Hey everybody, coming at you from SHOT Show with my friend Adam Kraut, the big boss man over at Second Amendment Foundation. Hey bud, thanks for some of your time. I know you’re one of the busiest cats on the planet right now. I have a new series that I’m starting here with my friends and staff. I want to be able to bring you, the viewer, the groups that you love and trust and are willing to put money into to defend our right to keep and bear arms, to win some of our rights back.

So my goal with this series is once a month to bring you Second Amendment Foundation so they can, you can update the people about some cases that we all are wanting to be solved immediately and also tell people how they can join because there are more viewers every day that join and they maybe aren’t aware of Second Amendment Foundation. So when we start out, tell everybody who you are and what’s after us. Yeah, so my name is Adam Kraut. I’m the executive director here at the Second Amendment Foundation and I’m also a lawyer.

It’s one of like three that I like. Yeah, they’ll throw me out with the bathwater, I guess. You know, my background, I did private practice for five years where it was all firearms stuff. So both industry and individual representation, you know, dealing with ATF, everything from compliance to determination letters, revocation hearings, and then individual rights, Second Amendment as applied challenges, representing other organizations, you know, bump stock can be one of the bigger things. So all over the map and then I went to the nonprofit world where I’ve been involved in the higher level of administering legal programs and now running an organization.

So the Second Amendment Foundation itself was founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb and the whole purpose at that time was to elevate a case to the Supreme Court. You know, throughout the years prior to Heller and really the world’s kind of began with Heller in the Second Amendment litigation space, but we had sued then Mayor Dianne Feinstein over her total handgun ban, won that same thing with the city of Connecticut, a bunch of educational things, Gun Rights Policy Conference, which you had attended this year. And then since then, you know, we’ve been involved in over 260 lawsuits.

We have over 55 active ones currently today. And our crown jewel right now, you know, was McDonald v. City of Chicago. And that’s the reason that there are so many Second Amendment lawsuits across the country, because that’s the case that allows all of these groups and individuals to sue states and municipalities for Second Amendment violations. Say that again, how many active cases you have? Over 55. With more coming. That’s one thing that I think everybody needs to understand is just how active Second Amendment Foundation is and has been all along. There’s not a lot of groups that you can say there, they have 55 active cases actively trying to push back the infringements we face on a daily basis.

So on behalf of my audience, thank you all for doing what you do. And it was a pleasure to hang out with you all for GRPC. And hopefully you’ll let me back this year if I didn’t screw it up too much. Oh, you were great. So let’s start out with give some updates on some cases that I know those people who were in the know know that they were all asking for Snope, they all want that case that’s going to attack. What case is that? Something about an assault. What is an assault weapon? Nobody knows what that is.

Well, yeah, I mean, I guess it depends who you ask. Dictionary has some definitions and, you know, so does the anti-gun side that they promulgated in the late 80s to kind of, they saw that handgun. We’re not going anywhere. So we need a new boogeyman, if you will. Yeah, so Snope. Snope is one of our 55 active cases, or over 55, and one challenges Maryland’s assault weapons ban. That case has been around for quite some time now. It was originally Bianchi. And that case went up to the Supreme Court previously while Bruin was being decided to back in 2022.

It was held pending Bruin, the decision in that once Bruin’s opinion came out, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded at then Bianchi. And what that means is that the court said, cool, we’re going to grant the cert petition. We’re going to vacate the lower court’s judgment or throw it out, and we’re going to send it back to the lower court to do it all again, consistent with, you know, our Bruin analysis, which is really just what Heller had said. And we just clarified it. And it was double official. Right, yes.

Yeah, exactly. And then, you know, also the right to bear arms, we got a little more in depth in that one, but it didn’t really say anything Heller hadn’t already said. So the Fourth Circuit, which is what oversees Maryland, you know, took that case back. It sat for about 13 months before the court and it had been briefed and argued already. Courts said, actually, we’re going to do this on Bach now. So more briefs and then argument happened. It was a very, I forget how many months it was before this finally got an on Bach opinion behind it.

We petitioned for cert at the Supreme Court because the Fourth Circuit on Bach, of course, found like they did in Colby that the assault of his band was fine and they created their own test to get from A to B on that. So that one was distributed for conference. What was the date on that? About a week, two weeks ago. Thank you. Two weeks ago. And it was re-listed. So a lot of people have questions about what that means. And I’m sure your audience has seen a lot of conjecture going out there and people telling them that they know what’s going to happen.

First of all, they’re lying. Yeah, nobody knows. Nobody’s in that room. Yeah, unless you’re sitting in that room, you’re probably one of the only people that might have a sense. But this SCOTUS blog, which is an excellent blog dealing with all things Supreme Court, they have some statistics. Now they’re a little old, but they do exist. So they looked at a five-year span from 2015 through 2020 and they had statistics as to petitions that were re-listed. So what they found was that if I recall correctly off the top of my head, I think 42% of all the cases that cert was granted to were cases that those petitions had been re-listed.

And then slightly lower than that was a statistic that, I forget what the number was, again, off the top of my head, it was that the number of petitions that were re-listed that actually were granted cert. So one re-list is not the death knell or a nail on the coffin for a petition. You get past one re-list into two, three. It’s not looking nearly as good. Still a chance, but you probably on the side of not going to happen. So where are we today? Well, the Supreme Court, we’re waiting to see what they’ll do.

This past Friday, we went back to conference, so we’re expecting an order list on Tuesday, because today is Monday. It’s a federal holiday. So we’re expecting an order list tomorrow and we’ll see what happens. Yeah. So for those who are watching this, we are recording this right now, post the inauguration. That’s why it’s a phenomenal day here. If it has been updated since, either way, whether they punt it for another week or they make a decision, I’ll have it here somewhere, like right there. But our hope obviously is, is that they grant certiorari again to this case and finally put that stake in the heart of the assault weapon ban.

It’s a good vehicle to do it as well. So I think that’s one of the other important things for your viewers to understand. You see a bunch of cases that go up to the Supreme Court and they’re in all kinds of different procedural postures. And what does that mean? Well, that means we’re in the stage of the litigation is the case. So for instance, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in our Delaware assault weapons ban challenge. And that was Gray vs Jennings. Now, that question presented in that case was not, is the assault weapons ban constitutional? It had to do with some of the preliminary junctions, particularly the elements of it.

But when a case goes up on a cert petition to the Supreme Court coming from a denial of a preliminary injunction, the court has not been very inclined to grant those cases as of late. They want a case that’s been decided on the merits. So that means that the litigation of the district court is done, the litigation at the circuit court is done. And this is final judgment barring the Supreme Court saying we’re going to take the case here. The other thing on that same point is circuit splits. I think that’s an important thing to talk about as well.

The Supreme Court likes to settle areas of law that are out of balance. So when a circuit court says, you know, the law is constitutional, and another court says, no, it’s unconstitutional. Well, that’s conflicting. And you have two different parts of the country that are on two different rules of law. Unfortunately, with the assault weapons ban, they’re all in circuits that have so far upheld it. So the circuit splits not a thing. But this does go to the types of common arms in common use for lawful purposes. And that’s certainly something that’s well within the Supreme Court’s prerogative to pick up and say, no, this is constitutional.

These laws are unconstitutional, these firearms are constitutionally protected, and, you know, level the field that way. Yeah, and it’s a good thing because it’s like, even though people are going to, they’re going to make a funny face right now, and they’ll start typing as soon as they say this, but throughout our history as a nation in 249 and a half years ish, this is the most pro to a court Supreme Court that we’ve ever had. And some of the things that they’ve said in cases that they’ve taken and ruled on some of the things they’ve said in cases where a cert was denied.

It’s definitely a court that is not willing to put the Second Amendment as a second class right anymore. So hopefully we can get some, some more stuff done here in the next, you know, two years before Justice Thomas decides he’s had enough or, or Alito. So talk to somebody real talk to the people real quick about interlocutory basis, because you mentioned it earlier, where court, the court, the Supreme Court wants to have something on final judgment. What that means, guys and gals, is it’s the end of the road for that case.

There’s no more avenues for appeal other than to the Supreme Court. So touch on like that big word, the scary word, people don’t understand interlocutory, what that actually is. So an interlocutory appeal, I guess the easiest way to explain it would be, you know, when you file a case in the trial court. So the first court you go into when we’re talking about federal courts and you ask for a preliminary injunction, what you’re asking the court to do is to enjoin the law while the case is going on. Doesn’t mean that you win ultimately, but it means that they’re going to just maintain the status quo.

Now, typically you see that in cases where, you know, a legislature implements a new law and alters how things have been because you’re trying to maintain the status quo while it’s going through. There’s some elements to a preliminary injunction that you have to meet, like the likelihood of success on the merits is a big one, irreparable harm, you know, balancing the public interest versus that and things like that. So if a court denies the preliminary injunction, which was the case in our Delaware solid right then case, and you appeal that decision, that’s what’s known as an interlocutory appeal.

So that decision to deny the preliminary injunction goes up on appeal, but the underlying merit stuff still continues forward. And if that preliminary injunction stuff is decided favorably by a circuit court, let’s say in this instance, the third circuit had come back and said, you know, actually, you know, this is a violation of the constitutional rights. We are going to send this back down, say enter the injunction. You usually get language that’s very helpful to the underlying merit stuff that you can cite on your way to hopefully the district court finally doing the right thing.

But all that means is that there’s a little piece of the case that goes up, but the remainder continues on its pathway forward. And one thing that I want to tell folks here is the gray case that he mentioned. It did get denied cert, but the case is still going, because it was on an interlocutory basis based off the preliminary injunction, will lack thereof. And that case is asking the court, the question of law in that one is, is a second amendment violation, does it constitute irreparable harm? And so when you’re seeking a preliminary injunction, there’s four elements needed to meet.

One of those is irreparable harm. And in this particular instance, it was whether a violation of the second amendment is per se irreparable harm. So just the existence of it being irreparable harm. Like it is for any other civil right we have. Right. So in the first amendment context, the Supreme Court has said that, yes, a violation of the first amendment constitutes irreparable harm in the story. In the second amendment context, you now have three circuit court decisions on that exact issue. You have the ninth and the seventh circuit saying, yes, a violation of it constitutes per se irreparable harm.

And you have the third circuit saying, no, it doesn’t. So there is that circuit split issue, but apparently the Supreme Court didn’t want to resolve this particular question. Do you ever think the ninth would do that? Uh, no, California area. Just, just think. Yeah. Yeah. The ninth circuit is, uh, you know, has some nicknames, but the one thing we will say about the ninth circuit is, um, post Heller prior to Bruin, there were 52nd amendment cases that went through it. Um, and anytime, I guess another point of context here, when a case first goes to a circuit court, it’s usually heard by three judge panel.

Uh, rarely is it heard on bonk, which means the court is a whole and depending upon what circuit there’s more judges than others. But in 12 to 15 or a little more than that, um, anytime you panel in the ninth circuit found that a law was unconstitutional, it was reheard on bonk and the ninth circuit on bonk, which can overrule panel said, actually, this is perfectly fine. So, um, 100% as well. 100% of the time. 100% of the time. So all 50 instances in all 50 cases, this, uh, ninth circuit said, these are all constitutional.

Um, but that’s, that’s what that means. Okay. So, uh, we’re waiting on our assault weapon ban, magazine ban case and snow gravy Jennings still going. Um, you have another one that’s, uh, based out of California, but would it talk about it’ll basically stop the, the government, state government from stopping gun shows on government property. First off, there’s no such thing as government property. That’s our, that’s our taxpayer’s money, right? Okay. So tell the folks about that case. Sure. So they’re, they’re two of the two cases in the same vein. They’re out of different counties in California, but this one in particular, um, the state legislator, past, well, legislature passed a law, uh, that banned gun shows on, uh, fairgrounds.

Uh, they did it in OC and I forget the other one off the top where it was, but they banned it. And so we brought a challenge with some other groups, uh, saying that this is not only violation of second amendment rights, but also first amendment rights. So you’re right to, uh, you know, gather with like-minded people and exchange ideas and information. Uh, so that one is on a cert petition to the Supreme court after the ninth circuit upheld everything. Um, interestingly, the Supreme court called for a response to the petition.

Uh, there are instances where their cert petitions are filed and the opposing party, uh, just chooses not to file a response. I’ll let the court do whatever it’s going to do. Apparently the court was interested in hearing the government’s position on this one. So, uh, that was the other day and, you know, we’re going to wait to see what they file in response. And then we get a reply if we want and we’ll, uh, see what the court does with that one. Yeah, tomorrow morning could be a good, good thing to read.

Um, now you all have many, uh, lawsuits across the country on the 18 to 20 year olds and their rights to carry as adults. Yes. Um, how many cases do you have off top of your head? Uh, off the top of my head, I think we have five or six 18 to 20 year old cases. And I think I did a survey on this because I’m teaching a CIO on this issue at the end of the week. Uh, I think there are 15 active cases in the federal courts that deal with the 18 to 20 issue.

All right. Now that was a tough question. It’s not a got you. Tough question though. When I do the videos on those cases as they work their way through the system. Yes. I always get a couple that will push back and say 18 year olds, they’re not, they’re not of some mind anyway. You know, they’re, why should we trust them with a gun? Now people have heard me say why for 12 years now as an attorney fighting for the second amendment, what is your stance and why you’re bringing these lawsuits forward? It’s their constitutional right to be able to do it.

End of story. There you go. They’re part of the political community that, uh, you know, the court said in Heller and talked about in Bruin that these are part of the people. And if you look at what the text of the second amendment is, it’s for the people. Um, you know, the government has argued that at the time of the founding, the people, you know, were 21 plus there were arguments as to, you know, people’s legal capacity then. But of course at this time of the founding, only white landowning men could vote.

Uh, clearly that would be not okay today. Uh, just like, you know, how Indians were not people and black people were slaves. Uh, none of these would stand constitutional scrutiny today. So it’s no different in this context at all. And they were good enough to fight for our independence. They’re probably good enough to continue to keep it going, right? Yeah. All right. Uh, anything else you think that people should know about as far as cases you got that you really want to have on their forefront? Uh, I think the only other one I’d point out right now is another one at the Supreme Court and that would deal with the 18 to 20 issue.

So we, along with, uh, you know, Minnesota Governor’s caucus and some others had sued Minnesota over their ban on 18 to 20 year olds being able to carry firearms in public for self-defense. We won at the district court. We won at the eighth circuit. The state asked for unbound pre-hearing, which was just flat out denied. Uh, they just filed a cert petition for that. Uh, and we will be filing a response to that cert petition. So that’s another one that the Supreme Court could conceivably take up. Um, and, you know, it would settle a pretty important area of law to settle right now.

Yeah. So it’s a big one. All right. So that’s an update on some of the most pressing cases that second amendment foundation have on the, the different court cases around the country, including this, the, the United States Supreme Court. Give somebody the quick elevator pitch on why they should join the second amendment foundation. The negation is not cheap. That’s part of it. Um, also our track record. I mean, we’ve been around, as I was telling you, you know, since 1974, uh, during that time, you know, we’ve invested heavily into the scholarly community, public education.

And of course, our legal program has been world. We’ve worked with world-class lawyers. Uh, we still continue to work with world-class lawyers, delivering results that are beneficial for the second amendment. Um, you know, we look for areas where sometimes you have everything from the big issues that everybody cares about, like assault weapons, bans, and magazine capacity challenges down to more nuanced issues. Like, um, can green card holders have carry permits in states, you know, they can buy firearms. So we’ve, we’ve tackled everything from those issues. Public housing, uh, was another staff win earlier or late last year.

Um, so that’s really why is because we’re out there trying to ensure that the second amendment is secured, restored, and of course defended where needed. Awesome. Guys, in the link of every single video I do on this, this platform is a link to join second amendment foundation. If you’re already a member, click the link again and give, whether it’s five bucks or 500 bucks, we, the membership are the driving lifeblood of the ability of this man to file lawsuits. So support those who support you. And if there’s anything I can do to help y’all, I know I’ve said it a million times to you, I am at your disposal.

Again, thank you for being willing to do this series to update the, you know, the second amendment community on what’s actually going on. I think this is going to go a long way and it’ll help bring staff in front of people who might not be aware of you. And that’s the goal for this. Well, if it’s any comfort to the people at home, over 80% of every dollar that they give to staff goes directly to our work as well. So we’re, we’re good stewards of the money and we try to maintain, you know, make sure that your money goes towards what you’re giving us money to do.

And that’s one of the reasons I love them because they actually use your money to what we’re giving them the money for. So buddy, thank you so much. I appreciate you. And I have a good show and I’m sure I’ll see you at 900 times. Sounds good. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.