From the local level, up to the Supreme Court, we fight for everyone's rights. @theadamkraut
A lot of the briefs we read this week repeatedly argued that firearms like the AR15 are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are too "militaristic." Some lower courts have ruled the same, like the Seventh Circuit in Bevis v. City of Naperville saying that "military weapons lie outside the class of Arms to which the individual right applies."
These arguments completely ignore one of the core purposes of the Second Amendment. Our new factsheet compiles several courts rulings and excerpts from commentary which confirm that the Second Amendment certainly applies to arms useful in combat. Historically, that is what it protected most of all.
Any examination of historical tradition cannot ignore this overwhelming history.
Here is the factsheet in PDF form, with each linked source clickable:
saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2…
For more reading on this subject see these two papers:
scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr…
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
SAF retweeted
Correction (10/29/26): Based on feedback on earlier versions, I have changed to year of implementation of shall issue/ permitless carry laws. I also double-checked primary sources where available for all years and made corrections as necessary. These graphics are accurate as of today, 10/29/26.
The great Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) at GRPC 2026: ‘…I am such an absolutist on things. It is black or white with me. There's no gray area literally on anything… I am absolutely this way where it concerns the second amendment… But I also realized being an absolutist is also a luxury… We have to take our wins, and sometimes we have to take them incrementally. And it can't be all or nothing all the time…’
Watch the full video here: youtu.be/51v-ovxAymY?si=kukk…
SAF is pleased to announce that SIG SAUER (@sigsauerinc) has renewed their corporate partner commitment at the Gold level.
“Protecting the fundamental rights of individuals to keep and bear arms is a full-time job, and the Second Amendment Foundation has been instrumental in leading that effort,” said Phil Strader, Vice President, Consumer Affairs at SIG SAUER. “The SAF actively and aggressively defends the Second Amendment with legal action but also educates the public about the importance of responsible gun ownership. SIG SAUER couldn’t be prouder to support their mission and is honored to be a part of such an important organization.”
SIG SAUER Inc. is a leading manufacturer of premium firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, remote-controlled weapon stations, and drones. Building off its 250-year track record, the company’s products are synonymous with industry-leading engineering, quality, and innovation which has made it the brand of choice across the defense industry, law enforcement, and shooting community. SIG SAUER serves all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces and with a presence in more than 90 countries is the preferred partner to top militaries around the world. In addition to their renewed corporate partner commitment, SIG SAUER also routinely donates products for SAF’s monthly sweepstakes program to help fund the organization’s critical work...
Read more here: saf.org/sig-sauer-renews-gol…
The brief from Jake Charles and Luke Smith Morgan seems focused on reinforcing a tough "first step" in the Bruen analysis.
It's a little funny their summary claims Hemani and Wolford "reiterated" the two-step inquiry, when Professor Charles complained extensively on fake twitter about how the Court watered down step one.
(In reality, the Court really was just reiterating what it had said before: step one was never intended to be some difficult test to meet, and Bruen is substantively a one-step historical analysis, with a simple qualifier)
I'm having trouble understanding how this proposed "double history" test would work in this very case, and they weirdly don't provide an example of that analysis. Which you'd think they'd do given they are proposing it as an alternative.
So, take the AR15. Does it meet the plain text under the Jake Charles test?
At step one, yes it is an arm, and in terms of history, yes it is useful for combat, personal self-defense, hunting, and sport, which is what the founders would have considered protected (in that order).
At step two, prior to 1900 no gun had ever been banned, including the revolvers and repeating rifles that proliferated after the civil war.
So does Jake Charles think we win? If so, why didn't he write in our support, or do a "neither party" brief a la Akhil Amar?
Jake Charles is concerned the government is going to lose cases it "should most readily win."
But the opposite is what is actually happening. The First Circuit, for example, just used its tortured "plain text analysis" to say that there is no right to acquire arms, and a violation only occurs if a judge deems restrictions on acquisition sufficiently "abusive."
The Ninth Circuit, in all likelihood, is going to rule that an ammo background check regime which wrongfully denied over 10% of people who use it is not a "meaningful constraint" on the Second Amendment.
Any substantive "plain text" analysis should be expressly forbidden by the Court. The lower courts have already shown they will abuse it.
