Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to the virtual ban on concealed carry in New York State. The brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and the Heller Foundation. We critique the Second Circuit case in Kachalsky v County of Westchester, explain how the New York licensing scheme undermines the prefatory
World Tribune Article — Mentions our fight against Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines
In an article entitled, End of discussion (and freedom): CNN political analyst, Princeton professor calls for mandatory vaccines,” our letters to Virginia’s colleges and universities are discussed.
COVID-19: Are There Ethical Issues with Jabs or Mandates?
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons published an article on the ethics of vaccine mandates, citing our letter to Colleges and Universities.
Second Letter to Virginia Private and Public Colleges & Universities Demanding Revocation of Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Requirement
This week, we sent a second letter to public colleges and universities (June 6), and private colleges and universities (June 9).
Read the Word letter to private colleges and universities here.
Read the WordPerfect letter to private colleges and universities here.
Read the PDF letter to private colleges and universities here.
Read the Word letter to public colleges and universities here.
Read the WordPerfect letter to public colleges and universities here.
Read the PDF letter to public colleges and universities here.
Fairfax Times Article on our letter to Colleges and Universities
The Fairfax Times focused its story on the George Mason University’s coercive policy requiring experimental COVID-19 vaccines for students. GMU does not explain why it is burdening students while exempting staff from this requirement.
Christianity Daily Article
Christianity Daily published an article on our letter to Virginia Colleges & Universities re the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.
World Net Daily Article
WND published an article on our letter to Virginia Colleges & Universities re the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.
Young v. Hawaii
We filed our second brief in the Young v. Hawaii challenge to Hawaii’s virtual total ban on carrying firearms in the State of Hawaii. Our earlier brief was filed before the Ninth Circuit en banc. This brief was filed in the U.S .Supreme court in support of Young’s Petition for Certiorari. We urge the Court to overturn the two-step test used in many Second Amendment challenges. We also challenge the “longstanding” ban in Hawaii, most of which occurred during the time Hawaii was governed by a Monarchy. We demonstrate why certiorari should be granted even though New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett is pending before the court. And we trace the numerous criticisms by Justices and Judges as to how the lower courts have treated the Second Amendment since Heller and McDonald.
Letter to Virginia Private and Public Colleges & Universities Demanding Revocation of Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Requirement
Today, on behalf of parents, students, and pro-freedom groups, we we delivered letters to the presidents and chairmen of Virginia’s private colleges which are requiring students to be fully vaccinated before they return to campus in the fall. Our letter details both medical and legal arguments describing the dangers of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine.
Read the Word letter to public colleges and universities here.
Read the WordPerfect letter to public colleges and universities here.
Read the PDF letter to public colleges and universities here.
Read the Word letter to private colleges and universities here.
Read the WordPerfect letter to private colleges and universities here.
Read the PDF letter to private colleges and universities here.
CORRECTION. The Section I.D. heading states “The VAERS System Now Shows Tremendous Death and Illness from the Disease.” The word “Disease” should have been “Vaccines.”
Duncan v. Bonta
Today, we filed an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a
California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law
mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth
Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and
the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the
decision
Crawford v. Pennsylvania — Defending Gun Rights of Philadelphians
Today, we filed an brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc. and other nonprofits opposing Philadelphia’s challenge to the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s long-standing firearms preemption statute. That statute prevents Philadelphia from imposing greater firearms restrictions on its residents than those approved by the General Assembly for Pennsylvania as a whole. Philadelphia bases
VCDL/GOA/GOF v. City of Winchester (Virginia) — Complaint filed
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.
Gloucester County School Board v. Gavin Grimm
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the Gloucester County School Board case, which now has been been in litigation for over five years. This case involves a high school girl who claimed that her high school violated Title IX by not allowing her to use the boys’ bathroom because she “identifies” as a boy. By a vote of 2-1, the Fourth Circuit panel found a violation. Our brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, explains why the School Board made the right choice, and shows why Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were not violated.
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.