NRA to Supreme Court: Overturn Highland Park “Assault Weapons” Ban

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 9.14.02 PM

The NRA-ILA writes:

On Friday, August 28, 2015, the National Rifle Association filed an important amicus briefwith the United States Supreme Court in the case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park(No. 15-133).  The case challenges the City’s archaic ban on common semi-automatic rifles that it pejoratively labels “assault weapons,” as well as standard-capacity magazines with capacities over ten rounds . . .

In April of this year, a divided three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban under a series of flawed tests that directly conflict with Supreme Court precedent. Ultimately, the panel majority ruled that the government may ban common firearms and magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans – if doing so might make some members of the public “feel safer.” On July 27, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of  Certiorari asking the Supreme Court to rehear the case to correct this dangerous ruling.

The NRA’s amicus or “friend of the court” brief urges the Supreme Court to accept the case to correct the majority decision’s blatant defiance of Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, the brief explains that firearms and magazines that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected under the Second Amendment and simply cannot be banned.

The brief also illustrates how the Bill of Rights will effectively be destroyed if the government is permitted to trample constitutional rights according to perceived public feelings and fears. Finally, the brief provides the Court with practical insights regarding the many reasons that the prohibited rifles and magazines are so popular among the American people.

Highland Park will now have an opportunity to respond, and the Supreme Court will then consider whether it will hear the case.  All case filings can be viewed at http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/friedman/.

comments

  1. avatar Gunr says:

    I lost my AR-15, and all the 30 round mags, in a tragic boating accident, in my bathtub.

    1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

      @Gunr
      I, as a private citizen, would be honored to sell you a replacement, without a background check, but I had an ice fishing accident.

      1. avatar JSJ says:

        Well I’m afraid I can’t help either. My boat sank when it hit a pile of submerged weapons at high speed. They’re getting to be quite the obstacle to navigation.

        1. avatar some dude says:

          Replies that make me chortle are inconvenient sometimes. Well played though.

  2. avatar raptureRaptor says:

    Kanye West for POTUS 2020.

    1. avatar Lone Ranger says:

      Yeah, we need some of his “common sense” ideas when what he should really be doing is switching his wife to a low carb diet.

    2. avatar ShiningKnight says:

      That is the joke of the century. If he runs and gets elected, this country is doomed. RIP America.

      1. avatar lowell says:

        Not at all. Four years of no laws at all would be a nice change of pace. Also, imagine the comedy potential – even Fox News might actually be able to make something funny out of it.

    3. avatar Galtha58 says:

      Colion Noir would be a better choice.

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Curiosity wants to know if Highland Park is in some state, the D.C., or outer space.

    1. avatar joecr says:

      If you bothered to click the links in the story you’d see it’s from Illinois. IIRC a suburb near Chicago.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    SCOTUS doesn’t trust Justice Kennedy, so it is unlikely to take another 2A case.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      The SCOTUS is almost as bad at defending the Constitution as the POTUS.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        SCOTUS did a good job in Heller and McDonald, but it’s clear that the four pro-2A Justices don’t trust Kennedy — and the four anti-2A pukes don’t trust him either.

        1. avatar lowell says:

          Actually SCOTUS did a horrible job with Heller. The ruling is awful. it’s something like 14,000 words to lawyer their way into declaring the current status quo to be constitutional, including the NFA34, CGA68, and the Hughes Amendment. Just because they said the government can’t ban handguns doesn’t mean the ruling was a good one. What the large print giveth, the fine print taketh away.

  5. avatar Mobrules says:

    Illinois of course.

  6. avatar Mark Lee says:

    I believe Highland Park is located in Illinois.

    God, please let this happen in Massachusetts. Really. I’m an agnostic praying to God for this. I’m pushing for governor Baker to take his Executive Order #562 (“to reduce regulatory burden” and apply federal laws as the standard) dead seriously and apply it to our gun-control laws, which were in effect before I moved here. I’m ready to move out if he doesn’t.

    That will teach him to make empty promises!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      In MA, Charlie Baker is considered a centrist Republican. In a normal state, he’d be considered a left-wing Democrat (redundancy noted).

  7. avatar Michael C says:

    If the government is allowed to ban common firearms and magazines because it makes some people ‘feel safer’, than shouldn’t they also provide those same common firearms and magazines to other people so they can ‘feel safer’ too? If they really want people to ‘feel safer’, they need to increase training requirements for drivers licenses, add a minimum IQ requirement, make cars impossible to start without a drivers license, and increase monitoring of the highways and yank the license of everyone that drives stupidly and dangerously.

    1. avatar Michael Clark says:

      Yes and while we are at it, I would feel “safer” if Goeble’s incarnate AKA Soros would stop dropping a few million dollars to twist the agendas of some organizations which may have had a decent agenda, into a political machine spreading lies about the NRA and other pro2A organizations. Also I would “feel” safer if the liberals would stop banning everything because of their feelings. We have a nation in which masculinity is offensive and anything that goes against the leftist’s agenda is either rascist, sexist, or just hurts someone’s feelers.

  8. avatar bc says:

    I wanted to post this. I have a solution to the anti gun extremists and their calls for “universal background checks” for gun shows and private sales. Require all criminals who can no longer own guns to be branded on their left shoulder with a no guns brand. It would be applied by a medical professional, in a medical office with pain relief. What would it do?

    If you are a gun store clerk, a gun show seller or a private seller, and you have an unknown individual trying to buy a gun, instead of having him fill out paperwork for a background check, you simply say…”Please show me your left shoulder.” If the brand is there, no gun sale………

    That would mean in instantaneous result, with no record of a law abiding citizen. Instantaneous and no permanent record, everything pro 2nd amendment people want in a background check, and it covers gun shows and private sales without the delay and added expense of draggin a buyer to a gun store or a police station.

    I have thought about the issues with this and think it would work great…anyone?

    1. avatar HolmiumST says:

      In Singapore, you just ask them to show the arse and look for big wide scar.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I love your idea bc.

      You do realize, though, it wouldn’t be long before ex-convicts started “medical” skin procedures to remove the branding.

      We could achieve the same result with a simple designation on everyone’s driver’s license or state issued identification. All the seller would have to do is run a quick check to verify that the person’s identification is still valid. Why the seller verified the validity of the person’s identification is unimportant.

      Better yet, we don’t check anything. If we don’t trust a person to possess firearms, then we don’t trust them to be roaming free in society and they should still be in prison.

    3. avatar Dustin says:

      And if a roaming gang of nomadic democrat welfare moochers pinned you down and branded you?

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        That would be pretty hard for them to do, what with all those 9mm sized holes in their heads and bodies.

    4. avatar Coffee Addict says:

      iris scans.

    5. avatar lowell says:

      The only solution to anti-gun extremists is to revoke their citizenship and send them packing to either Canada or Mexico as political refugees. Anything else is just a delaying tactic.

  9. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Be careful of what you wish for. Remember Obamacare.

  10. avatar Roy says:

    Godspeed.

  11. avatar Lone Ranger says:

    SCOTUS will refuse to hear this… they know that a ruling that didn’t go the way the executive branch wants (eliminate 2nd amendment by continued infringement) could unwind LOTS of similar bans in other states that are also unconstitutional.

    1. avatar lowell says:

      SCOTUS has to turn this down. It’s he only way to preserve the status quo and continue the supremacy of the state. As long as states can ban whatever they want to ban the gun grabbers have a chance, because there’s no way they can repeal the 2ndAmend. IF SCOTUS takes the case they either have to spell out why the bans are constitutional(they aren’t) which will lock the gun culture irreversibly on the path to civil war, or overturn the ban which will dramatically weaken the gun grabbers already tenuous position. From that ban overturn it’s a hop, skip and a jump away from getting class 2 deregulated and the class 3 registry opened back up, because a major win will cause a surge of interest that opportunistic Republicans will move in to capitalize on.

      So SCOTUS won’t hear the case, which will leave a semi-auto/30round mag ban standing, which when the federal government imposes on the country will lock the gun culture into a civil war.

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Highland Park,Illinois-in Lake County north of Chiraq. Been there on business-very snooty,demo-upper/ middle class vibe. They banned those evil black rifles for the children I’m sure. BTW-the cop shooting and manhunt in Fox Lake,IL today isn’t far away-these folks may WISH they had an evil AR(they are clueless on the 3 guys identity)…

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    While the NRA’s case is rock solid, it won’t matter because the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case.

  14. avatar Danny says:

    I have good news, and I have bad news.

    First, the bad news: if post-1986 “machine guns” can be banned, in the sense that any gun that fires more than a single cartridge with one pull of the trigger can be banned, then high-capacity semi-autos can be banned on the exact same logic. There is no threat, no risk, no danger posed by a 3-round burst AR, or a 300 rounds-per-minute cyclic-rate Browning Automatic Rifle with a 20-round magazine, that is not posed by a semi-auto AR with a light trigger, or a positive-reset trigger, or a slide-fire stock. Indeed, terrorists who have conducted mass shootings with select-fire weapons appear to select semi-auto fire when killing large numbers of civilians. Auto-fire apparently is not efficient when slaughtering people one-by-one in rapid succession.

    The effort to distinguish semi-auto “Modern Sporting Rifles” from their 3-rd-burst military siblings in terms of legitimate public-safety considerations is doomed to failure.

    Now, the good news: if “Modern Sporting Rifles” with high-capacity mags and Timney triggers are protected by the Second Amendment, there is no logical basis for the Hughes amendment. A semi-auto AR or AK “bullet hose” is no less dangerous than an M1918A2 BAR. The ATF is going to have to “open the books” and the country is going to have to formulate a national policy that takes every word of the Second Amendment seriously — militia, well-regulated, people, shall-not-be-infringed: every word.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Danny,

      I think you are spot on. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t want to hear any more Second Amendment cases because they will enable us to completely repeal the Hughes Amendment, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the National Firearms Act of 1934.

      As much of an abomination as the Miller decision was (the only U.S. Supreme Court case in history that I know about where the defendant’s council was a no show), it emphatically protects our right to keep and bear arms that our military uses. Guess what? Our military uses or has used short barreled rifles and shotguns as well as full-auto: Thompson submachine guns, “grease” guns, M1 carbines, M14 rifles, and M16 rifles as well as other goodies. Of course some units use suppressors as well. Thus, under the Miller decision, not only should we be able to purchase and own any firearm (and suppressors) that our U.S. military uses, we should be able to purchase and own them without first getting government permission or having to pay a $200 tax.

      Furthermore, we must be able to bear any firearm outside of the home.

      But the ruling class doesn’t want that. If they allowed that to happen, We the People might be able to put a stop to their madness after all else fails.

  15. avatar yojo says:

    “..if doing so might make some members of the public “feel safer.”..”
    I’d “feel safer” with a full auto belt fed weapon, at least a standard cap mag or 5 or 6

  16. avatar gsnyder says:

    Banning will certainly guarantee none will exist within the borders. Sticking your head in the sand means you are left to get your ass-kicked.

  17. avatar ANdrew Lias says:

    Low expectations but it would be nice to have this as a weapon to smack down Cali at large.

  18. avatar Grindstone says:

    The brief also illustrates how the Bill of Rights will effectively be destroyed if the government is permitted to trample constitutional rights according to perceived public feelings and fears.

    We’ve already headed well down that road since 9/11. Hell, since McCarthy.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      You must mean Carolyn McCarthy.

  19. avatar Mark N. says:

    While an eloquent brief,k all it argues is that the Circuit Court decision was wrong, that is not, standing alone, sufficient for a grant of review. However, I think the petitioner’s brief did an admirable job on this score, demonstrating that the circuits are all over the map in analyzing 2A cases after Heller and McDonald, most applying some sort of sliding scale–Heller majority. I think that this chaos in the circuits is an excellent basis for intervention, just as Justice Thomas pointed out i his dissent of the denial of the petition for review in Jackson v. S.F.–the district and circuit courts have gone out of their way to undermine the Heller rational.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While an eloquent brief,k all it argues is that the Circuit Court decision was wrong, that is not, standing alone, sufficient for a grant of review.

      And this is what is wrong with our justice system in the United States. A Circuit Court of Appeals can render a decision in complete contradiction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and, somehow, that isn’t sufficient basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case much less immediately reverse the lower court’s insolence ruling.

      How much longer are We the People supposed to keep looking the other way?

  20. avatar Nate says:

    When has an assault weapons ban ever been struck down by a federal court absent some other factor like state preemption or something? If this case goes good it might be a model for destroying the NY SAFE Act once and for all which effects more than just a small township in a liberal area of the Chicagoland suburbs.

  21. avatar teebonicus says:

    Not holding my breath.

  22. The 2nd Amendment is so we can protect ourself FROM the government. Therefore the government has no right to tell us we can not protect ourselves from their criminal and unconstitutional behavior. mrpresident2016.com

  23. avatar as a teenage girl from highland park... says:

    The second amendment doesn’t say you can own ANY guns. It doesn’t even say you can own guns, it just says “the right to bear arms.” What do you need assault weapons (or “semi-automatic weapons”) for anyways? I don’t know how many people in HP want assault weapons, but I do feel safer without them around.

    1. avatar Some Guy says:

      Apparently you are still a kid who was brain wash by the communist lefty media to just let your rights be taken without resistance. You have the right to freedom of speech but to protect the right for yourself and others is to be armed with the second amendment. USA is only 1 of a few country where civilian can be armed and in those countries they are free not oppressed. That is why so many people wants to come to America it’s not for the guns but for freedom and to maintain freedom from tyrants and dictators is for the majority to be arm. The rich already control our money now they are trying to control our freedom and you agree with the rich. Benjamin Franklin once said any society the would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserve neither and will lose both

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email