The Trump Administration has filed its first pro-Second Amendment amicus brief.

Before replying, keep in mind that per rule 1 of the THR Code of Conduct:

1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues. Please do not engage in discussions relating to non-Second Amendment (2A) politics, foreign invasion, or societal breakdown (sometimes known as SHTF and TEOTWAWKI).
 
JohnKSa said:
Before replying, keep in mind that per rule 1 of the THR Code of Conduct:

1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues. Please do not engage in discussions relating to non-Second Amendment (2A) politics, foreign invasion, or societal breakdown (sometimes known as SHTF and TEOTWAWKI).
Click to expand...
Have been shown the light, and agree. Perhaps any reference to an individual in politics should be avoided as well.
 
As long as the reference to an individual is in the context of firearms or the right to keep and bear firearms, second amendment, gun control, etc., it's fine. It's just important to keep in mind that someone mentioning an individual in the specific context of firearms/RKBA doesn't change the rules of THR and open up the discussion to anything at all relating to that individual's political actions/position.
 
So what's the follow-through going to look like? Filing a friend of the court brief is low effort. This is a case in the ninth circuit and the scotus has ignored plenty of others so far. The current administration isn't a monolith of power. They can "want" all sorts of things. It's better than the alternative of doing nothing, but I'll wait to get excited until there's some actual results.
 
Basura Blanca said:
So what's the follow-through going to look like? Filing a friend of the court brief is low effort. This is a case in the ninth circuit and the scotus has ignored plenty of others so far. The current administration isn't a monolith of power. They can "want" all sorts of things. It's better than the alternative of doing nothing, but I'll wait to get excited until there's some actual results.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm trying to think when in my entire lifetime has a presidential administration filed an amicus brief on our side in a gun rights case.

The answer to that is NEVER.
 
Miami_JBT said:
Well, I'm trying to think when in my entire lifetime has a presidential administration filed an amicus brief on our side in a gun rights case.

The answer to that is NEVER.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with both of you. It's a first measured step, granted.

But, it's also overdo that a big heavy foot stamps out ridiculous and patently unconstitutional mischief regarding our 2A rights. Where some States are bent on work-arounds, the SCOTUS should be furious about it, and the DOJ's response should reflect the clear sidesteps as open defiance.
 
It's still just another lawsuit so it's hard to get excited when ultimately it will come down to the whims of the robed nine. The executive branch is of course free to suggest that the judicial "do better" and I'm for that, but it's still not within their scope to really do anything about it. The current administration/president could also signal to congress that he wants them to send a bill his way to, say, repeal the NFA or something too. But it still doesn't mean anything until the relevant branch of government acts.

As for this being a first for any administration (writing an amicus curiae brief in a 2A case), prior to Heller there weren't a lot of opportunities for obvious reasons.
eta: I wouldn't complain if it became a trend.
 
Last edited:
Basura Blanca said:
This is a case in the ninth circuit and the scotus has ignored plenty of others so far.
Click to expand...
And that's what the DOJ amicus brief is focused on, states violating Bruen/Rahimi ruling/2A and 9th Circuit conflicting with 2nd Circuit in Antonyuk to compel the Supreme Court to act to correct the open defiance of lower inferior courts and states now. Kostas Moros, attorney with CRPA/Michel & Associates does a deep dive into the amicus brief outlined here - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473619#msg1473619
​
"BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS​
​
Department of Justice ...​
​
QUESTION PRESENTED​
​
Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization ...​
​
B. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Warrants Review​
​
1. This Court should grant review because, as eight judges correctly recognized, Hawaii’s law “largely vitiates” Bruen ... and “effectively nullifies” the right to bear arms ... Bruen explained that the Second Amendment secures a “general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,” but that our regulatory tradition includes restrictions identifying “exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms.” ...​
​
2. The Ninth Circuit’s decision independently warrants review because it conflicts with the Second Circuit’s in Antonyuk ...​
​
3. Finally, granting review in this case would allow this Court to provide much-needed guidance to lower courts ...​
​
4. This case is an appropriate vehicle for deciding the question presented and for clarifying “the principles underlying the Second Amendment.” Rahimi ...​
​
CONCLUSION​
​
This Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, limited to the first question presented ..."​


From Hawaii Firearms Coalition - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473583#msg1473583

"The U.S. Government Just Asked the Supreme Court to Strike Down Hawaii’s Gun-Carry Law - https://x.com/hificoorg/status/1918050811772584440​
​
Here’s what you need to know:​
In a high-profile Second Amendment case (Wolford v. Lopez), the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to review—and reverse—the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld Hawaii’s controversial concealed carry restriction.​
​
What’s the law?​
Hawaii makes it a crime (punishable by up to 1 year in jail) for a licensed gun owner to carry a firearm on any private property open to the public (like gas stations, stores, or restaurants) unless the property owner gives express permission, such as posting a sign.​
​
Why is the DOJ opposing it?​
According to the DOJ’s brief:​
•The law inverts centuries of legal tradition, where people could carry arms unless told otherwise.​
•It functionally bans public carry—turning everyday errands into legal minefields for gun owners.​
•It targets gun rights, not protects property rights—especially since it exempts police, government employees, and others.​
•It conflicts with NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled states cannot impose burdens on the public’s right to carry without clear historical justification.​
​
What’s at stake?​
This case could shape the future of the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, 5 states (including CA, NY, and NJ) have passed similar laws—impacting over 75 million Americans. There’s also now a conflict between federal appeals courts, making Supreme Court review more likely.​
​
Bottom line:​
The DOJ—under the TRUMP administration—is siding with gun rights advocates here, warning that Hawaii’s law "effectively nullifies" the right to carry firearms for self-defense."​

States defying Bruen chronicled in this thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473601#msg1473601

luv2safari said:
Basura Blanca said:
The executive branch is of course free to suggest that the judicial "do better" and I'm for that, but it's still not within their scope to really do anything about it. The current administration/president could also signal to congress that he wants them to send a bill his way to, say, repeal the NFA or something too. But it still doesn't mean anything until the relevant branch of government acts.
Click to expand...
Where some States are bent on work-arounds, the SCOTUS should be furious about it, and the DOJ's response should reflect the clear sidesteps as open defiance.
Click to expand...
Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon heads DOJ Civil Rights Division and believes 2A issues are "civil rights issues" and was one of authors of the DOJ amicus brief. She is part of the 2A Task Force and is actively investigating states violating 2A/Bruen. In essence, gun owners are the new "minority group" in need of civil rights protection.

Harmeet K. Dhillon - https://x.com/HarmeetKDhillon/status/1918270408937046076

Second Amendment issues are civil rights issues.
Click to expand...
AAGHarmeetDhillon - https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/1912868227828396112

Where cities and states are defying SCOTUS guidance on our fundamental Second Amendment rights, we are on it. 🤨
Click to expand...
AAGHarmeetDhillon - https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/1912628914586788224

Attended my second meeting of the Second Amendment Task Force at @TheJusticeDept. It's a working group of highly motivated attorneys from different federal law enforcement agencies including several within DOJ.

Gun rights are civil rights. Stay tuned!
Click to expand...

As to executive and legislative branches taking pro-2A actions, there is a long list of them with new bills and reintroduced bills working their way through Congress (Voters spoke in 2024 and our representative are definitely taking action) 👍👍👍 - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473676#msg1473676

- 2A/ATF - Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472877#msg1472877​
- DOJ - Creation of 2nd Amendment Task Force - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473619#msg1473619​
- DOJ - Investigation of restrictive 2A laws in CA and other states - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472176#msg1472176​
- DOJ - 26 state AGs support DOJ 2A Task Force - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473366#msg1473366​
- DOJ - DOJ drops SBR charge for braced CZ Scorpion pistol - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472148#msg1472148​
- DOJ - DOJ changes anti-2A position on 80% receivers - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472643#msg1472643​
- DOJ - DOJ settles 5th Circuit appeal for Forced Reset Trigger - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472727#msg1472727​
- DOJ - DOJ allow 3rd Circuit ruling to stand in Range v US - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473079#msg1473079​
- DOJ - Civil Rights Division goes after states violating Bruen - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473367#msg1473367​
- DOJ - DOJ asked SCOTUS to review Wolford v Lopez - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473619#msg1473619​
- ATF - Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act/Legalize suppressor parts and US v Peterson (5th Circuit ruling on "Silencer") - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473648#msg1473648​
- ATF - Robert Leider hired as Chief Counsel - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469390#msg1469390​
- ATF - POTUS told Congress to cut ATF budget by 28% - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1473647#msg1473647​
 
Last edited:
Sure.

But the compelling argument made by the Trump DOJ and others who submitted amicus briefs is pointing out to the Supreme Court that Bruen test/methodology is being openly defied by state/lower courts.
 
I am cautiously optimistic. This could be the sea change we have been hoping for, time to watch it play out, and hope we get very positive results...soon, I hope.
 
LiveLife said:
What’s at stake?
This case could shape the future of the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, 5 states (including CA, NY, and NJ) have passed similar laws—impacting over 75 million Americans. There’s also now a conflict between federal appeals courts, making Supreme Court review more likely.​
​
Bottom line:​
The DOJ—under the TRUMP administration—is siding with gun rights advocates here, warning that Hawaii’s law "effectively nullifies" the right to carry firearms for self-defense."​
Click to expand...
LiveLife said:
B. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Warrants Review​
​
1. This Court should grant review because, as eight judges correctly recognized, Hawaii’s law “largely vitiates” Bruen ... and “effectively nullifies” the right to bear arms ... Bruen explained that the Second Amendment secures a “general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,” but that our regulatory tradition includes restrictions identifying “exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms.” ...​
Click to expand...
And Mark Smith explains what those "exceptional circumstances" are. If government wants to ban guns in particular locations, security must be provided. If armed security is not provided, then government cannot deprive your right to 2A/Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is the compelling argument for Bruen methodology DOJ amicus brief is making to the Supreme Court - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1474123#msg1474123

​
"SENSITIVE PLACES" EXPLANATION. I wrote this to a Four Boxes Diner fan so I thought I would post it here too! This explains when government can ban guns in a specific location consistent with 2A based on US's historical tradition of gun regulations.​
​
In short, if a government does not provide comprehensive security with limited points of entry, metal detectors and armed guards, then it cannot be a constitutionally-acceptable government-mandated gun free zone. The only time the government can take away your fundamental 2A right to keep and bear arms in a specific location is when the government itself assumes the full responsibility for protecting you with armed defense; short of this, you have a right to protect yourself.​
​
If you look at our Founding history, the three "sensitive places" mentioned in Bruen (polling places, legislative chambers and courthouses) all had armed guards. Sheriffs, sergeant at arms, and bailiffs.​
​
Today, with the rise of small, concealable handguns (less of a problem at the founding where everyone carried unconcealable rifles/shotguns/long guns), to have comprehensive security, the gov't must provide metal detectors and limited entry points in addition to armed guards. At the founding, you did not need metal detectors b/c the main weapons were big and not concealable. Today, with handguns being ubiquitous, you need the metal detectors for comprehensive security, which is what we see at airports, courthouses and Congress.​
​
Note, the government does NOT have to provide comprehensive security at a location. However, if they want to ban guns in a location, then they MUST provide comprehensive security. No government-provided armed security means the government cannot deprive you of your 2A rights.​
​
Finally, the practical benefit to the comprehensive security approach to the "sensitive places" question is it is an objective test: has the government ACTED to make a place "sensitive" or have they just paid lip service to the question by labeling a place as "sensitive" without treating it as such. If the government has not provided the same level of security as is provided by the government to protect the judges in a courthouse, then it is not comprehensive security and, by extension, a gun ban would not be constitutional in that specific location.​
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
Sure.

But the compelling argument made by the Trump DOJ and others who submitted amicus briefs is pointing out to the Supreme Court that Bruen test/methodology is being openly defied by state/lower courts.
Click to expand...

This is where bias enters the discussion. Those briefs --any of them-- are opinions of individuals. Yours and mine happen to align with the perspective that the lower courts aren't treating Bruen properly. It's a "compelling argument" to you. Others feel differently. The supreme court is acutely aware of all this so nobody need point anything out that isn't already in the public record/common knowledge. There's also another topic of the executive trying to strong arm the judicial branch but we only discuss 2A rights as if they exist in a vacuum on THR (not a complaint). Still, current events are a thing. If you're expecting the courts to kowtow to the current administration, you're probably going to be disappointed. I'll leave it at that.

Aside from all that, the supreme court has already clarified Bruen methodology once, and the growing body of cases in the lower courts already speak to the "not trapped in amber" part of that 8-1 clarification. We view that as defiance, but the lack of urgency coming from the high court is telling in my opinion. With the exception of Thomas, there's at least some degree of possibility that the supremes are totally A-ok with how the lower courts are proceeding since then. As I said already, the current administration can want something until the cows come home. Just like us. But in the mean time, we're still waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEM
Basura Blanca said:
The supreme court is acutely aware of all this so nobody need point anything out that isn't already in the public record/common knowledge ... If you're expecting the courts to kowtow to the current administration, you're probably going to be disappointed.

... there's at least some degree of possibility that the supremes are totally A-ok with how the lower courts are proceeding since then
Click to expand...
Last I checked, the thread title was not about why the Supreme Court would not do anything and we shouldn't have our hopes up.

Rather, the thread title is about an executive branch agency filing a pro-2A amicus brief and significance of current administration and agencies taking pro-2A actions, which is different topic of discussion from judicial independence from executive branch. ;)

Miami_JBT said:
The Trump Administration has filed its first pro-Second Amendment amicus brief
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
Last I checked, the thread title was not about why the Supreme Court would not do anything and we shouldn't have our hopes up.
Click to expand...

You're the one positing that the brief is going to inspire the court to take the case because the lower courts are "wrong", so uhhh... yeah.
This thread also isn't about a bunch of random links to another website in your previous word wall.
 
What I posted is directly related to executive branch taking pro-2A actions. :)
Miami_JBT said:
The Trump Administration has filed its first pro-Second Amendment amicus brief
Click to expand...

And THR being a "gun forum" in support of 2A/RKBA, that should be a welcome breath of fresh air after past 4 years of anti-2A actions against gun owners.

To me, DOJ filing pro-2A amicus brief is a good thing and what the OP Is about. 👍

I mean, if your team is winning, shouldn't you be cheering? ;)

OK, back to OP.
 
Last edited:
GEM said:
Link didn't work for me.
Click to expand...
Here's an excerpt.

New York Law Journal: Trump Administration Files Brief Urging SCOTUS to Overturn NYC Gun Law - https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...overturn-nyc-gun-law/?slreturn=20250510111559

The rule is being challenged before the high court by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which appealed a lower court decision upholding the regulation from last year. The group is affiliated with the National Rifle Association.​
​
May 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM​
​
The Trump administration late Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York City's controversial rule that bans individuals from transporting handguns outside their home in most cases.​
​
In a brief filed with the high court, attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice ... argued in a brief to the court on Wednesday that the rule contradicts the Second Amendment and unlawfully restricts interstate commerce by limiting where gun owners can bring their firearms.​
​
The rule is being challenged before the high court by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which appealed a lower court decision upholding the regulation from last year. The group is affiliated with the National Rifle Association.​
​
The U.S. Department of Justice brief said “Few laws in the history of our nation, or even in contemporary times, have come close to such a sweeping prohibition on the transportation of arms. And on some of the rare occasions in the 19th and 20th centuries when state and local governments have adopted such prohibitions, state courts have struck them down.”​
​
... Trump administration's arguments based on the Second Amendment made up the majority of the brief, which argued the significance of the federal law's syntax.​
​
The relevant part of the Second Amendment, heard often during debates on gun control, is the constitutionally enshrined “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the Founding Fathers deliberately chose to include both the words “keep” and “bear” to ensure that gun owners would not face major restrictions on carrying guns.​
​
The word “keep,” the Trump administration argued, already implies the right to have a gun inside someone's home. That part isn't contradicted by the city's rule; it's the right to “bear” arms that's infringed upon by the policy, the brief said.​
​
“If the right to 'bear' arms were limited to the home, it would be superfluous, adding nothing to the right to 'keep' arms,” the brief said. “The word 'bear' contributes something meaningful to the Second Amendment only if it encompasses the 'bearing' of arms outside the home.”​
​
... The Trump administration likened the case to the landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision, handed down in 2008, struck down a local law in Washington, D.C., that banned handguns in the municipality, even in homes.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Miami_JBT
Trump wants to merge BATFE with DEA.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Hunter 08
Hunter 08
A
  • Locked
Trump Administration Files Brief Urging SCOTUS to Overturn NYC Gun Law
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
GEM
G
DeepSouth
  • Locked
New York Can’t Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA...says the ACLU
Replies
1
Views
495
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
2
  • Locked
Briefs Filed in Support of Silveira v. Lockyer
Replies
1
Views
665
Brett Bellmore
B
F
  • Locked
Are your 2nd Amendment rights safe?
Replies
2
Views
603
CU74
C
Back
Top Bottom