TRACT Optics

SAF - Graham v. Jennings - DE Magazine Ban in Federal Court

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • adit

    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    FYI - This is a separate lawsuit from the one DSSA filed
    discussed here -


    Via Email:

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the magazine ban adopted by the State of Delaware in June 2022, alleging the ban to be unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth amendments. The case is known as Graham v. Jennings .

    SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Owen Stevens and Christopher Graham. They are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman of Wilmington, Delaware. Named as the defendant is Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, in her official capacity. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

    Plaintiffs are asking the court for a declaratory judgement that Delaware’s ban on standard capacity magazines, and all related regulations are unconstitutional. This would extend to policies and/or customs designed to enforce or implement the ban.

    In addition, they are asking for preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the state and its employees, and anyone acting in concert or participating with them, from enforcing Delaware’s magazine ban.

    “The law in question, known as Senate Bill No. 6, literally criminalizes one of the most common and important means by which Delaware citizens can exercise their right of self-defense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In effect, SB 6 makes self-defense a potential criminal act, and that must not be allowed to stand.”

    SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added, “In todays’ environment with reduced police manpower, there is no guarantee that emergency calls to law enforcement will bring anything resembling a swift response. In the meantime, citizens must be able to rely on their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and those rights must be protected.” The lawsuit notes the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen affirmed the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct and the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must justify its regulation by demonstrating it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.



    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    We'll see if he is a man of his word.

    4. In general, Supreme Court precedents are binding on all lower federal courts and Circuit Court precedents are binding on the district courts within the particular circuit. Are you committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect, even if you personally disagree with such precedents?

    Response: Yes.


    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Latest member

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom