SAF Joined By Other Pro Gun Groups In Filing Amicus Brief In Mass. Gun Ban Case

Amicus Curiae
SAF Joined By Other Pro Gun Groups In Filing Amicus Brief In Mass. Gun Ban Case

BELLEVUE, WA – -( The Second Amendment Foundation has been joined by several other groups and Second Amendment scholars in filing an amicus brief with the First U.S. Court of Appeals supporting a challenge of the Massachusetts semi-auto rifle ban.

Joining SAF are the Cato Institute, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Millennial Policy Center and the Independence Institute. The case is known as Worman v. Healey.

The case centers on a simple question: Can a state ban arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens?

“We could hardly ignore a case of such importance,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ now being enforced in Massachusetts under Attorney General Maura Healey’s expanded definition is both arbitrary and unconstitutional. It cannot be allowed to stand, based on common sense and principles set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller ruling.

“This case,” he added, “goes right to the heart of the right of a citizen to choose appropriate arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. As our brief explains, the high court has emphasized twice that the Second Amendment protection is not limited only to weapons useful in warfare, nor does that fact that a particular firearm might have military utility deprive it of Second Amendment protection.

“Because the law includes an exemption for law enforcement and retired law enforcement,” he added, “clearly demonstrates that these arms are suitable for self-defense because all arms carried by law enforcement are for defensive purposes.”

The state hasn’t offered any evidence that the banned firearms are not commonly-owned, and the burden of proof falls on the state, he noted.

“The amicus brief puts it bluntly,” Gottlieb said. “The ban is unconstitutional.”

Second Amendment FoundationAbout Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 5 thoughts on “SAF Joined By Other Pro Gun Groups In Filing Amicus Brief In Mass. Gun Ban Case

    1. I don’t understand how the mass law was changed successfully by Healy and accepted by the governor. Mass has had an “assault weapon” ban for years and to be mass compliant and not considered an “assault weapon ” it could only have 2 of the features that they say makes it an “assault weapon ” . So if it didn’t have the features that the state used to define an “assault weapon ” how can it be a copy or replica/duplicate of an “assault weapon ” and be banned under Healys new interpretation of the definitions? Her new loophole she started pushing a few years ago was copies and duplicates could now be banned. If it’s not an “assault weapon ” by the definitions the state made up then it would be correct to say it can’t be a copy of one either. If it’s not a copy then they have no right to restrict ownership. It seems like simple math to me. There are several rifles out there still legal in mass that meet every requirement of what they see as an “assault weapon ” but because they have no idea of what they are talking about when it comes to guns they are still legal to be sold in mass. There is no way I will mention the brands/models so they can add them to the list but if you are familiar with the models I’m talking about you see what I mean..
      Here it to hoping Healy gets voted out in a couple months..

    2. It is about time the NRA weighed in on a Washington State massive anti-gun initiative.

      And finally, finally some one said what this law does — it defines, IN LAW, any rifle which uses 100 year old technology as a “military assault rifle” and then uses the scary term MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE it just FRAUDULENTLY DEFINED to raise money by imposing a NEW TAX and imposes MANY, MANY ANTI-GUN LAWS on ANY GUN FRAUDULENTLY defined as a MILITARY ASSAULT RILE.

      If the gun is a twenty-two caliber rifle used only for pest control (THE CALIBER IS ONLY SUITABLE FOR SHOOTING MICE, RATS AND SQUIRRELS) and has only a three round magazine LOADED MANUALLY it is still classified as a MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BY LAW if it uses 100 year old technology.

      The above is only one of MANY, MANY changes to existing gun laws this MASSIVE INITIATIVE MAKES.

      WA State Superior Court Judge James Dixon, of Thurston County WA,. ordered the massive WA state gun control Initiative 1639 off of the WA ballot this November. This occurred Friday, August 17th, 2018. Judge Dixon said the initiative violated state law in two regards First, it was not readable (WA law states that all descriptions of law changes must be in at least size 10 font and readable) – and second, the description of the law changes must be accurate – and Judge Dixon said the initiative violated all of these laws. Judge Dixon gave one specific example: “I have 20-20 vision. I can’t read it…”.

      On Friday, August 24th, the WA Supreme Court did not, repeat NOT, decide if the initiative violated the law. The WA Supreme Court did rule, REPEAT DID RULE, that the law did not specifically allow the Secretary of State, or a judge such as Judge Dixon, to remove the initiative from the ballot – apparently WA State Law is just a suggestion.

      The WA State Supreme Court ordered the initiative be placed back, repeat BACK, on the WA State Ballot for this November.

      If this massive Gun Control Initiative passes this November, Washington State will become the most anti-gun state in the United States, California will look like a gun friendly state by comparison.

      VOTE NO on Initiative 1639.

    3. The Supreme Court has not been very friendly to the 2nd Amendment since the death of Justice Scalia. All the while, more and more anti gun laws have been passed and enforced by the Commuist (Democrat) run states, whose court systems have help them by upholding these unconstitutional laws. The cncer is spreading fast and if it continues, the 2nd Amendment will be a distant memory.

    Leave a Comment 5 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *