The Supreme Court could strike down so-called "assault weapon" bans next term...
<[link removed]>
HUGE FILING AT SCOTUS!
GOA just filed in what is shaping up to be an extremely important 2A case....
Dear John,
We at GOA just filed our amicus brief in the Supreme Court's most important
Second Amendment case sinceBruen, Viramontes v. Cook County.
Joining us in this filing are Century Arms, Canik USA, Fostech and B&T USA.
We’re excited to have some of our industry partners fighting with us on this
important brief.
This case poses one simple question:
"Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee an individual right to
own AR-15 platform rifles and similar semi-automatic rifles."
We're proud to have filed in support of this case, and are looking forward to
oral arguments this December.
Read on to hear more about our amicus brief!
SUPPORT OUR LEGAL WORK HERE! <[link removed]>
<[link removed]>
AMICUS. FILED.
In our amicus brief, which supports the petitioners, we argue that:
First, the AR-15 is in common use. It's known as "America's Rifle." It is
undoubtedlyone of the most commonly owned rifles across this country today.
Americans have purchased these firearms in the tens of millions, and
semi-automatic rifles are both wildly legal, and bought by many ordinary
consumers.
By any metric at all, these firearms clearly fit cleanly into the definition
of "common use."
That's why it is also clearly and blatantly unconstitutional that anti-gun
jurisdictions around the country ban them.
Second, we argue that the logic used by anti-gun Judges across the country do
not have any basis in history, as is needed to pass the test laid out in the
Supreme Court'sBruen decision.
The Judges who uphold these blanket bans on commonly owned semi-automatic
rifles do so by likening these firearms to supposedly unprotected "military"
weapons, or by declaring them to be "unusually dangerous," and therefore
unprotected.
Decisions like these by anti-gun Judges are thinly veiled "interest
balancing." Something that the Supreme Court also put a stop to in the Bruen
decision.
In addition, our brief argues that the government cannot ban commonly owned
firearms simply because politicians or judges consider them too dangerous or
akin to “military-style" weapons.
The Second Amendment does not draw a line between “civilian” and “military”
weapons. The Founding Fathers understood that citizens should and would have
access to the same kinds of arms used by soldiers.
Ultimately, this case is about who gets to decide what sorts of firearms that
the American people may "keep and bear"—the people themselvesor the
legislatures and unelected judges who serve them.
The answer to this question is clear, and we'll be keeping an eye on this case
as oral arguments are set for Dec. 2nd.
SUPPORT GOA'S LEGAL WORK! <[link removed]>
In Liberty,
<[link removed]>
Erich Pratt,
Senior Vice President
Gun Owners of America
<[link removed]>
To renew your GOA membership or to join for the first time, please click here
<[link removed]>.
<[link removed]> <[link removed]>
<[link removed]>
<[link removed]> <[link removed]>
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Pl. Ste. 202
Springfield, VA 22151
This email was sent to
[email protected] · Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
