It’s been heartening in recent months to see the leading gun-rights organizations working together on several occasions in an attempt to save the Second Amendment, rather than jockeying for position and competing with one another. In fact, I believe such cooperation could be a key to the future of our right to keep and bear arms.
In the latest example of that cooperation, three top gun-rights groups have collaborated to file a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in a critical lawsuit that seeks to end the lifetime ban on gun ownership and possession for those convicted of nonviolent crimes in the past.
The case revolves around Selim Zherka, who in 2015 pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to make a false statement to a bank and for filing a false federal income tax return. Since that non-violent conviction for financial misconduct, Zherka has been unable to possess firearms to protect himself or his family.
On October 9, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA), FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in the case Zherka v. Bondi, filed the SCOTUS brief urging the Court to strike down the federal ban that permanently disarms peaceable Americans for nonviolent offenses.
In the brief, the groups argued that there “is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens.” That precedent, of course, most be provable under the second standard set forth by the Supreme Court in the 2022 Bruen decision.
“Historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—who did not demonstrate a propensity for violence retained the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” the brief stated. “… some laws expressly allowed or even required them to keep and bear arms. Certiorari should be granted to establish that the Second Amendment forbids the disarmament of peaceable Americans.”
The brief further explained how the laws the government intends to use for establishing a historical precedent were rooted in racism or other prejudice.
“Every ban on firearms possession in the colonial era was discriminatory—bans applied to Blacks, American Indians, Catholics, Puritans, and Antinomians,” the brief argued. “But both Bruen and United States v. Rahimi make clear that discriminatory laws cannot establish a historical tradition.”
Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a news release announcing the filing that the law is blatantly unconstitutional and must be dealt with accordingly.
“The government has no authority to forever strip people of their constitutional rights for a nonviolent offense,” Combs said. “That dangerous notion turns guaranteed freedoms into government-granted privileges. The Supreme Court must take this case and affirm once and for all that peaceable Americans have an inviolable right to keep and bear arms.”
Kostas Moros, SAF director of legal research and education, said his organization was involved in the brief filing because it’s time for the court to end the lifetime prohibition of firearms possession for those convicted of non-violent crimes.
“As we note in our brief, America’s tradition of firearm regulation provides support for prohibiting only dangerous people from owning firearms, Moros said in an SAF news release. “Mr. Zherka’s convictions do not align with the nation’s history and tradition of disenfranchising individuals convicted of non-violent felonies.”
You might be safe enough to be set free but you might not be safe enough to have your Constitutional Rights restored?
There are a lot of “violent” felons that actually just had a bad lawyer. I think rights should be restored to all free men excepting those whom have shown a propensity
to recidivism.
People make mistakes, some in haste, which upon reflection would never do it again.
And if I’m not mistaken there are a lot of States that restore your rights after 5-10 years anyway.
So yay on for Felons and those championing them. Now how about the poor saps who in the heated moment, slapped, shoved, or restrained a spouse girlfriend/boyfriend .
loudly chirps the cricket
Oh sorry that Misdemeanor carries a sentence of no guns, never, ever, no way, no how, forget it, can not do, will not do ,expunge this dumbass.
“We Win.”
Gun Grabber Bill and buddy buddy Joe Biden- et owl wants it that way and even if, if, if didnt happen did it Trump drained the swamp he left the mud behind.
Ahhhhhh, the famous words I heard when I voted for the scoundrel, boldly and with great vigor he said, ” Your Second Amendment Rights are safe with me!”
Dangling carrots that I saw Receiving carrot tops eaten raw
( carrot tops eaten raw?)
Yes bulls eat carrot tops then shit out a big pile of bullshit. I keep falling into it.
“You might be safe enough to be set free but you might not be safe enough to have your Constitutional Rights“
Yes, that is exactly what Donald Trump is doing. Naturalized citizens and those here on a visa are not allowed the free speech rights granted all persons under the United States Constitution.
Trump said he wanted to “terminate the constitution” and that’s exactly what he’s doing:
“Trump administration
US revokes six foreigners’ visas over social media comments criticizing Charlie Kirk
State department says it has ‘no obligation’ to host foreign nationals who ‘celebrate heinous’ death of far-right activist
Robert Mackey
Tue 14 Oct 2025 20.16 EDT
Donald Trump’s US state department said on Tuesday it had revoked the visas of six foreigners over social media comments made about the assassination of far-right commentator Charlie Kirk.“
There should be a hearing where any defendant convicted of a crime that removes their rights is allowed to defend their constitutional rights. I believe that if someone is going to be deprived of a right that they should have notice and a chance to defend themselves. In many cases, such as a life sentence without parole, it will go rather quickly – after all, we can all agree we don’t want them to vote or anything else. On the other hand, a person who makes a mistake that has nothing to do with violence or physical injury of any kind should have a chance to redeem themselves once their term of incarceration or government control is complete.
The simple fact is this: If a person has violated public trusted and cannot vote, own a firearm, or any of a number of other restrictions – they should not be out in public, they should remain in custody.
There is of course the cost of incarnation for such a population let alone various political considerations. Then again the costs of open air prisons we tend to call cities is pretty nasty. Either way realistically we need a culture shift a bit more towards the past re personal responsibility, shame, and some value in community. That last one will be tough when jobs that pay enough to have spare resources to devote to a community barely exist for the 4 year degree level let alone having a high school diploma.
“I believe that if someone is going to be deprived of a right that they should have notice and a chance to defend themselves“
Sadly, Donald Trump does not agree with you, his administration routinely violates due process and denies persons their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe the presumption should be that you get your rights back, and the prosecution should have to prove why that isn’t a good idea. And the judge could decide for how long — maybe sometimes it’s a month, and other times a lifetime ban. Let the punishment fit the crime.
This may look like a comment by Toy4rick, but it is not from Toy4rick. I have no idea who this Toy fellow/woman/it is but it isn’t anyone known by whom ever I am.
They also need to address the issue of people who get their gun rights permanently removed for breaking an unconstitutional gun law, e.g. the bans on “high-capacity” magazines, “assault weapons,” and thousands of other unconstitutional gun laws in blue states such as NY, NJ, and Commiefornia. Just a few examples:
– Does your magazine hold 11 rounds instead of 10? That’s a felony in New Jersey, NY, CA, and other states cause the Feds to take away your gun rights for life.
– In New Jersey, the “assault weapons” ban and all other firearm laws applies to BB guns, pellet guns, and other air guns, so if you have a BB gun that looks scary (has the evil pistol grip and adjustable stock) or holds more than 10 BBs, New Jersey will charge you with felony possession of an “assault weapon,” and the Feds will revoke your gun rights for life.
– New Jersey makes it a felony to have an air gun (BB gun or pellet gun) with an integral “silencer, even though most adult air rifles these days have integral “silencers” on the barrel.
– In NJ, it’s a felony to have hollow-point ammunition anyplace in New Jersey other than your home, your gun club, and traveling directly to and from the gun club with no stops in between.
Break any one of these ridiculous and unconstitutional state gun laws, and it’s a felony that will cause the Feds to revoke your gun rights for life.
The Supreme Court needs to do something about this!