We’ve been waiting for this moment for our entire lives!
I was very young when Bill Clinton signed the so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ ban into law but our family thought that surely the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) would step in and stop it.
Many of you likely expected the same thing.
But that never happened.
Thankfully, the Clinton Gun Ban had a 10-year sunset clause and when then-Senator Mike DeWine tried to renew it, Congress refused and in 2004, the law expired.
Instead, Democrat-controlled states went into overdrive, making it a crime to buy an AR-15 or similar rifles.
Today, ten states ban the sale of AR-15s and Democrats in Congress are working hard to extend this ban to every gun owner in America.
For years, these bans were challenged in lower courts.
And every single time, these bans were upheld.
That’s why I am thrilled to tell you that the Supreme Court has just agreed to take up two different cases challenging the constitutionality of the so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ ban!!!
By agreeing to hear both Viramontes v. Cook County AND Grant v. Higgins, Clarence Thomas has given the Court two chances to get this right!
But now that the Court has agreed to hear these cases, dozens of Soros/Bloomberg-backed organizations will rush to flood the Court with amicus briefs, arguing for the AR-15 ban.
We can’t let them be the only voices heard in court.
That’s why Minnesota Gun Rights has already conferred with our legal team, who are already working to file our amicus brief before the deadline.
I want to make sure that you understand why this is the BEST TIME for this case to be heard.
When Clinton signed his ban in 1994, the legal landscape for gun owners was terrible. Thirty years later, that’s changed.
In their 2008 Heller decision, SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment is an individual right — not something reserved for the government.
Their 2010 McDonald decision extended Heller to the states under the 14th Amendment, limiting some local gun control laws.
Then came twelve years of…nothing.
Lower courts used a balancing test known as “means-end scrutiny” when deciding gun rights cases. That allowed judges to uphold virtually every gun control law by claiming it served “public safety.”
It was a rubber stamp for judicial gun control.
But that came to a screeching halt with the 2022 Bruen decision. Written by Justice Clarence Thomas himself, Bruen shredded the means-end scrutiny standard and instead required historical analogues.
This means that for a gun control law to be considered constitutional, the government must show similar laws on the books at the time the Second Amendment was ratified!
In plain English: if the government wants to ban a firearm today, it must prove similar restrictions existed in the late 1700’s, when the Second Amendment was ratified.
It’s been a total gamechanger.
And it’s why gun owners have won more Second Amendment victories in court over the last four years than we have in the last forty-four years.
Between the major change in Supreme Court legal precedent since 1994 and the current makeup of the Court, I’m sure you can see why this is THE TIME to have the ‘assault weapon’ fight. 
But victory is never assured at these levels.
Not only that, it is important to make sure that if we win this fight, it’s won using arguments that will last generations.
Many lawyers will undoubtedly use the ‘Common Use’ argument that the Court has cited in the past. If an item is in common use, the government has a higher burden when trying to ban it.
The problem is that “common use” becomes a moving target. Take Illinois, for example. Their version of the AR-15 ban just took effect, and it’s very hard to buy an AR-15 there now.
As the years pass, fewer Illinoisans will legally own AR-15s. Twenty years from now, the number of rifles in lawful circulation will be far lower than it is today.
Relying on ‘Common Use’ then becomes a real problem.
What happens when the government bans AR-15s and they become less common? Are gun owners then going to have to agree in court that the government can ban our AR-15s?
Of course not. And that’s why we shouldn’t rely exclusively on this argument when SCOTUS takes up these cases.
So while our lawyers are going to reference ‘Common Use’ in passing — checking the box, so to speak — our arguments will focus on our God-given right to own an AR-15.
That is just the beginning.
We’ll build on the Heller and Bruen decisions and show that there were no historical examples of similar rifle bans during the late 1700’s.
Why do we need this in Minnesota, where an AR-15 ban hasn’t been passed yet? That’s easy. Neither you nor I have any idea what St Paul will look like in 2027 or any year that follows.
We need to lock this victory down now, while we can.
If we win, we’ll be securing freedom for our grandchildren.
If we lose, the Democrats (and RINOs) still must pass an AR-15 ban through the Minnesota Legislature, and we’ll go overboard making damn sure that does not happen.
The upside is enormous. The downside in Minnesota is almost zero. Thirty-two years after Bill Clinton banned AR-15s, this is the moment we’ve been waiting for. And I hope you’ll join us.
Minnesota Gun Rights MUST raise $28,250 to fund our amicus brief — and we have to do it fast. Our written brief is due in mid-September. Oral arguments are expected in October, and the Supreme Court will likely issue its decision next June. If you can afford a gift of $250 or $150, now is the time.
But your donation of $100, $50, or even $25 puts you on the front lines of securing the biggest gun rights legal victory of our lives!
We don’t have much time. Please send us your donation NOW!
For Minnesota,
Ben Dorr
Executive Director
Minnesota Gun Rights
P.S. Since the day Bill Clinton signed the 10-year AR-15 ban into law in 1994, gun owners have waited for the chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in on the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. Now it’s happening!
And with Clarence Thomas still on the bench — and the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions on the books — now is the best time in history to have this fight in court!