The Supreme Court of the United States has chosen not to hear a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs).
At issue in the case Rush v. United States is the federal government taxing and requiring registration of rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier upheld the law, saying SBRs are not “arms” covered by the Second Amendment, prompting plaintiffs to appeal in hopes the Supreme Court would consider the challenge. However, on December 15, the high court denied certiorari, leaving the ruling to stand.
In its brief to the Supreme Court seeking review of the case, the plaintiff argued that the lower court made the wrong decision in light of Supreme Court rulings.
“This Court’s precedent makes clear beyond doubt that the Second Amendment’s plain text ‘extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,’” the brief stated. “Yet the Seventh Circuit panel below denied that the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirements for short-barreled rifles even implicate the Second Amendment’s text. When the lower courts’ Second Amendment jurisprudence deems ordinary long arms to fall outside of the text of the Amendment altogether, that is a sign that the jurisprudence has taken a dangerously wrong turn. This Court should intervene.”
The petition also emphasized widespread confusion among lower courts over how to adjudicate restrictions on specific categories of arms—including not only SBRs, but also AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines. It further explained why the NFA’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately for lawful gun owners and the Second Amendment, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) took the wrong side on this case, as it has on a number of 2A challenges. In its brief to the Supreme Court, the DOJ argued that the high court should decline to hear the case, citing past court rulings.
“After Heller, several courts of appeals rejected Second Amendment challenges to the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and shotguns,” the brief stated. “Courts of appeals have continued to do so since Bruen.”
The government’s brief also argued that there is a historical precedent to uphold the law.
“In United States v. Miller, this Court upheld the application of the NFA to short-barreled shotguns, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess such weapons,” the brief stated. “The Court then reaffirmed Miller in Heller, explaining that ‘the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,’ and that this limitation is ‘fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
The DOJ brief did concede that at least some of the plaintiff’s arguments had merit.
“Some of the questions that petitioner raises may well warrant review in an appropriate case,” the brief stated. “But this case would be a poor vehicle for addressing those issues. Regardless of how the Court resolves the questions petitioner seeks to litigate, petitioner’s facial challenge to the NFA would fail for the reasons discussed above.”
Keep up with what SCOTUS is doing to your 2a rights on thetruthaboutguns.com
