Supreme Court Brief Supporting 2A Challenges Federal Handgun Sales Ban

Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule in Favor of Gun Ban at Fairgrounds
Constitutional Rights Groups File Supreme Court Brief Supporting Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Handgun Sales Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C.-( A brief supporting Supreme Court review of a Fifth Circuit decision in a Second Amendment challenge to irrational federal gun control rules was filed by civil rights attorney Donald J. Kilmer, reports three constitutional rights advocacy groups who joined the brief. A copy of the brief can be viewed at

The amici argue that the Supreme Court should take up the case in order to correct a lower court ruling that upheld a federal gun control rule that bans law-abiding people from buying handguns in states other than their state of permanent residence while allowing the purchase of rifles and shotguns in other states.

“Law-abiding citizens of the United States. . . should not be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and (b)(3) from purchasing a firearm in any of the other states or territories they travel to, travel through, or in any state or territory where they may temporarily reside,” the groups said in the court filing. “Any federal law and/or regulation imposing such a prohibition violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution under any theory of interpretation.”

The brief also argues that the Second Amendment’s disparate treatment by lower courts since the Heller and McDonald decisions appears to track the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments that sought to eliminate slavery and ensure that all people had access to fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

“This Court should take this opportunity to complete the resuscitation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘privilege or immunities’ clause initiated by Justice Thomas’ concurrence in McDonald,” the brief said in its conclusion.

The petition for certiorari in Mance, et al. v. Whitaker, et al. (Supreme Court docket no. 18-663) is likely to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in February or March 2019. The Court’s docket is available here.

Madison Society Foundation ( is a 501(c)(3) grassroots nonprofit based in California. It promotes and preserves the purposes of the Constitution of the United States, in particular the right to keep and bear arms. MSF provides the general public and its members with education and training on this important right.

Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms Policy Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Calguns Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

  • 6 thoughts on “Supreme Court Brief Supporting 2A Challenges Federal Handgun Sales Ban

    1. what is all this Nick and diming? “Shall not be infringed,” needs to be addressed. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights; it restricts government!

      In the case of the Second Amendment, the prohibition is total. We need a ruling that says government has no authority 2 regulate the keeping and bearing of arms, period. ALL of it is wholly unconstitutional!

      Here is why from Tenche Coxe, one of our founders:

      “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, June 18, 1789

      And our founders understood that to mean ALL military arms:

      “…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe, Feb. 20, 1788.

      1. Quite right, yet not realistic. Every gain we have made has been one bit of the right at a time. Sometimes a fair sized bit. The Civil Rights movement defeated segregation by attacking one bit of it at a time. Finely as the title of a book by the defense lawyer in Brown vs Board of Education is was “Time to Lose.”

      2. The co-authors of the Second (James Madison and George Mason) said as much. They were called upon to appear before the several state legislatures to answer to the meaning and intent of the words they used. Upon completion, the states ratified the Constitution with the Second unchanged, and the states, and subsequently added states, included the wording in their own state constitutions.

        Mason stated that the militia included all men aged between 16 and 65 (I may be slightly off here) who have been taught to use arms for self defense and for putting food on the table, and said arms be kept in good repair, and that such men would respond to local or national emergency situations.

        Madison said there was no need for training, as it would be a waste of funds and time for men to do what they were already skilled to do, by marching to and fro and wasting powder and shot.

        The words of both men are readily available in the Federalist Papers, personal writings, publications of the times, and in the historical minutes of the several state legislatures.

        In addition, George Washington stated, “I disdain the militia as they lack military training and discipline, and, at the first volley, will run to shoot from behind trees and walls”. Washington was trained in the standards of military engagements of the times where one army marches in formation at the opposing army while loading and firing, and while cannon shot sails over their heads and impacts the rows of marching opponents. He did not like the idea of shooting from positions of hiding. This view continued until the idea of snipers was finally accepted as a legitimate means of waging war.

    2. Lets all get together and support these groups in their efforts to overturn these stupid laws which make no sense and violate our rights,

    Leave a Comment 6 Comments

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