The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Louisiana Shooting Association, Inc (LSA) along with our partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed an appellant’s brief with the U.S.  Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The case is known as Reese v. ATF.

Joining SAF and the LSA are the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk; George J. Armbruster, III at Armbruster & Associates; Joseph Greenlee, FPC Action Foundation; John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, DiGuiseppe Law Firm and Adam Kraut at SAF.

Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its director, Steven Dettelbach and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

At issue is the ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults, because this prohibition is at odds with the Second Amendment, SAF, LSA, and our partners contend.

“At the time the Second Amendment was adopted,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “there were no restrictions on the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms because of their age. Indeed, people in that age group, because as Americans they were in the civilian militia, were actually required to acquire firearms.

“Young adults over age 18,” he added, “can exercise other constitutional rights. They can vote, get married, enter into contracts, start businesses, run for office, join the military where they may fight and die for their country, but they can’t legally buy a handgun because of existing laws.”

“There is no historical regulation from any relevant time period that supports this handgun ban for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, a practicing attorney representing the group in this case. “Under last year’s Bruen ruling, the appeals court must review this case by determining whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by the handgun ban. We think the lower court erred in its initial ruling because there is no historical evidence of any such ban for people in the 18-to-20-year age group.”

Staunch pro-gun State Representative Blake Miguez (Republican, Erath) is running for the open seat left by on again, off again Second Amendment supporter, Fred Mills.  Mr. Miguez is a Life Member of the Louisiana Shooting Association, and has been a consistent supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He has been the author of numerous pro-gun Rights bills in the State House of Representatives.

On Saturday, November 12, 2022, Marksmen for Miguez will be hosting the 2nd Annual Marksman for Miguez Competition & Family Fun Day in Support of Blake Miguez. For more information, click here.

The Marksmen for Miguez and also hosting a firearm raffle to support his election bid. To buy raffle tickets, click here.

Attorney General Jeff Landry and 19 of his colleagues are alerting the chief executive officers of three major credit card companies that the recent creation of a Merchant Category Code for the processing of firearms purchases from gun stores is potentially a violation of consumer protection and antitrust laws.

In a letter sent today to the CEOs of American Express, MasterCard, and Visa – Landry and his fellow attorneys general say the monitoring and tracking of firearms purchases creates a “list of gun buyers” and creates the obvious risk that law-abiding consumers’ information will be obtained and misused by those who oppose Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“Once again, liberal elites in corporate boardrooms are attempting to dictate policy that should be made by our legislative branch,” said Attorney General Landry. “All Louisiana consumers, especially gun owners, should be alarmed by this abuse; but know that I will do all that I legally can to protect their fundamental rights.”

“Giant financial companies must not use their combined market power to circumvent our representative democracy,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “As Attorney General, I protect the people of Tennessee from corporate collusion that threatens to undermine their constitutional rights. Working together with my colleagues from other states, we will marshal the full scope of our lawful authority to stop this abuse.”

“It’s extremely disappointing to see credit card companies cave to pressure from international bodies and adopt this measure that will do nothing to improve public safety,” said Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. “Instead, it invites potential future invasions of consumer privacy and further coordination between corporations and government agencies to erode Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

The new code for gun stores the credit card companies intend to adopt is the result of transnational collusion between large corporations leveraging their market power to further progress toward their desired social outcomes. Activists pressured the International Organization for Standardization to adopt this policy as a means of circumventing and undermining the American legislative process.

“Press releases from public officials make clear that the new merchant code was created and adopted in concert with various state actors, which may additionally create the potential for both civil and criminal liability for conspiracy to deprive Americans of their civil rights,” wrote Attorney General Landry and the coalition. “Social policy should be debated and determined within our political institutions. Americans are tired of seeing corporate leverage used to advance political goals that cannot muster basic democratic support. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right, but it’s also a fundamental American value. Our financial institutions should stop lending their market power to those who wish to attack that value.”

Joining Landry, Skrmetti, and Knudsen were the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

A copy of the letter may be found here.

Over the past several years, the LSA has worked hard to move into the modern world of communicating with our Members, other Patriots who support Civil Rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and the world. To this end, we purchased powerful and secure Enterprise Software and use Marketing tools to send emails to our Members on a regular basis. Likewise, we have social media presence on our Website, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. All of this takes money.

We take pride in keeping our membership dues affordable. In fact, our dues are the lowest in the Nation for States Associations. This makes it very tough to balance our budget each year. This year, the NRA awarded the LSA a grant to defray the costs associated with Marketing and Membership Expansion. This was not a grant from the NRA Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charitable tax-exempt organization) funded by your participation in Friends of NRA Events, but instead a grant from the mother ship NRA, funded by your NRA membership dues.

The LSA thanks the NRA for it generous support of the LSA!

During the 2021 Louisiana legislative session, a great number of people worked very hard to get Constitutional Carry passed in the State House and Senate. Your LSA was right there in lock step with all the other Civil Rights patriots working tirelessly at the Capitol. However, when it hit the Governor’s desk, he vetoed the bill using the excuse that with Constitutional Carry, citizens would be armed without adequate training. He also said that the residents of Louisiana didn’t want Constitutional Carry. By the Citizens, he probably meant New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport Chiefs of Police, all of whom apparently hate the thought of law-abiding citizens having the ability to protect themselves from criminals that rule their respective streets.

Following the veto, the legislature called an unprecedented veto override session to consider this and other bills that the liberal Governor had vetoed. John Bel Edwards used the standard Louisiana political tactics of strong arming and closed door promises to make certain that his veto would not be overridden, and a few Republican Senators stabbed us in the back. As a reminder, they were Sen. Franklin J. Foil, Sen. Louie Bernard, and Sen. Patrick Connick. Remember them at election time.

We all know that we should not need the government’s permission to do something that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We also know that one does not need a government course to know how to handle violent bad guys, and now we have proof. On July 17, 2022, in Greenwood, Indiana, a 22-year-old man named Elisjsha Dicken stopped a mass shooting at an Indiana mall. When a deranged killer opened fire in the mall’s food hall, Mr. Dicken swiftly drew his own pistol, that he was legally carrying without a permit and without a government course, and engaged the murderer. Police recovered 24 rifle rounds from the mentally ill person who wanted to kill as many people as possible, plus 10 from Mr. Dicken’s handgun. Early reports noted that he put 8 rounds into the murderer at 50 yards without any formal training. He was quoted as saying, “My grandfather taught me how to shoot.”

According to quotes taken from the Wall Street Journal attributed to Police Chief James Ison, “He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him. To our knowledge, he has no police training and no military background.”

Unlike Louisiana’s Governor who is way out of touch with the desires of the Louisiana public, Indiana’s Governor Eric Holcomb signed a bill to allow Constitutional Carry in the Hoosier State. That legislation took effect on July 1, and only 17 days into the new law, a law-abiding citizen stopped a crazed madman from doing his worst. “We could not find that he had a permit,” Chief Ison said. “He was carrying legally under the constitutional carry law.” Chief Ison continued, “Many more people would have died if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly.”

Governor Edwards, your argument is nonsense. We knew it then, and everyone knows it now. Shame on you!

The US Supreme Court struck down New York’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a carry permit, affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.  You may read the Courts opinion here.

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. Prior to this ruling, an individual who wanted to carry a firearm outside his home had to obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver,” but only if he could prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.  An applicant satisfied the “proper cause” requirement only if he could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

Two adult, law-abiding NY residents were denied unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense allegedly because they failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Based on the denial, they sued the state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications, alleging that the State violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed their complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court found that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said,

“We are gratified that the high court has said there can be no bureaucratic prerequisite to exercising one’s constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. For too many generations, New York’s requirement has been the vehicle by which the constitutional rights of average law-abiding citizens have been deprived under color of law.

Government bureaucrats have routinely been arbitrary and all-too-eager to prevent honest people from having the means to defend themselves against violent crime outside of their homes. This pattern of exclusivity—allowing only those with wealth and political connections to legally carry guns in public—has been an affront to the constitution for decades, and now officials in a handful of other states with similar arbitrary requirements are on notice they can no longer perpetuate what amounts to an outrage against the constitution. We’ll see how this ruling affects eight other states with similar laws including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.”

The Court affirmed that the right to bear arms does not stop at a person’s front door. This is the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

This article originally appeared on the Second Amendment Foundation website here.

Amid the renewed clamor by anti-gunners for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low.

Support for a ban has fallen to 50 percent, while 45 percent oppose it, and according to the survey, “This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll.” Four years ago, 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed the idea.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this is clear evidence the public is waking up to the reality that gun bans are not the answer to violent crime.

“Semiautomatic rifles have been around for more than a century,” Gottlieb noted, “and the popular AR-type rifles have been owned by private citizens for at least 60 years. Their use in crime is statistically minimal, so to blame their availability and demonize their technology is a false flag that borders on fraud.

“Increasing numbers of people realize there is far more to this dilemma than firearms,” he added. “For example, the same Quinnipiac poll shows a 40 percent plurality of voters think the real problem is rooted in mental health issues, more than twice the 19 percent who think the availability of firearms is at the core of the current crime spike.

“And don’t overlook political bias,” Gottlieb added. “Quinnipiac found that Democrats by a 91-8 margin want stricter gun laws, while Republicans by a 64-32 percent margin oppose stricter laws. Party affiliation clearly is a factor in whether one is guided by a knee-jerk dislike for firearms, or by common sense and rational analysis.

“The annual FBI Uniform Crime Report has consistently shown that rifles of any kind are involved in a fraction of all homicides in any given year,” he said. “Only 2 to 4 percent of all murders are committed with rifles, so this push to demonize and ban an entire class of rifles is not simply wrong, it borders on being delusional, and it is certainly dishonest.”