By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of Armed Attorneys.

Imagine a legal brief that calls the constitutional right to bear arms a “deadly myth”—and then tries to convince the nation’s highest court to erase that right entirely. That’s exactly what a new amicus filing is attempting, and its arguments have set off alarm bells among gun‑rights advocates.

What the Brief Claims

The brief, authored by attorney Carmanella Athena Russo, contends that the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision was wrongly decided and should be overturned. It leans on pre‑Miller Supreme Court cases, suggesting that earlier rulings aimed to keep firearms away from newly freed Black Americans—a point the hosts describe as “awful” and historically misplaced. The brief also echoes Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller, framing the decision as a myth that encourages dangerous gun ownership.

“One of the subheadings in this amicus brief is actually the Heller decision both rests upon and promotes the deadly myth of guns for protection,” the hosts note, highlighting the brief’s central premise.

Why the Argument Misses the Mark

Richard D. Hayes and Emily Taylor argue that the brief’s reliance on antiquated cases ignores modern data showing firearms can deter crime. They reference a study—likely by John Lott—indicating that 36% of mass‑shooting incidents in the past fifteen years were stopped by armed civilians. “The good people, the people who want to follow the law, are the ones who stop horrible things from happening,” they assert, emphasizing the protective role many gun owners play.

The hosts also point out the logical flaw in assuming that confiscating all guns would eliminate violence. “If we confiscate all the guns, criminals will just turn to other weapons,” they argue, comparing the scenario to drug prohibition, which has not eradicated drug use.

Broader Legal Context: The Viramontes Case

While the brief targets Heller, the conversation inevitably turns to the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the Viramontes case, which challenges an assault‑weapon ban in Texas. The outcome could determine whether modern sporting rifles like the AR‑15 are protected under the Second Amendment. Hayes and Taylor stress that a decision favoring gun rights would safeguard these firearms, while a reversal of Heller could open the door to broader restrictions.

“Hopefully they rule that we have the right to have firearms, we have the right to our AR‑15s and that they are protected by the Second Amendment,” the hosts say, underscoring the stakes for gun owners nationwide.

Political Implications Ahead of the Election

With the November 3rd election looming, the hosts tie the legal battle to civic participation, urging listeners to vote: “Vote like your rights depend on it. Because they do.” They suggest that a Supreme Court decision overturning Heller could become a rallying point for both sides, influencing voter turnout and campaign narratives.

Moreover, the brief’s authors, Americans Against Gun Violence, advocate for measures seen in the UK and Australia—complete bans on handguns and universal registration. Hayes and Taylor counter that such policies have led to government overreach in those nations, citing examples like jail time for “mean tweets” and COVID‑related restrictions, questioning whether those outcomes are desirable for the United States.

What This Means for Gun Rights Advocates

The discussion concludes that the brief represents a serious threat to established Second Amendment jurisprudence. By framing guns as unnecessary, it seeks to shift the burden of proof onto law‑abiding citizens, a reversal of the current legal standard that requires the government to justify restrictions.

Hayes and Taylor emphasize that the protective value of firearms is not a myth but a documented reality, and they warn that erasing Heller would undermine the legal foundation that has protected law‑abiding gun owners for over a decade.

In the end, the hosts call on their audience to stay informed, engage in the political process, and support organizations that defend constitutional rights. “We’re the Armed Attorneys,” they say, “and we’ll keep fighting for your right to self‑defense.”

The full episode of Armed Attorneys is available on OBBM Network TV.