Fighting the Good Fight
It Takes Money, Time and – Did We Mention – Money?
The battle to protect your right to keep and bear arms is
being waged in courtrooms all over the country. This fight will
take lots of money, all you can spare. Billionaire-backed
anti-gunners figure they can wear down the firearms
community by breaking their spirit, and their bank accounts.
While lobbying groups spend carloads of cash to push their agendas in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill, here in the firearms community there is another front — the state and federal courts — and this is where the big fights are coming on the horizon.
Bucket O’ Bucks
Guess what? All of those court battles take buckets — and more buckets — of bucks as well because good attorneys aren’t cheap. And, once a legal challenge is launched against a blatantly unconstitutional law, it will take months and maybe even years for the case to make its way through the courts.
Based on years of experience in this arena, I’m convinced anti-gun lawmakers realize some of the garbage they push will never pass the constitutional smell test. But they do it anyway for really sinister reasons.
Passing laws to impede, impair and infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms is aimed at discouraging people from exercising our rights. This is especially true recently with the passage of permit-to-purchase requirements in order to just buy a gun.
People who back such laws want gun rights groups to challenge them because litigation will cost a small fortune, and there are enough left-leaning judges in the lower courts who will do their part by upholding some of these statutes. The hope is challengers may actually run out of money.
So, these organizations — National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights, and so on — are constantly asking for contributions. Thankfully, people wanting to protect and perpetuate their constitutional right to keep and bear arms open their wallets and checkbooks.
Many of the current Second Amendment court cases
involve modern semiautomatic rifles, incorrectly called
“assault rifles” or “military grade firearms,” neither of
which is technically accurate.
Not Like Television
Challenging a rotten gun control statute in court is not something which happens between the opening theme music and closing credits.
First, the group(s) behind such legal actions must find plaintiffs with “standing.” That is, it must be demonstrated the law being challenged causes them some legal harm. Plaintiffs are therefore vetted to establish they have a solid case, and there is nothing in their background which could derail the case in the middle of the trial.
The attorneys and their staffs must do hours of research to come up with compelling arguments based on the Constitution and previous rulings, then file their case documents. There are pre-trial hearings and court dates must be set, maybe months in advance. There will be motions to dismiss, motions for a change of venue — all kinds of things happen to delay trials, and through all of this, the meter is running.
And remember, there will be an appeal — perhaps more than one — and this process will cost even more money.
One strategy to get the most out of a dollar is for several groups to join in a single legal action. Over the past several years, we have seen federal lawsuits filed by coalitions which might include SAF and NRA splitting the legal bills, such as their ground-breaking federal lawsuit against the post-Hurricane Katrina gun grab in New Orleans.
SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association joined forces in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which brought a Supreme Court ruling in June 2010 incorporating the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. It was this case which opened the floodgates for challenges of draconian state gun control laws all over the country.
The sad fact is even while these groups split their costs, they still need support from the grassroots. A few dollars here, a few more dollars there, maybe a $5 bill or a couple of $20s in an envelope; just how much are your rights worth?
It has been my habit to find out about federal judges and identify which president nominated them. Rulings in favor of the Second Amendment typically come from judges appointed by Donald Trump, George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush. Typically ruling against the Second Amendment position are judges appointed by Joe Biden, Barack Obama and even Bill Clinton. It doesn’t always guarantee a judge will rule one way or the other, but it ups the odds in either direction.
Attorney General Pam Bondi swore in Assistant A.G.
Harmeet Dhillon several weeks ago, and since then, the
Justice Department has put unprecedented focus on
protecting the Second Amendment. Photo: DOJ
Now There is a Difference
One significant thing has changed on the legal/political landscape. This time around, the administration is on the side of the Second Amendment and the Department of Justice appears willing to play hardball.
In addition to the previously reported announcement by Attorney General Pam Bondi about the creation of the Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has announced the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will also be looking at possible Second Amendment violations.
Last month, Dhillon stated in an interview, “Prior Republican administrations haven’t paid a lot of attention to affirmatively (protecting the Second Amendment), but in the wake of clear guidance from the United States Supreme Court, to own and use firearms…city after city or state after state are eviscerating those rights.”
This has never happened before. Early last month, the DOJ filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting plaintiff/petitioners in their challenge of a Hawaii gun control law. The DOJ brief declares, “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
The case is known as Wolford v. Lopez challenges the Aloha State’s controversial Act 52, a statute making it virtually impossible to carry a defensive sidearms in places open to the public unless property owners give permission to have firearms on their property.
How to Help
Want to help move the legal ball downfield? It’s easy. Pick a gun rights group, send them a check and specify it to help cover legal expenses. Join your favored group and make a couple of contributions each year:
National Rifle Association 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030
Second Amendment Foundation 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005*
Firearms Policy Coalition 5550 Painted Mirage Road, Suite 320 Las Vegas, NV 89149.
Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 202 Springfield, VA 22151
National Association for Gun Rights 501 Main Street, Suite 200 Windsor, CO 80550
*Same mailing address for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Stupid Is as Stupid Doe
Just when we think criminals can’t get dumber, along comes some nitwit with a “Hold my beer” approach to crime, just to ramp things down a notch or two.
Enter the unidentified suspect who exchanged gunfire with the owner of a convenience store in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester along the south shore of Lake Ontario.
According to WHAM News, the suspect strolls in one morning early in May to pull a stickup but he wasn’t expecting the legally-armed store owner to be there. Shots were fired. The guy dropped his gun and fled, only to be found a short time later, suffering from a bullet wound.
Lo-and-behold, this turned out to be the same character who robbed the convenience store back on April 27, WHAM noted. After a visit to the hospital, he got to enjoy being arrested and taken to jail.
