Over the past few weeks, I have been updating you regarding the 18-20 handgun ban in Reese v. ATF. Most recently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the Eastern District of Louisiana and sent the case back to the district court for additional review. Regrettably, the District Court adopted a very restrictive approach in its injunction.
Catching Up
The District Court’s order limits the organizational membership relief to individuals who were members of the plaintiff groups as of November 6, 2020, and reside within the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Additionally, the court required the plaintiff organizations to submit a list of these affected members within 21 days of the judgment. Unsurprisingly, this decision has sparked outrage among SAF members and Second Amendment advocates.
In short order, the Second Amendment Foundation took action to prevent such an blatant information grab from occurring. Executive Director Adam Kraut had this to say:
“Once we read the judge’s order, we took quick and decisive action to ensure our member data will not be supplied to anyone, much less the government. Thankfully, the Department of Justice agreed with our position and has joined in this motion to amend the judgment. However, it should still be made extremely clear, SAF has never – and will never – provide the government a list of our members, and we won’t be strong-armed into turning over the private data of those who support SAF and the Second Amendment.”
Vacated Order
Thankfully, a U.S. District Court has overturned its previous order requiring the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to provide the government with its membership list. This decision follows a joint motion to amend the judgment filed late last week by SAF, its partner organizations, and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
From the United States District Court Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division:
ORDER: “Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment [ECF No. 83], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment of this Court issued on October 7, 2025 [ECF No. 82] is VACATED. The Court will set a telephone conference at its earliest opportunity to: (1) set a hearing on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, and (2) set a briefing schedule, if necessary. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 10th day of October, 2025.”
SAF Response
From Bill Slack, SAF Director of Legal Operations:
“We had no intention of releasing any private membership data and were prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure our member list was not disclosed to the government. Luckily, the court responded to our joint motion promptly and vacated its original order. With that order vacated and a phone conference forthcoming as to the proper scope of relief, it appears we will have more updates on the Reese order in the near future.”
Zooming Out
Although the final decision of the Eastern District leaves us wanting more, the court fortunately overturned the attempt to seize private information. SAF and other organizations have a duty to protect the anonymity of their members.
For more Outdoor HUB news, click here.
Sources:
Trending Products
