74,287 189 Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
feed
Legal Action Project Defending Gun Laws
The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations
Click on arrow to learn more!
 


In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. 

 

The Court ruled that the individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

 

The Court rejected the gun lobby's "any gun, for anybody, anywhere" agenda.  It again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

 

The Brady Center, joined by several national law enforcement groups, had filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to allow for “reasonable” gun laws.

» Click here to read our statement on the decision
» Click here to watch Brady President Paul Helmke on the Newshour debating the NRA's Wayne LaPierre

» Click here to learn more

 

 

 

    
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in McDonald v. City of Chicago its language that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

 
Judge Agrees With Brady Center, Dismisses Suit Supporting Montana “Firearms Freedom Act”
 


On August 31, 2010, a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued an opinion recommending the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and other gun groups in support of Montana’s “Firearms Freedom Act.”  The judge agreed with a brief filed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, joined by a coalition of Montana and national gun violence prevention, law enforcement, and domestic violence groups, on May 18, 2010, that contended that the Montana law is unconstitutional. The Montana “Firearms Freedom Act” seeks to exempt Montana-made firearms from federal laws requiring background checks to keep guns away from criminals and record keeping that allows law enforcement to trace crime guns. 


The gun group plaintiffs had asked the court to declare that they could make and sell firearms in Montana without complying with federal firearms laws.  The judge found that the plaintiffs lack standing, but that even if they had standing, the Act violates the Supremacy Clause, as a state cannot exempt itself from federal gun laws.  The judge declined plaintiffs' request to overturn U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing federal regulation of  in-state commerce that affects nationwide commerce.  The judge also found that the Second Amendment provides no right to make guns that are exempt from federal requirements.  A federal district court judge will now decide whether to accept the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss the case. 
 

» Click here to read the Brady Center's brief
» Click here to read the opinion of the Magistrate Judge

    
The Brady Center's brief was joined by International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Black Police Association, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence, and Montana Human Rights Network,
Important Victory in Seventh Circuit Domestic Violence Case

 

On July 13, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the conviction of a repeat domestic violence offender, Steven Skoien, for illegally possessing a firearm even though he had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.  The Court's 10-1 decision agreed with an amicus brief filed by the Brady Center, and rejected Skoien's argument that the "Lautenberg Amendment" barring domestic violence offenders from possessing guns is violative of the Second Amendment.
 
The Court reversed a panel decision that had vacated Skoien's conviction.  That decision was one of the only post-Heller Second Amendment decisions to side with gun criminals or the gun lobby. 
 
The Brady Center's amicus brief was joined by the National Black Police Association, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, and the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

 

» Click here to read the Court's decision 

» Click here to read the Brady Center's brief

  

Brady Center Victories in Second Amendment Cases in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

 

On March 10, 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed with amicus briefs filed by the Brady Center when it ruled in two Second Amendment cases, Commonwealth v. Runyan & Commonwealth v. DePina. 

In Runyan, a lower court had dismissed a case against Richard Runyan who was charged with violating a state safe storage law, holding that the storage law was unconstitutional under Heller.  The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, unanimously agreeing with the Brady Center that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

In DePina, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected an appeal by a man convicted of illegally carrying a loaded firearm.  Nathaniel DePina had claimed that the Second Amendment prohibited the state from prosecuting him for illegal gun carrying.  


» Click here to read the opinion in DePina
» Click here to read the opinion in Runyan

  
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld life-saving gun laws in two recent opinions. 

 

LAP Victory in Second Amendment Case
 


On January 11, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed with an amicus brief filed by the Brady Center, rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to a criminal conviction under the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits misdemeanor domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms. Ludivic White, Jr., had appealed his conviction for unlawful firearm possession, arguing that the law was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller.

 

On April 1, 2009, the Brady Center joined with other groups to file an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from criminalizing the possession of firearms by convicted domestic violence offenders. The brief explained that Heller made clear that the Second Amendment does not entitle convicted criminals to possess guns.

» Click here to read the Brady Center's brief
» Click here to read the opinion

  

 



The 11th Circuit ruling upheld the Lautenberg Amendment's prohibition on firearm possession by misdemeanor domestic violence offenders.