Failed 28th Amendment Author Wants SCOTUS to Gut Arms Rights
David A. Robinson wants the Supreme Court to declare part of the Second Amendment extinct. His amicus brief supports the assault weapon bans under challenge in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. He asks the justices to read the right to keep and bear arms as covering only self-defense and hunting for food. Supporting briefs are due this Wednesday, and Robinson's filing is already public. His argument starts with a failed campaign: a self-published book and a proposed 28th Amendment that no member of Congress or the White House would sponsor. Now he wants the Court to finish the job he could not start.
Key Details
The brief arrives early in a wave of filings expected before the deadline. The facts that matter are these:
- Cases: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, both challenging assault weapon bans.
- Deadline: This Wednesday for supporting amicus briefs.
- Requested holding: The prefatory clause is extinct, and the right extends only to self-defense and hunting for food.
- Book and ad spending: Robinson says he spent $5,300 advertising his self-published book and proposed amendment on Amazon, plus roughly $1,000 on Facebook ads.
- Outreach: He contacted members of Congress, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and later President Donald Trump. He pitched a Nobel Peace Prize link to Trump. None took up the proposal.
- Analogies: He compares magazine capacity limits to highway speed limits. He also likens the militia clause to Major League Baseball's former exclusion of Black players.
- Dobbs argument: He urges the Court to treat semiautomatic firearms the way it treated abortion in Dobbs, as unprotected and open to legislative choice.
- Fictional dialogue: The brief includes an invented classroom exchange between a teacher and a 9-year-old about AR-15s.
Background
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 struck down a handgun ban in the District and recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller also held that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. The Court tied protection to arms in common use for lawful purposes. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 set a text-and-history test for modern gun laws. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that same year addressed an unenumerated right, abortion, which is the distinction Robinson's comparison ignores. The Constitution's Article V amendment process requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Robinson's campaign never came close to that threshold. Earlier in 2025, the justices declined to take up Snope v. Brown, a Maryland assault weapon case, and Ocean State Tactical, a magazine case from Rhode Island. Federal law still defines the unorganized militia at 10 U.S.C. 246, which Robinson concedes in his own brief.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Owners in Illinois feel this case first. Viramontes arises from Cook County, and Illinois enforces a statewide assault weapon ban signed in 2023. Owners of AR-platform rifles, detachable magazines over the state limit, and similar semiautomatic firearms carry the direct risk. A ruling that narrows the Second Amendment to hunting and self-defense would not stay confined to Illinois. Every state with a similar ban would cite it, and every pending challenge would face a new argument. Gun owners in other states should watch the docket closely. If the Court grants review, the briefing will shape how judges treat the common-use test for the next decade. Track the case through the Supreme Court docket and the filings from major litigation groups. Read the briefs on both sides. Pay attention to which parties file amicus support and which states join them.
DownRange Analysis
This brief will not persuade five justices. The prefatory-clause theory runs headlong into Heller, which held the operative clause protects an individual right regardless of the militia purpose. Bruen then required the government to justify modern gun laws with historical analogues. Robinson offers no such analogues. He offers a fictional schoolroom and a baseball comparison. The Dobbs analogy fails on its own terms, since the Second Amendment names the right and abortion does not appear in the Constitution. The real risk lies elsewhere. Lower courts divided on AR-15 and magazine bans, and the justices have hesitated to take a clean vehicle. A bizarre brief does not change that, but it does keep the issue alive. What should gun owners do right now? Keep your firearms lawful and documented. Support the litigation funds that carry these cases. Contact your state legislators before the next ban vote. Do not panic-buy over a brief that the Court has not even agreed to hear.
