought to punish law-abiding gun owners with a patchwork of local gun bans on top of already restrictive state gun control laws. Winning here could put an end to that practice across the entire 7th Circuit (Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana).
***Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban, plus Naperville, IL’s AR-15 sale ban
Perhaps the only thing more draconian than the gun ban in Highland Park is how local officials last year Naperville, IL flipped the bird at over 100 local residents who showed up to protest a new ordinance that would ban the sale of AR-15s and put locally-owned gun shops out of business.
My exact words to our lawyers: “Let’s sue those scumbags too.” And when the state of Illinois passed a statewide semi-auto ban not long after, we expanded this lawsuit to go after the state ban too.
*** Superior, Colorado’s “assault weapons” ban and mag ban
In the days leading up to the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, national anti-gun groups like Everytown and Giffords were agitating local governments in Colorado to pass gun bans. What they didn’t count on was Justice Thomas’ landmark ruling a mere two weeks after the town of Superior banned semi-autos.
And they didn’t expect us to immediately swoop in with a Bruen-based lawsuit to stop this gun control in its tracks.
*** Colorado statewide mag ban
We are also suing to overturn Colorado’s 2013 magazine ban, which banned standard-capacity magazines in direct defiance of the Second Amendment. If Colorado doubles down by also banning semi-autos, we’ll sue to overturn that too.
I almost left out the best part... we are already WINNING!
Two separate district court judges – one appointed by Obama and one appointed by Biden – issued temporary restraining orders in our Colorado litigation blocking two local Colorado governments from enforcing their unconstitutional gun bans.
Why?
Because in the words of these Democrat-appointed judges, we have a “substantial” or “strong likelihood of success on the merits.”
BAM!
Even the Left is forced to admit that under Bruen, the courts actually have to follow the Second Amendment.
And as a result, all four of the Colorado local governments are now blocked from enforcing their gun bans while our lawsuit proceeds.
We’re winning. This may be the BEST chance gun owners have had in a generation to reverse the damage that the left has done to us in deep-blue states and across the country.
After all, our enemies are backed by billionaires who have already dispatched some of the worst gun-banning attorneys in the nation on us to stop our suits in their tracks.
Literally - the Everytown lawyers are already lining up to take us down.
In one of our lawsuits, there are now over 20 anti-gun lawyers – from a variety of national anti-gun orgs – against us.
And some judges are listening to them. In our Naperville IL case, a federal judge mangled the Supreme Court’s standard in Heller and Bruen to rule against gun owners.
But we refuse to let lousy rulings like this be the final word. We’ve appealed this to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and will take it to the Supreme Court if we have to!
And if I can count on your support, I know we can win.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights Inc. (NFGR) is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to NFGR are tax-deductible for income, gift, and estate taxes. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute legal or tax advice. www.GunRightsFoundation.org
Not produced or emailed at taxpayer expense.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
