A coalition of Second Amendment organizations have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to review a case known as Robinson v. U.S., which challenges restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs).
The 33-page brief was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. They are represented by attorney Konstadinos T. Moros.
In their brief, the groups contend, “A short-barreled rifle…is indisputably an ‘arm’ under the plain text of the Second Amendment, and so any restrictions on it must comport with history.”
The brief further states, “This petition provides a low-pressure way for this Court to begin to clarify that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to all commonly owned bearable arms, something several members of this Court have already indicated they are interested in doing.”
But it is in the next paragraph where the gun rights groups essentially take off the gloves and accuse lower courts of trying to undercut the Supreme Court decision in the 2022 Bruen case.
“There has been enough ‘percolation,” the brief asserts, “and the results are clear: lower courts in several circuits will keep reaching unserious rulings in order to do everything they can to undermine the Second Amendment and this Court’s ruling in Bruen. ‘[F]urther percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR-15s appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents.’ This Court need not take Amici’s word for it; several judges in the lower courts have criticized their colleagues for giving ‘a judicial middle finger’ to this Court when it comes to the Second Amendment.”
“This amicus brief is but one part of a broader effort by SAF to fight a multi-pronged battle against the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on SBRs and silencers,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In addition to this amicus brief, we have a landmark new lawsuit in Brown v. ATF challenging the entire constitutionality of portions of the NFA, all with the same goal in mind: Restoring the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”
“In its ruling,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros, “the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that U.S. v. Miller (1939), and its ruling allowing restrictions on short-barrel shotguns because they had no documented militia use, remains controlling and applicable to SBRs as well. That’s wrong because even if it were correct that Miller remains the relevant standard, SBRs are demonstrably in regular use today in military roles, as the M4 rifle is the standard issue rifle of our military. Our amicus brief also makes several other arguments as to why the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis was flawed, and why the Supreme Court should grant cert in this case. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will step in and correct courts reaching the wrong conclusion on this fundamental question, both as it pertains to SBRs and to other common arms.”
The amicus brief goes on to explain how determining whether a particular firearm is protected as an “arm” under the Second Amendment should be a simple matter.
“Yet,” the brief declares, “so many circuits are struggling with this question, as they are with questions pertaining to ‘common use,’ questions about whether arms used by the military are excluded (and not just the ‘dangerous and unusual’ ones), and more…What’s important to understand about all of this supposed confusion is that it is primarily contained in only particular circuit courts. It is no coincidence that the courts reaching these obviously erroneous conclusions about the Second Amendment are the very same ones that have long demonstrated hostility to the right it protects.”
