SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN OREGON GUN CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and two other West Coast gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of an Oregon man convicted of illegally transferring a machine gun.

SAF is joined in the brief by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Second Amendment Law Center. They are not directly involved in the case, known as U.S. v. Daniel Matthew Kittson. The amicus urges the 9th Circuit to, at a minimum, remand the matter back to the district court “so it can conduct a proper historical review as required by Bruen,” which it did not do. SAF, CRPA and the Law Center are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer in Caldwell, Idaho, and C.D. Michel, Joshua Robert Dale, Konstadinos T. Moros and Alexander A. Frank at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California.

Kittson was convicted of trying to sell a Russian PPSh-41 machine gun. He is a convicted felon already, and has been sentenced to a term in federal prison. SAF and its partners contend such a conviction should be the result of deciding the case on the proper grounds.

“We are not defending Mr. Kittson or taking either side in this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our interest is to insure the lower court conducts a historical analysis of the law as required under the Bruen decision. We are asking for a reversal of the court’s decision or a remand back to the district court for proper historical review.”

“SAF does not typically get involved in criminal matters,” stated SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, a practicing attorney. “We’re filing the brief because it appears the district court refused to conduct the historical analysis required in the 2022 Bruen ruling. We’re not taking a position about whether the appellant, Mr. Kittson, may possess firearms, nor are we taking any position on the constitutionality of the federal law which he was convicted of violating. Our sole interest is in making certain the district court conducts the required historical analysis.”