Quinn v. Texas
(opposing government use of “no knock” raids based on gun ownership)

admin Firearms Law

The Quinn case involves both the Second and Fourth Amendments, relating to a no-knock raid by the police.  Police executed a warrant to search John Quinn’s home, looking for drugs owned by his son who lived there.  Rather than honor the age-old practice of knocking on the door and announcing themselves, the police battered down Quinn’s door, shooting him when he understandably reached for his handgun to defend himself from what he thought was a burglary.  The police justified the no-knock raid solely because they believed that Quinn owned firearms. Read More

United States v. Castleman
(opposing unreasonable application of Lautenberg Amendment)

admin Firearms Law

This case arises under the so-called Lautenburg Amendment of 1997, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968.  The government argued for an expansive definition of what constitutes a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence, under which a person who engages in offensive touching, pushing, or even spitting in the context of a domestic relationship meets the federal requirement of “physical force.”  The penalty for such an act is a lifetime ban on firearms ownership, and even innocent efforts to purchase or possess a firearm can result in the person becoming a felon. Read More

Abramski v. United States
(defending right of former police officer to buy gun for elderly uncle)

admin Firearms Law

Abramski is a Second Amendment case challenging ATF’s use of its “straw purchase” doctrine to convict one eligible person who bought a firearm for another eligible person.  When buying a gun, a person is asked on the ATF Form 4473 if he is the “actual buyer,” even though federal law only requires him to be the “transferee.”  Congress never actually criminalized “straw purchases,” and it is not up to ATF or the courts to create new crimes in order to fill in the perceived blanks.  The government argued that the gun dealer was “required” to keep information about the “actual buyer,” but federal law requires him to keep only the identity of the “transferee” — the person physically present to obtain the firearm. Read More

Skoien v. U.S., Amicus Brief

admin Firearms Law

On November 15, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Steven Skoien v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner Skoien. Read More

Heller II, Amicus Brief

admin Firearms Law

On July 30, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Dick Anthony Heller v. District of Columbia in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Our amicus brief was the only amicus brief filed in support of the challenge by appellant Dick Heller and others to portions of the D.C. Code that (i) require registration of all firearms, (ii) prohibit registration of so-called “assault weapons” and (iii) prohibit possession of so-called “high capacity” magazines. Read More

Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago, Amicus Brief

admin Firearms Law

On November 23, 2009, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners’ challenge to an ordinance banning handguns in Chicago. The amicus brief argues that the Chicago handgun ban unconstitutionally abridges petitioners’ right to keep and bear arms, a privilege or immunity belonging to them as United States citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It also explains that no wholesale change in the Supreme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is required to rule that the Chicago ordinance unconstitutionally abridges petitioners’ right to keep and bear arms. Further, it asserts that incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms into the Due Process Clause would result in weak and potentially transitory protection of that right.

admin Firearms Law

Firearms Law


“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

One of CLDEF’s highest priorities is protecting and defending the Second Amendment.  Our work focuses on building on the victories achieved in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases, and rolling back draconian gun control laws across the land.  CLDEF opposes all gun registration and licensing requirements, regulation of firearms dealers, weapons bans, ammunition bans, etc.

CLDEF urges state and federal courts and agencies to apply the Second Amendment by looking to the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court identified in Heller.  This standard stands in stark contrast to the judge-empowering “balancing tests” (e.g., strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis) that many courts prefer to apply in cases to uphold all manner of restrictions on firearms.  As Justice Scalia explained, the Founders did the balancing.  It does not matter what modern federal judges think as to the wisdom of the Second Amendment.

Many politicians and liberals claim that firearms ownership should be subject to “reasonable regulation,” but we do not concede that.  First, what Senator Diane Feinstein thinks is “reasonable” is somewhat different than what others may think.  Second, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — not that it may be reasonably regulated.

CLDEF fights to protect citizens’ rights to keep and bear all types of “arms,” including what are pejoratively described as “assault weapons,” “large capacity magazines,” and “armor piercing ammunition.”  The “arms” described in the Second Amendment referred to modern military weapons of that time — which now includes all modern military weapons of this time.

Below are some of the Firearms Law matters in which CLDEF has been involved.