Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law
The following legal decisions concern the law of self-defense. Some of the rulings are final and others are not. They’re presented here, along with salient excerpts, to be read for their excellent judicial logic about the absolute civil right of armed self-defense as established by the framers of the US Constitution.
[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]
- US District Court for the District of Maine ruling: Andrea Beckwith, et al. v. Aaron Frey, Attorney General of Maine (February 13, 2025) by Chief US District Judge Lance E. Walker (pdf).
- This ruling grants a preliminary injunction blocking Maine’s 72-hour waiting period law for firearm purchases.
“The acquisition of firearms is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text.”
“If a citizen cannot take possession of a firearm then his or her right to possess a firearm or to carry it away is indeed curtailed….Acquiring a firearm is a necessary step in the exercise of keeping and bearing a firearm. Any interpretation to the contrary requires the type of interpretative jui jitsu that would make Kafka blush.”
“Firearms have always been articles of commerce. There is nothing novel or nefarious about that basic reality that would warrant torturing the concepts of keeping, bearing, or carrying to exclude from their meaning the acquisition or purchase of a firearm.”
“Because the act of acquiring a firearm, including by purchase, falls within the ambit of what it means to keep and bear arms, it is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.”
“[S]tatutory disarmament in the absence of individual cause is inimical to our Nation’s history and traditions. It is to the Second Amendment what a prior restraint is to the First. I have little trouble finding irreparable injury in this context. As with cases involving the First Amendment, even a temporary deprivation results in irreparable injury.” *
- Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, White County, Illinois ruling: State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown (February 10, 2025) by White County Circuit Court Judge T. Scott Webb (pdf).
- This ruling says the Second Amendment is sufficient to possess a gun in your home, and state-mandated cards are unconstitutional.
“[I]f there exists a place in this life where a person should feel safe and protected, it is within the confines of one’s home. Self-defense within one’s home should be honored and revered as nowhere else on Earth.”
“[T]he Defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her home, even without a valid [state-mandated] FOID [Firearms Owners Identification Card] card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”
“[T]he right to armed self-defense is the same outside of the home as it is inside.”
“Quite frankly, it is asinine to think that in this ‘land of the free and home of the brave,’ one must petition the government and pay a fee to be able to enjoy the fundamental Constitutional right to protect oneself inside one’s home.” *
[ Get the SemperVerus booklet, The Case for Biblical Self-Defense ]
