By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Call it a “victory” in name only, as the judge in a Second Amendment case has issued a ruling granting declaratory and injunctive relief only to the plaintiffs including three membership organizations, but limits the order to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and he wants membership lists of those groups in effect in November 2020.
The case is known as Reese v. ATF, filed Nov. 6, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. It seeks to expand the Second Amendment rights of young adults in the 18-20-year age group, allowing them to purchase handguns. The lawsuit was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Louisiana Shooting Association (LAS) and three private citizens, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is named.
In the two-page ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert R. Summerhays, a Donald Trump appointee, the Court entered a declaratory judgment to the plaintiffs and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of SAF, FPC or LSA “at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.”
But then, three paragraphs later, Judge Summerhays ordered the three plaintiff groups to “provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.” Defendants in this case are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF director and the U.S. Attorney General.
FPC issued a blistering statement in which it declared the ruling to be “legally baseless and morally bankrupt.”
“Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent,” FPC said, “the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.
“To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will,” the group said.
Likewise, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a statement to the press, “The practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals. What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb added that the Summerhays ruling “challenges commonly accepted standards of associational standing and relief.”
“SAF brings these cases on behalf of our members and through the generous support of our members,” Gottlieb stated. “When we win, the relief we’ve secured rightly flows through to the entire membership and not just a small subset.”
Earlier this year, SAF recalled, a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the young adult handgun purchase ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case was remanded back to the District Court, and Judge Summerhays issued his ruling Tuesday with its geographical limit and membership disclosure requirement.
Judge Summerhays’ ruling could create a constitutional dilemma on three levels, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, where they apply to freedom of association, privacy and equal protection.
There is also the problem with limiting this ruling to the Fifth Circuit. Similar cases in other circuits could result in equal membership list demands, and conflicting rulings. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court would have to wade in and settle the differences.
