Together with Gilbert Ambler of the Ambler Law Offices, LLC (Winchester, VA) and David Browne of Spiro & Browne, LLC (Richmond, VA), we filed suit challenging a Winchester ordinance regulating possession of firearms. The case
Testimony given opposing Article V Constitutional Convention in South Carolina
This afternoon, Bill Olson testified via ZOOM before a subcommittee of the South Carolina Judiciary Committee opposing various bills calling for an Article V Convention of the States, also known as a Constitutional Convention. He also submitted the paper he and Herb Titus wrote exposing the false premises and false assurances of those supporting this radical proposal.
The Paper submitted to the Subcommittee is entitled “The ‘Con-Con’ Con” is available here.
Victory in the Sixth Circuit on Bumpstocks
In a 2-1 decision issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit gave a victory to Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League in their challenge to the ATF Bumpstock regulations issued December 26, 2018. The opinion was written by Judge Alice M. Batchelder. Robert Olson of our firm argued the case in the Sixth Circuit, December 11, 2019.
Roberts v. U.S. Justice Department — Brief for Appellants
Today we filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Sixth Circuit in challenge to the ATF changing their policy, and refusing to allow persons with Michigan Concealed Carry Permits to purchase guns without another NICS check.
AFPF/Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (Free Speech Coalition amicus brief)
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment rights of California nonprofit organizations, which are currently being required to file a list of their major donors with the California government. Our brief, filed on behalf of 21 nonprofit organizations, explains why a Constitutional Republic should never require voluntary associations to reveal the identity of their members
AFPF/Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (Citizens United amicus brief)
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of AFPF’s and Thomas More’s First Amendment challenge to California’s compelled disclosure of information about the major donors of nonprofit organizations. We explain in our brief why the Ninth Circuit erred in determining that the Supreme Court’s landmark NAACP v. Alabama decision does not apply here. Second, we
The Unconstitutional Trial of Donald J. Trump
The Bull Elephant ran the article we wrote with Patrick M. McSweeney on the several ways in which the Senate Trial of President Trump violates the U.S. Constitution. We address: Article I, § 3, clause 7; Article II, § 4; Article I, § 3, clause 6; Article I, § 9, clause 3; and Article I, § 5, clause 2.
Wade v. Regents of the University of Michigan
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the University of Michigan’s infringement on the Second Amendment rights of its students. We explain why the university’s ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and various decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, including District of Columbia v. Heller.
Mai v. United States
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision which allowed a ban on gun possession by a man who had suffered a mental health crisis as a minor, but who had since then been found by the State of Washington not to be a danger to himself or to others. Nevertheless, as the Ninth Circuit has done in every Second Amendment challenge brought before
Caniglia v. Strom
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a First Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms by police after a Petitioner husband and his wife had a non-violent, non-threatening argument. Tired of arguing with his wife, the husband threw down an unloaded handgun and said something like “just shoot me.” The next day the police showed
Article: Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania
With Pat McSweeney, Bill Olson wrote this article in Western Journal suggesting a way to circumvent the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Texas’ original action challenging the changes in election law unconstitutionally imposed by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court.
Our Firm Files Its 25th Amicus Brief in Support of Trump Administration Policies
Today, our firm filed our 25th amicus brief in support of the positions and policies of President Donald Trump since his inauguration on January 20, 2017. (On the other hand, when the Trump Administration erroneously banned the possession of bumpstocks, we filed suit to enjoin the ATF rule, in a case still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.)
Lange v. California
Today we filed an amicus brief opposing warrantless home invasions by police officers in pursuit of fleeing misdemeanor suspects. Both parties asked the court to reject a categorical approach that would allow such searches, but both favored a case-by-case rule that could allow such searches in some cases. To remain consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Fourth Amendment, we argued in favor of a categorical rule against such warrantless home invasions.
Texas v. Pennsylvania
Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC in support of Texas’ attempt to restore constitutional order to the selection of Presidential Electors. We explain how Texas and other states were harmed by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin when they allowed the circumvention of election procedures adopted by their state legislatures.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — Amicus Brief for U.S. Congressmen
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’ original action against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin challenging their certification of Presidential Electors.
This brief was filed for U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson and a group of 126 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In this brief, these Members of the federal legislature seek to protect the constitutional powers of state legislatures to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors.
Washington Times Op Ed — “State legislatures have absolute authority to select electors”
The Washington Times published an op ed written by Bill Olson and Pat McSweeney demonstrating the plenary authority of state legislatures to appoint electors. The piece explains that state certifications of votes are no impediment to a state legislatures power. And, legislatures may act without the call of the Governor. It is entitled “State legislatures have absolute authority to select electors.”
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania seeking to challenge the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changing Pennsylvania election law at the last minute before the November elections. We explained that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania state legislature to make these decisions with respect to federal elections, subject only to Congressional action. We urge the Supreme Court to take the case to invalidate any ballots received after election day.
Paper: The Constitutional Duty of State Legislatures in a Contested Presidential Election
Today, Bill Olson and Virginia attorney Pat McSweeney released a paper they co-authored entitled “The Constitutional Duty of State Legislatures in a Contested Presidential Election.” The paper discusses in depth the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which vest total responsibility and power on state legislatures to select electors. This power includes the duty to ensure the integrity of a Presidential election, particularly when there is demonstrated fraud, corruption and foreign intrigue. The Western Journal published that article here: Link to article
Laity v. Harris
Today our firm served as co-counsel to file an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Kamala Harris’s eligibility for the office of Vice President of the United States. In our brief, we explain the meaning of the “natural born citizen” requirement set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, and discuss why Harris does not qualify.
Trump v. New York (Merits)
Today we filed our second amicus brief in the case of Trump v. New York, on the merits, defending the discretion given by Congress to the President to conduct the census. In our brief, we urge the court to reverse the district court’s decision which mandates that illegal aliens be counted in the apportionment basis for allocating seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
Amicus Brief: Trump v. New York
Today our firm filed the only amicus brief (at least thus far) in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Trump v. New York, supporting President Trump’s Memorandum instructing the Secretary of Commerce to provide him with data necessary to reapportion the House of Representatives among the states without counting illegal aliens. The brief was filed for Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation,
County of Los Angeles, et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Grace Community Church and Pastor John MacArthur)
Today we filed an amicus brief in a California appellate count in support of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church. That Church began holding in-person, indoor services in late July despite a ban imposed on such services by Los Angeles County due to COVID-19. The Church, inter alia, has asserted that the ban violates Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution
Rhode v. Becerra
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a California law which requires background checks for persons seeking to buy ammunition. Our brief explained the history of how the 9th Circuit has employed various legal tests and other techniques to allow certain judges hostile to gun rights to evade application of the Second Amendment, as written.
Elhert v. Settle: Response to Commonwealth’s Petition for Review
Today we filed our response to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s petition for review the temporary injunction we obtained from Lynchburg Circuit Court protecting the right of 18, 19, and 20 year olds to purchase handguns.
Ehlert v. Settle: Petition for Review
Today we filed a petition for review in the Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts’ denial of a portion of our application for temporary injunction. Judge Yeatts issued a temporary injunction against the Virginia State Police to bar enforcement of one of the Northam gun bills barring 18 to 20 year old Virginians from purchasing handguns in private