Adam Kraut

Executive Director @2AFDN. I’m a lawyer but I ain’t your lawyer.

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

Again, Virgin Islands, all you had to do was fix the existing problems in your law, and pass nothing else.

I didn't even tell you to *never* pass your new bill. Like I said in my testimony, I knew you weren't going to agree with me on the constitution or policy grounds, and that's fine.

I made the far more modest suggestion that you merely WAIT - until the Third Circuit ruled in the AWB case and the sensitive places case, along with SCOTUS in Wolford. If we were wrong and lost those cases, you could pass the bill afterwards.

Your (incompetent) AG mocked me, and you sided with him and passed the antigun bill.

So now, consequences.

[SAF @2AFDN]

The arms at issue in our two Supreme Court assault weapons ban cases are indisputably common. Just how common? As common as three of the most common make pickup trucks on the road today - combined.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@MorosKostas

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@avsterbone And I’m sure it’ll have training and excessive fees.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

Been saying this for a while. States will move to Colorado’s model.

[SAF @2AFDN]

One immediate response from New Jersey will probably be to simply make this permit shall-issue (but with high fees and wait times, training course, etc. of course!)

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@DFrancisco7 Missed that.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@MorosKostas breaks down the Third Circuits opinion striking down New Jersey’s AWB and mag ban.

[SAF @2AFDN]

For a while now, the antigun states and orgs have asserted that every circuit to deal with an "assault weapon" ban or magazine capacity limit has upheld such laws. We have pushed back on that, arguing that the only courts so far to hear those issues were in circuits traditionally hostile to the Second Amendment. Once a more fair court heard the issue, we would be vindicated.

Today, we were proven right. The Third Circuit has struck down key parts of New Jersey's AWB and magazine laws.

A HUGE victory that creates a circuit split on the AWB and mag ban issues, and functions as an excellent opening act ahead of SCOTUS hearing Viramontes and Grant in its upcoming term.

A thread on the ruling!

[SAF @2AFDN]

In a case we are following, the Third Circuit En Banc has struck down New Jersey’s assault weapon and magazine capacity bans. This positive result is an exciting opening act to the upcoming SAF Supreme Court cases, Grant and Viramontes.

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

By the way, Judge VanDyke's dissental here is reason #5743855 he should be Justice VanDyke.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

RT @2AFDN: 💥💥💥The government has moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in the Post Office case. This will make our win final and the nati…

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

Just got a ruling from the 7th Circuit in AWB cases. Unsurprisingly, 2-1 against us.

Had some hope that Judge St. Eve replacing Judge Wood could shift the result, but no dice. Which isn't shocking, given her prior 2A rulings so far despite being a Trump-appointed judge. Also, guess Easterbrook likes having SCOTUS reverse him.

Brennan dissents again, as he did in Bevis. Thread in a bit on the SAF page.

[Heritage Matters🔱 @HeritageMatterz]

Happy 250 years USA 🇺🇸

[Merriam-Webster @MerriamWebster]

Why is it ‘cancelled’ in the U.K. but ‘canceled’ in the U.S.?

Because we gave them that L in 1776.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

Imagine having policies that release violent offenders or refuse to prosecute people which then in turn increases violent crime but manages to do the mental gymnastics to determine permits issued to individuals who have to pass a background check with certain statutory criteria are the problem.

He’s such a clown.

[SAF @2AFDN]

We are still reveling in the excitement of a dual cert grant in SAF cases concerning state and local "assault weapon" bans, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

A refresher is in order on what the circuit court reasoning was in each specific case. Consider this a very high-level summary; for a more in-depth understanding, read the opinions in each case and our respective cert petitions.

Grant v. Higgins

Grant concerns Connecticut's ban on semiauto centerfire rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of a series of features (among others: folding stock, pistol grip, forward pistol grip, flash suppressor, fixed magazine with over ten rounds).

The Second Circuit assumed without deciding that AR-style rifles and the like are "arms."

It then said a looser historical analysis is permitted, because of the unprecedented societal concern of mass shootings.

From there, the panel reinterpreted "dangerous and unusual" to mean "unusually dangerous," and like bowie knives historically, AR-15s may be restricted. It emphasized that the ban still allows for “possession of many popular weapons, including semiautomatic weapons deemed to be less dangerous by the legislature for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

The question presented by our petition is: "Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15."

However, in its order granting cert today, the Court limited the question presented to the one in Viramontes, so we turn to that case next.

Viramontes v. Cook County

This one deals with the Cook county AWB (not to be confused with the statewide one SAF is also challenging in a case that has a separate ruling pending in the Seventh Circuit now).

The Cook County ban implicates over 100 rifles by name (as well as "copies" of them), including AR-15s and AK-47s. It also has a feature-based ban encompassing any semiautomatic rifle with the ability to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition if it has one or more of the following features:

1. Pistol grip if no stock is attached;
2. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the support hand;
3. Folding stocks and the like;
4. Barrel shroud;
5. Muzzle break or muzzle compensator.

In a very short order, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the case did not have enough of a record to justify overturning its prior case of Bevis v. City of Naperville. So in a sense, it is really the ruling in Bevis that is being reviewed by SCOTUS this fall.

At the plain text step, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Bevis that "arms" does not include weapons that "may be reserved for military use." That standard would, of course, mean muskets were unprotected at the founding, among other absurdities.

Just in case, the Bevis panel also did a historical analysis (even though it kind of already did one at the textual stage), finding that history also draws a line between military and civilian arms and permits the banning of military arms such that the Illinois law was constitutional. It completely rejected common use, saying it would lead to "anomalous consequences."

Question presented (which will be the question for both these consolidated cert petitions): "Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles."

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@2Aupdates They keep coming back to the stupid well with giants buckets to fill.

[SAF @2AFDN]

Our cases with Grant and Viramontes were granted cert today (meaning they will be making a decision in the future, which may take up to a year). SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb had this to say: “Lawmakers have long relied on fearmongering to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment, especially when it comes to common, semi-automatic rifles. We’re hopeful the Court will finally put to rest the idea that these rifles are not covered by the Second Amendment simply because of their look and features. These arms are no different than other semi-automatic firearms millions of Americans own for self-defense, and we look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms for countless citizens through these cases.”

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@HowardMSklar @guns_ny Look at Colorado. That's my bet on the model.

[Adam Kraut @theadamkraut]

@QuakerPepe @SummRidge More or less.

@2AFDN brought this lawsuit with some partners.

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

Bro we don't want you to "back down."

We want you to try really hard and get crushed.