- Pin it
- SubscribeUnsubscribe
- Embed
Buckeye Firearms Foundation hasn't added a story.
Buckeye Firearms Foundation has been asked to be a party in
an amicus brief to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
We are asking for tax-deductible donations to our 501(c)(3)
charitable Foundation to help pay for some of the legal and
printing costs for the brief to be written by Attorney Dan
Peterson on behalf of the plaintiff.
This is your chance to be part of what may become the
most significant Second Amendment case in American history.
Donate whatever you can, $100, $50, $25, or even $10. Every
dollar helps.
Here is some background on this case:
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
a Second Amendment challenge to a gun control law for the first time
in nearly 10 years. Arguments in the case will likely be heard
during the court’s next term, which starts in October 2019.
During the opening decade of the 21st Century,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings that many hoped
would revitalize the Second Amendment, which had been all but read
out of the Constitution by activist lower judges that favored
banning or heavily restricting firearms.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) made abundantly clear that the
Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and should be
respected as such by the nation’s courts and public officials.
That did not happen.
Instead, the rulings seemed mainly to energize
the resistance to the right to keep and bear arms both within and
without the judicial system.
Billionaires turned social engineers – most
notably Michael Bloomberg – created a new industry around more
sophisticated and organized anti-gun efforts.
Elite universities created research departments
entirely devoted to engineering empirical support for gun control
and rewriting American history as it pertains the Second Amendment
and gun ownership.
The same judges with their same lifetime
appointments who refused to acknowledge the obvious import of the
Second Amendment’s history and text refused to acknowledge the
obvious import of the Heller and McDonald opinions.
And one lower court decision after another
upheld the most sweeping and oppressive forms of gun control,
including bans on America’s most popular rifles, bans on magazines
used for self-defense, bans on dealer sales of handguns to
military-aged adults, mandatory handgun licensing fees of $340,
discretionary licensing for the carrying of firearms, lengthy
waiting periods to acquire guns, and infeasible manufacturing
requirements that effectively ban new models of handguns.
Throughout it all, the high court seemed to
have turned its back on the Second Amendment, refusing review in
case after case. This sometimes provoked impassioned dissents from
justices who believed the Second Amendment was being treated as a
“disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan.”
Only once in all this time did the U.S. Supreme
Court revisit the Second Amendment in an unsigned opinion that
summarily reversed, without argument, a Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court opinion that upheld the state’s ban on
electrically-powered “stun guns.”
That changed when the high court granted review
to the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association v. City of New York. This case concerns a challenge
under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions to
New York City regulations that effectively ban law-abiding handgun
owners from traveling outside the city with their own secured and
unloaded handguns.
The bizarre and unique nature of this
regulation – apparently the only one of its kind in the nation – and
the exceedingly thin “public safety” justification for it
potentially make the case low-hanging fruit for another positive
Second Amendment ruling.
But whether the Supreme Court will use the
occasion to bring lower court defiance of the Second Amendment to
heel or simply to rule narrowly on this particular regulation
remains to be seen.
The development does, however, underscore the
importance to gun owners of President Trump’s appointments to the
high court, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
The latter replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy,
who was considered the crucial swing vote in the Heller and McDonald
cases. Yet Kennedy’s sustained commitment to a robust Second
Amendment was always in question, leading to speculation that
neither the court’s pro- or anti-gun blocs had the confidence to
take another case.
Unlike Kennedy, however, Justices Gorsuch and
Kavanaugh are committed originalists, the same mode of judicial
interpretation that the late Justice Antonin Scalia used in
authoring the Heller opinion. Fidelity to that method and to the
court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald are the surest guarantees we
can have that the Second Amendment will get the respect it is due by
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Left-leaning pundits are already issuing
hysterical predictions about what this development means for gun
control in the United States.
What we know for sure is that for all who
understand the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court as the final
backstop against infringements of our Second Amendment rights, this
case is a great opportunity. We may now be on the threshold of a new
era of respect for all Constitutional rights, not just for those
favored by the ruling class.
Highlights
See all activity169Updates
Activity
Delete media item?
Delete this item from the media gallery? It will also be deleted from any related story update.
Set as ?
The campaign video will appear in social media and email.
The campaign cover picture will appear in social media and email.
The will appear at the top of your campaign page and in social media and email.
Reset ?
It will be removed from the top of your campaign and won't be used as default in social media and email. The will remain in the media gallery.
Embed
Share a link
Delete update
Delete this story update?
Any pictures or videos will remain in the campaign's media gallery.
Report campaign
Report submitted
Thank you. We take reports like yours very seriously. Our goal is to keep the community safe.
Please know that we may contact you for more information, but that we won't notify you personally of our decision. If the campaign remains available within a few days, it's likely that we determined it not to be in violation of our policies.
Thank you. We've already received your previous report. If the campaign remains available within a few days, it's likely that we determined it not to be in violation of our policies.
Tell us about the problem. Please fill in both fields below.
Record a video
Upload a video
Nothing grabs attention for your cause like a personal video. Take a minute or two to record one now. Record a short video message of support. Or upload one from your device. You can preview or redo your video before you post it.
Nothing grabs attention for your cause like a personal video. Upload a short video message of support. Upload a short video message of support. Or record one right now.
- Most effective video length: about a minute.
- Maximum length: 5 min.
- You can preview or redo your video before you post it.
Heads up! The existing video will be replaced.
Email your friends
Join our team
Endorsement banner
- Endorsement banners have been proven to lead to more contributions.
- If you change your mind, you can always adjust your endorsement banner settings from the Share page.
Tell people why our cause matters to you. Your personal message will encourage others to help. Easy, effective, optional.
Say it in video
Short personal videos by supporters like you are incredibly powerful. Record one right now and you'll help us raise more money. Easy, optional, effective.
Add a personal goal
Set a personal fundraising goal. You'll encourage more contributions if you do. And rest easy. There's no obligation to achieve your goal or bad consequences if you don't. Easy, optional, effective.
We have a video!
Video thumbnail
We'd love to show you our campaign video. Want to take a look?
, you're already on the team.