Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging the constitutionality of a Hawaii firearms statute which essentially criminalizes the possession of firearms in nearly all public settings, such as stores, restaurants, and gas stations.
Law Matters — Episode 32
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in NAGR v. Lamont, and how activist legislators and judges violate the Second Amendment protection of our rights, and attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in Bruen.
Wolford v. Lopez — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 33.
NAGR v. Lamont — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 32.
Law Matters — Episode 24
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our 9th Circuit amicus brief in Sanchez v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s unconstitutional ban on firearm suppressors in violation of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Law Matters — Episode 21
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief in Missouri v. United States, defending the Missouri’s 2021 “Second Amendment Preservation Act” to protect its citizens’ rights to bear arms by prohibiting state employees from enforcing federal gun regulations that violate the Second Amendment.
Smith and Wesson v. Mexico — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 14
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 11
Snope v. Brown — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision approving Maryland’s 2013 ban on “assault weapons.” The banned firearms are ordinary semi-automatic weapons and most are “commonly used,” if not ubiquitous among the gun-owning public, except where banned by a few states. We argue that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was really an attempt to circumvent Bruen. We argue “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct” in possessing such a weapon. Our brief shows that the “plain text” of the Second Amendment presumptively protects bearable firearms and Maryland could provide no relevant historical analogues.
Link to brief
Rhode v. Bonta — Amicus Brief in Second Appeal
Today, our firm filed our third amicus brief in the case challenging California’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases — our first amicus brief was filed in the prior appeal well before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and the second
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus brief on remand
Today, our firm filed a second brief in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), this time on remand from the Supreme Court after it issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi. Our brief argued that Rahimi did not change the Bruen test that the Fifth Circuit had previously applied, and thus Rahimi would not change the outcome previously reached by the Fifth Circuit.
Nguyen v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, supporting a challenge to California’s law limiting firearm purchases to one per month. Our brief demonstrated that California’s law violates the Second Amendment by applying Bruen’s text and history test. The acquisition of firearms is clearly protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the California