As judges sending defendants to jail for violating unconstitutional laws …

by Larry Pratt

Only in America!  Imagine you are charged with violating an obscure federal criminal statute that you believe unconstitutional — beyond the power of the Congress to enact under the Tenth Amendment.  Most Americans would think you could challenge the constitutionality of that law — right?  Not so fast.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that you have no right to challenge the constitutionality of the law under which you were charged on the ground that Congress exceeded its authority.  Sound Kafkaesque?

To protect the rights of gun owners who could be charged with crimes, GOA & GOF filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Carol Ann Bond v. United States -- and helped achieve a victory in September which has huge implications for gun rights.  Here’s what the case is about.

Mrs. Carol Ann Bond learned that her next door neighbor was pregnant.  Then she learned that her own husband was the father of the neighbor’s child.  In an attempt to injure the woman, Bond stole chemicals from the laboratory where she worked, and laced the woman’s car door and mailbox handle.  The neighbor was able to detect and mostly avoid the chemicals, but reported the matter to the police, who did nothing.  The neighbor then told her postal carrier.  Postal inspectors videotaped Bond placing the chemicals.  However, rather than turning the case over to local authorities to pursue an assault charge, the Postal Service arrested Bond, and quite literally “made a federal case out of it.”

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation don’t usually spend time writing briefs to help housewives get away with trying to kill their husband’s mistress, but the principle involved is bigger than this case.

Read more...

Gun Owners Foundation Legal Activities And Projects

United States v. Antoine Jones

GOF has filed an amicus brief in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones in the United States Supreme Court in support of respondent, Antoine Jones. Our amicus brief argues that the government's extreme position that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to GPS surveillance on public roadways is insupportable.

The government’s extreme view that the Fourth Amendment is completely irrelevant is made possible only by the Supreme Court’s mistaken jurisprudence that the Fourth Amendment only applies to situations wherein persons have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The "expectation of privacy" test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government.

The Fourth Amendment has been whittled away and courts have allowed random gun sweeps, among other warrantless searches. If the court agrees with the GOF brief, the Fourth Amendment will be restored to its original meaning.

April 13, 2011 - Connecticut versus Walter Reddy and the Second Amendment

April 4, 2011 - GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation's friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down anti-gun Obamacare.

Gun Owners Foundation offers arguements on the Heller II case

Gun Owners Foundation argues that the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the popular election of senators necessarily permits recall of those same officials.

Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League filed a brief on April 13, 2010 in support of the MT Firearms Freedom Act.  The brief argues that there is no authority for federal gun controls, and that also, even federal law recognizes that MT can have a Firearms Freedom Act.

In U.S. v. Skoien Gun Owners Foundation argues that removing the right to keep and  bear arms from felons is not constitutional.

Gun Owners Foundation filed a friend of the court brief on April 2, 2010 in support of an appeal by Steven Skoien arguing that his firearm disability for a domestic violence conviction (a Lautenberg conviction) unconstitutionally violates Mr. Skoien's constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  That may not be impaired unless he voluntarily relinquishes his citizenship.

GOF & NRA positions on the Second Amendment as revealed in the Skoien amicus briefs.
.

GOF/GOA File Amicus Brief in Support in Nordyke v. King in Support of Gun Shows

On August 18, 2010, GOF filed an amicus curiae brief filed supporting petitioner’s challenge to Alameda County, California’s ban on firearms possession on county property, effectively ending gun shows in the county.

The ordinance was introduced by a county Supervisor who, in her own words, wanted to “ban gun shows.”  The county claims it was responding to gun violence, but the reality is that the county was simply trying to keep peaceful gun owners from gathering to buy and sell firearms.

GOF’s brief argues that the Second Amendment implicitly protects a private property right to acquire, possess, use and dispose of firearms.  Thus, the Second Amendment protects unimpaired commerce in firearms of the kind that takes place at gun shows.  California law already heavily regulates firearms, and gun shows are one of the only constitutionally-protected sources of arms.

GOF’s brief then explains the difference between “sensitive places” like courthouses and schools, compared to places like the county fairgrounds.  Whereas a courthouse is not open to the public for public use, Alameda County has designated the fairgrounds to be open to the public, including for use in lawful commercial enterprise.  Since the County has given everyone a right to use the fairgrounds, the County Commissioners cannot now decide that they do not like gun owners, and prohibit them from using the fairgrounds for gun shows.

Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America were joined by Gun Owners of California, Inc. in filing the amicus brief in the case Nordyke v. King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 07-15763.

---

Chicago gun ban
McDonald v Chicago

On Monday, November 23, 2009, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of four Chicago residents who are seeking to invalidate a city ordinance prohibiting them from owning or possessing a handgun in their own home.  The GOA/GOF brief argues that the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment is the correct basis for ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of all Americans, not just those living in Washington, DC.  This brief also points out the pitfalls of using the due process clause to reach this conclusion.

David Olofson Case

---

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE FREE
SPEECH DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND,
INC., FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., ET AL. (pdf)