Gun Laws And 2a
Why Are FPC, SAF Having To Battle Trump’s DOJ Over Young Gun Owners’ 2A Rights?
Why Are FPC, SAF Having To Battle Trump’s DOJ Over Young Gun Owners’ 2A Rights?
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Illinois, Louisiana
Two separate court battlesone in Louisiana and one in Illinoispaint a curious picture of a seemingly divided Trump Administration Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. As we've reported, the DOJ filed a brief and is actually set to testify before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that it believes Illinois ban on so-called assault weapons is unconstitutional and should be overturned. The brief even states: Illinois violated the Supreme Courts clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Unfortunately, and illogically, two gun rights groupsthe Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are having to fight the very same Trump DOJ in a Louisiana case focused on the rights of American gun owners who are 18, 19 and 20 years old. In that case, Reese v. ATF, the DOJ is working hard to avoid an injunction blocking enforcement of the federal ban on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age. The DOJ has argued for a narrow proposed judgment that would leave those unconstitutional gun control laws in place for virtually everyone in the United States. And thats not something the good folks at FPC can live with. In the latest brief, FPC and its co-plaintiffs explain that the law requires complete and meaningful relief for all members, not just the few individuals originally named in the lawsuit as proposed by the government, the organization wrote in a press release on the lawsuit. To that end, they point out that both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have long recognized the ability of membership organizations to vindicate the rights of their members, and that this case is no different. The Governments decision to avoid seeking certiorari from the Fifth Circuits clear and correct decision in this case cannot afford them an opportunity to avoid the naturaland requiredconsequences of it, the brief argues. The Court should enter the judgment proposed by Plaintiffs, declare the ban on 18-to-20-year-olds acquiring handguns and handgun ammunition from licensed dealers unconstitutional, and enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Ban to prevent sales to members of the Organizational Plaintiffs. The brief further states: As the brief states, Following Supreme Court precedent, (the district court) should now enter judgment that grants complete relief to the Plaintiffswhich under binding precedent means extending that relief to all of Plaintiffs affected members, both now and on an ongoing basis. For its part, SAF is also calling attention to the ongoing court battle, explaining that the ATFs new position is to ensure that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. SAFs victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear, Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said in the news release. The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.