Your Membership Isn’t Just a Card

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In September 2025, Judge Reed O’Connor declared the federal post office carry ban unconstitutional. The government failed to persuade the court that a historical tradition of such bans existed, because there wasn’t one in over 200 years. The ban didn’t even exist until 1972.

The DOJ responded by asking the court to narrow the injunction to limit protection to specific named individuals and anyone who was a SAF member at the time the lawsuit was first filed, leaving everyone who joined after that date unprotected. Their position: yes, the law is unconstitutional, but we still want to enforce it against as many people as possible.

The court rejected that argument. The injunction stands for all SAF members, present and future.

…

Your membership isn’t just a card. It’s a federal court order standing between you and an unconstitutional law.

Dana Wilson
Director of Development / Major Gifts Officer
Second Amendment Foundation
Via email March 24, 2026

I believe SAF does really good work. I became a life member many years ago and have been donating over $1,000/year for at least a decade. If you are not already a member and want to join you can do that here. It is more than just a legal pass to carry in the U.S. Post Office, it is funding the slap down of anti-gunners all over the country.

Share

8 thoughts on “Your Membership Isn’t Just a Card”

  1. Reading Conquests’ laws makes me wonder what the SAF is doing to make damned sure it does not turn into the NRA and every other once sane organization that looked after Constitutional Rights?

  2. I have been donating money from time to time but this convinced me to become a member. I haven’t been in a Post Office for years but there could be other such cases.

  3. You have to wonder about the mental processes of a so-called judge who understands that he can’t just limit the 2nd Amendment to pre-existing SAF members, but nevertheless somehow holds that it only protects SAF members including future ones.
    Any honest judge obedient to the Supreme Law of the Land would know that it applies to everyone, whether a member of any organization or not.

    • There is precedent going back to at least 1958 with the NAACP getting relief for its membership but not all people of color. Part of the reasoning is that the court can only give relief to the parties before it. It is a bit more complicated than that. Ask your favorite AI friend for more history and details.

      • I wonder what the Bruen-style “text, history, and tradition” could possibly be to justify only providing relief to members of an organization.

        I mean (with full IANAL warning in effect), it seems to me that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law should have something to say about providing relief to some citizens but not all citizens.

        Or is there history and tradition of selective relief dating back to the Founding Era? [shrug]

  4. It has to do with court procedures. IANAL disclaimer, but if it had been a class action suit on behalf of all citizens, then the court could have applied the remedy more broadly.

    • This is because we have a court system and not a justice system. They value their procedure over the rights of citizens. And the rot starts at the very top with John Roberts.

      • To be fair to Roberts, it goes back way further than that. He’s just the latest at the top of the heap.

        The Warren court established a lot of the imperiousness of the SCOTUS, arrogating both legislative and executive powers to itself.

Comments are closed.