Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- On November 2 2015, Gun Owners of America (and its foundation) joined forces with Dick Heller — the very one who beat DC’s gun ban before the Supreme Court in 2008.
Working in tandem, Gun Owners filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of a challenge to the federal machine gun ban, which was stuck on at the last minute to an otherwise pro-gun bill in 1986.
First and foremost, Gun Owners argues that the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment include fully automatic weapons, and that Supreme Court opinions have bolstered this view.
Our brief explains that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about the preservation of liberty.
You can read an analysis of the GOA brief in Hollis v. Lynch — or view the GOA brief in its entirety here.
Go here to financially help support the GOA brief in this case.
Since its founding, Gun Owners of America has built its reputation as the “no compromise” gun lobby.
We want to repeal any restriction that violates the “shall not be infringed” language of the Second Amendment — going all the way back to 1934.
So GOA is not only working on the above machine gun case. We also want to file another brief supporting this same proposition — that a machine gun ban is inconsistent with the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights.
But we need your help to file it.
We have always taken the position that the “arms” mentioned in the Second Amendment are the type of weapons that an infantryman in current military service would be issued. These are, in the words of an old Supreme Court case, “part of ordinary military equipment.”
One Court of Appeals judge has explained that the Second Amendment protects the “lineal descendants” of the arms brought to muster on the village green in revolutionary times.
Second Amendment helps erect a bulwark against tyranny
If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a “free State,” then the people comprising the militia need to have the same type of “arms” that are available to the military.
We think you will like the arguments we made in our first brief to explain this important principle to the court.
Among other things, we quote Justice Joseph Story’s explanation regarding the true purpose of the Second Amendment:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume III, p. 646.]
If the arms owned by the people are profoundly inferior to those of their “rulers,” the ability of the people “to resist” will be diminished, and the “strong moral check” on those rulers will be lost. Of course, that is what Diane Feinstein and her ilk want.
GOA is unique among pro-gun groups
Sadly, other pro-gun groups have run the other way when fully automatic weapons are mentioned.
In fact, a lawyer for one of these other “pro-gun” groups took the position before the U.S. Supreme Court that it was completely reasonable for the federal government to prohibit private ownership of fully automatic weapons.
But when David Olofson’s AR-15 malfunctioned and he was charged with owning a machinegun, it was GOA that came to his aid — not any other gun group.
No one thinks that the First Amendment should be limited to pamphlets produced one at a time, as in revolutionary days. No one disputes that the First Amendment also protects radio and TV stations and the Internet.
Likewise, no one should think that the Second Amendment should be limited to Brown Bess muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets and Pennsylvania rifles. At all times, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the infantry “arms” of the times.
Help GOA win these machine gun cases
If you agree with me about fully automatic weapons, we could certainly use your help.
By making a special contribution to Gun Owners of America, you will help fund the Hollis brief we just filed, and to make possible the next brief that we would like to file, if we raise enough support.
The second case is U.S. v. Watson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in Pennsylvania). GOA plans to make similar arguments to those we made in Hollis — and by bringing several cases in multiple districts, we hope to force the Supreme Court to decide this issue in favor of Second Amendment rights.
Thank you for your defense of liberty!
Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
Gun Owners of America
About:Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.
I’m the attorney that filed Hollis v holder (now Hollis v Lynch). Our third circuit brief will be filed on 12/2/2015 in Watson v Lynch. I am happy GOA stood beside us in the 5Th Circuit and their brief was fantastic. True patriots.
Careful reading of US v. Miller 1939 helds that ONLY weapons suitable for the militia and use in war are protected by the 2nd Amendment. This was the position taken by the Department of Justice. It involved an untaxed short barreled shotgun. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller & https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm
SBS’s were considered to be only used by civilians and therefore not protected. I guess the Court and the lawyers did not know about WW1 trench guns and J.E.B Stuarts Cavalry in the Civil War using SBS’s carried under their cloaks to keep their powder dry.
Why was my comment taken down? Paul above suggests a “tampon change” for those who disagree and apparently that is ok and yet my post (which did not name call of use foul language) but attempted to make a valid point (that a challenge automatic weapon ownership ban is in my view stupid) is not allowed. Is it that opposing viewpoints are simply not appropriate here? Can one not be a responsible gun owner and disagree that we do not need to possess full auto weapons is a bad idea?
How dare the Government keep us under heal of their jack-boots! Our right to possess fully automatic weapons is enshrined in the Constitution. Hamilton and Adams would both certainly been in favor had such weapons existed in the 18th century. Think of how much easier we could have thrown off the yoke of the British oppressors had our Minutemen been able to draw upon fully automatic weapons! Once this battle is fought and WON we need to fight for the right to possess grenade launchers and surface to air missiles too.
I hope they are successful in restoring taken rights.
Make no mistake no one is anti gun it’s where they want them concentrated. Tyrants want them concentrated in the forces they control.
The critics of this lawsuit are the same old fuddy duddys who who think that because they are content with a flintlock that we all should be satisfied with flintlocks. This mentality is dangerous to all who believe that the words of the 2nd Amendment should stand as the law, and not some twisted progressive judges interpetation of it. If full autos were were not NFA weapons and war surplus emma gees could be imported these machines would become affordable again and enable the less affluent to enjoy the once restricted boys club. Sadly, the NRA membership is mostly fuddy… Read more »