This late in the year, most state legislatures have adjourned, so NRA-ILA is looking at other areas to defend and advance our right to keep and bear arms. There is, of course, Congress, along with working with President Trump’s administration on bureaucratic changes. But this month, we highlight efforts in the judicial arena.
NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Ban on Firearms Possession by Nonviolent Felons
On October 9, the National Rifle Association, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the federal lifetime prohibition on firearms possession by nonviolent felons.
The case, Zherka v. Bondi, was brought by Selim Zherka, who pleaded guilty over a decade ago to a charge of conspiracy to make a false statement to a bank and to sign and file a false federal income tax return. Because the crime was punishable by over one year’s imprisonment, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), he is forever prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Our brief provides a detailed historical analysis demonstrating that peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons—were never disarmed throughout American history. From the earliest colonial days through the 19th century, the government disarmed only dangerous persons. Moreover, historically, upon completing their sentences, nonviolent offenders not only had full access to their Second Amendment protected rights, but also the able-bodied males were required to keep and bear arms under the state and federal militia acts. Therefore, the brief concludes, Section 922(g)(1) as applied to nonviolent felons is inconsistent with historical tradition and should be held unconstitutional.
NRA Files Another Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act
Also on October 9, the National Rifle Association—along with the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation—announced the filing of another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Jensen v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Originally, the NFA imposed a $200 tax and established a tax-enforcement registration regime for certain classes of firearms. However, President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) eliminated this tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” leaving only the registration requirement in place. The complaint in Jensen argues that, since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor under any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution.
The complaint also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And, the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration regime for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
The plaintiffs in the case include the Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Hot Shots Custom LLC, and three individuals. The case represents the second lawsuit brought by the NRA, ASA, FPC and SAF challenging the NFA since the OBBB eliminated the tax for various NFA items and builds upon Brown v. ATF, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 1.
Rehearing En Banc Sought in NRA-Supported Challenge to New Jersey’s Carry Restrictions
On October 8, the National Rifle Association announced the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in Siegel v. Platkin, a challenge to New Jersey’s carry restrictions.
In response to the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen, New Jersey passed a law making it illegal to carry a firearm in 26 categories and 115 subcategories of places that together cover nearly every square inch of public space throughout the state. The law also includes several other restrictions, including a requirement that carry-permit applicants provide references from four “reputable” non-relatives.
In September, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit invalidated some aspects of the law, but upheld carry bans in many categories of locations, including permitted events, public parks, beaches, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, bars, casinos and healthcare facilities, among others. The panel also upheld the requirement that applicants provide references from four “reputable” non-relatives.
The petition argues that the panel misapplied Bruen and emphasizes that the issues presented in the case are too important to allow the panel’s flawed decision to be the last word on the constitutionality of New Jersey’s outlier regime.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individuals.
Please be sure to visit nraila.org for updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit nraila.org/litigation to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.
