Today we made our 10th filing in 10 years opposing various applications of what is known as the so-called “Lautenberg Amendment,” which purports to impose a lifetime ban on firearms ownership on those who commit certain misdemeanors. The anti-gun lobby seeks to strip gun ownership from as many persons as possible, even if the misdemeanor was a minor matter, involving neither firearms nor violence.
Today we filed our sixth brief opposing Obamacare, five of which briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe this will be the case that will have this terrible law struck down as the unconstitutional monstrosity it has been since it was enacted in 2010.
Today, we filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court opposing efforts to have the Court force homosexual marriage on the States and the People.
The brief was filed on behalf of: Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
Our firm filed yet another amicus curiae brief in our continuing effort to revitalize and extend the property basis of the Fourth Amendment. Here the case involved applying the Fourth Amendment to protect certain commercial records of hotels — guest registers.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a challenge to San Francisco’s gun storage and ammunition ordinances.
This decision comes as the latest in a long string of decisions wherein the lower federal courts simply have refused to implement the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller. As our amicus brief explains, the lower federal courts are in a state of open rebellion in the lower courts against Heller. Our amicus brief documents the lawless behavior of the lower federal courts, and urges the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
Today our firm filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court Review of two decisions of the California Courts which held that the California Secretary of State had no duty to determine whether a candidate for President of the United States is eligible to serve, if elected, before placing his name on the official state election ballot.
Our Petition explains that Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests in state legislatures the responsibility to determine how electors are selected and who is eligible to serve as president. In the early days of our Republic, as permitted by the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures in several states simply chose the electors directly without any popular vote. Now that electors are selected in every state by popular vote, state legislatures have the duty to ensure that voters are given a choice only between persons eligible to serve.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition the Obamacare healthcare “exchanges” created by the federal government contrary to the plain language of the statute.
The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) authorized tax credits only for taxpayers who purchase qualified health insurance through an “Exchange” which was established by a state. However, after ACA was enacted, state legislatures reflected popular opposition to Obamacare, and only 16 states created such Exchanges, despite being offered federal bribes to do so.
Tony Henderson was convicted in federal court of a felony drug crime. Before conviction, he had voluntarily turned over his firearms to the FBI. After conviction, knowing that, as a felon, he could no longer legally possess firearms under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), Henderson sold his firearms to a third party. Henderson then asked the FBI to transfer his firearms to that eligible third party buyer. The FBI refused, arguing that to do so would put Henderson into temporary “constructive possession” of the firearms.
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging that the Fourth Amendment be applied to all searches and seizures of automobiles. We asked the Court to leave no latitude for judges to compromise away the constitutionally-protected civil liberties of Americans to serve the “needs” of law enforcement.
In Rodriguez, a police officer in Nebraska stopped a Mercury Mountaineer occupied by two men that allegedly swerved onto the shoulder and then back onto the road. He wrote them a warning, and returned their licenses and other paperwork, ending the traffic stop. He then asked if they minded if he ran his drug dog around the car. The driver objected, but instead of letting them go, the officer detained them again, ordering them not to move until backup arrived. The drug dog “alerted” on the vehicle and the police found drugs.
Today, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress — not the courts — to decide.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the caseJohnson v. U.S., No. 13-7120.
The Petitioner, Johnson had been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Ordinarily, the trial judge would have had discretion to sentence Johnson up to 10 years in prison. However, the judge determined that Johnson met the definition of an “armed career criminal” under federal law, and thus subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years.
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a North Carolina man who challenged the constitutionality of his traffic stop. A police officer pulled Heien over because his car’s right rear brake light was not functioning properly. However, North Carolina law requires only one working rear “lamp.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina had ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires only that the police act “reasonably,” based on a judicial evaluation of the “totality of the circumstances.” Applying a type of freestanding balancing test derived from past Supreme Court cases, the court decided that it believed the police officer’s alleged mistake of law was a reasonable one. Thus, the old maxim has been revised to “ignorance of the law is no excuse — unless you are the one enforcing the law.”
On April 9, 2014, we filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of United States v. Wurie. The issue before the court is whether arresting officers can search the cell phone of a person arrested without a warrant. However, the underlying issue in Wurie and its companion case, Riley v. California, is whether the Court will continue to apply its evolving reasonable expectation of privacy test birthed in Katz v. United States to searches incident to arrest, or instead continue with its restoration of property principles begun inUnited States v. Jones and Florida v. Jardines.
Taking a page out of Orwell’s novel 1984, the Ohio Elections Commission operates as a modern “Ministry of Truth’ — with the power to “determine” and “proclaim” the truth or falsity of every statement made during an Ohio political campaign. Our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the government has no legitimate role whatsoever to play in guiding Americans as to how to vote.
In New Jersey, it is a crime to possess a firearm unless you can prove that you fit within one or more tightly-drawn statutory exemptions. One exemption allows a person to have a handgun on his own property, but he may not step one foot beyond unless the gun is fully disabled and he is heading to an approved destination.
New Jersey carry permits are like honest politicians — they are rumored to exist, but few have ever actually seen one. As one State legislator observed: “It is virtually never done.” An ordinary person may be granted a permit only if he can prove to the satisfaction of a judge that his life is in grave danger. Certain members of the privileged class of government workers are permitted to carry firearms; they need only prove that they are currently or were formerly employed in law enforcement.
The story is told of a grizzled Master Sargent who, reflecting on his years of service, said: “When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it’s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it’s mandatory.” So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights. First, the goal is said to be tolerance. Then, governmental approval and support. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance disappears, and the coercive force of government is used to eliminate any vestige of opposition. The Obamacare contraception/abortion mandate demonstrates that our nation is at the end of phase two, moving into phase three.
Every day we read about SWAT teams serving arrest warrants or search warrants at people’s homes, using no-knock raids in the middle of the night. Many of these police home invasions go wrong, with innocent people being shot, and sometimes killed, just because they were trying to defend themselves. Even criminals have learned to claim that they are the police while breaking into homes, to discourage resistance.
Today our firm has filed our third amicus brief in support of Chris Hedges and the other journalists and political activists who are challenging Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf), and its authorization of the military detention of civilians based on vague standards of providing “support” for an adversary of the United States.
On December 23, 2013, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Castleman, in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari. This case involves the meaning of the term “physical force” contained in the federal law defining misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (“MCDV”), popularly known as the Lautenberg Amendment
Passed in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment makes it a federal crime for a person to acquire or possess a firearm after he has been convicted of a MCDV. An MCDV is defined as a crime that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.”
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Abramski v. United States, in a case challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ (ATF) definition of what constitutes an illegal “straw purchase” of a firearm. This case involves one of the greatest instances of regulatory and prosecutorial abuse that we have ever seen.
The concept of a “straw purchase” is a “doctrine” created by ATF and the courts, rather than a “crime” enacted by Congress. Indeed, as pointed out in our brief, in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings, Senators Leahy and Schumer introduced a bill (that was not enacted) to outlaw straw purchases. If straw purchases were already illegal, then there would have been no need for such a bill to be introduced.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, et al. in the United States Supreme Court, in support of the respondents.
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the scope and limitations of the President’s recess appointment power.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Howard Wesley Cotterman v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the federal government may seize, copy, and forensically analyze the hard drive of a laptop of a U.S. citizen returning to the country, without a warrant, based merely on “reasonable suspicion.” Our amicus brief argues that the circuit court reached this decision by employing an atextual analytical approach, and the sanctioned search violates the Fourth Amendment ban on general searches. Further, the Supreme Court needs to provide guidance to lower courts on how the property basis of the Fourth Amendment should be applied to digital searches, using an analysis not based exclusively on ephemeral “expectations of privacy.” Under the circuit court’s approach, no one would be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures.