The fight over short-barreled rifles (SBRs) isn’t just about barrel length — it’s about whether courts will follow the clear rules laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), or whether they’ll find creative ways to sidestep them.
In Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis. Instead, it leaned entirely on U.S. v. Miller (1939), treating that 86-year-old case about short-barreled shotguns as if it automatically decided the SBR question. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the Second Amendment Law Center, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case — and to set the record straight.
Step One: SBRs Are “Arms” Under the Second Amendment
Under Bruen, the test is simple:
Does the “plain text” of the Second Amendment cover the conduct?
If yes, does the government’s restriction align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
SAF argues the first step isn’t complicated. “All firearms constituted ‘arms,’” Heller explained, citing founding-era sources (554 U.S. at 581). Short-barreled rifles are still rifles — the difference is just a few inches of barrel. The Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to even engage in historical analysis is what Justice Thomas has criticized in other cases as courts giving “a judicial middle finger” to the Supreme Court’s precedents (Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852, 890 (9th Cir. 2025) (R. Nelson, J., dissenting)).
Click the link to read the whole article: Activist Courts Twisting Law on 2nd Amendment Rights
No comments:
Post a Comment