The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States, a National Firearms Act case involving a Navy veteran sentenced to 20 years in federal prison after being convicted on machinegun and destructive-device counts. SAF filed the amicus brief with the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The brief does not simply ask the Court to revisit the facts of Adamiak’s prosecution. It asks the justices to address a larger Second Amendment problem: lower courts are using the “plain text” step of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to avoid the historical analysis that Bruen requires.
SAF’s brief calls the facts of Adamiak’s case “outrageous” and describes his situation as a “miscarriage of justice,” but its main legal argument is aimed at how courts are applying Bruen after Heller, Caetano, Bruen, and Rahimi.
Adamiak enlisted in the Navy at 17, served overseas, had orders to report to BUD/S, and was a gun collector who sold legal gun parts before a paid ATF informant falsely reported that he possessed a Mk-19 grenade launcher. After a search and trial, Adamiak was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.
AmmoLand has covered Adamiak’s case extensively, including prior reporting on the disputed evidence, ATF classifications, and the broader argument from Adamiak’s supporters that the prosecution reflects agency overreach. The latest development is the Supreme Court amicus brief and its Second Amendment argument. SAF points the Court to the investigative work done on Adamiak’s case, noting that its Investigative Journalism Project has covered the case across almost 40 articles.
The Fourth Circuit gave Adamiak only a limited win. The appeals court agreed that one of his convictions and consecutive sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, remanding for resentencing. But the court otherwise affirmed, stating that “Only his Double Jeopardy argument succeeds.” The court also said Adamiak’s Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by Fourth Circuit precedent, including Bianchi v. Brown and United States v. Hunt.
SAF argues that if the government is going to treat the items at issue as firearms under the NFA, then Adamiak’s prosecution necessarily implicates the Second Amendment. The brief says that if the items are illegal weapons, the plain text is implicated, and a historical analysis should have been completed. If they are not weapons, SAF argues, then the charges make no sense.
The brief frames this as a chance for the Supreme Court to clarify what an “arm” is under the Second Amendment. SAF argues that lower courts have created a restrictive “Goldilocks” test at the plain-text stage, allowing the government to avoid its historical burden. Under that approach, courts can say some claims are too far removed from “keep” and “bear,” while other claims fail because the plaintiff has not produced enough statistical evidence showing that a specific arm is commonly used for self-defense.
SAF argues that this gets Bruen backwards. The brief says the “common use” question may matter when courts analyze historical tradition, but it should not be used to decide whether an item is an “arm” in the first place. The brief points to Heller’s broad definition of arms and argues that lower courts are carving weapons, components, and accessories out of the Second Amendment one category at a time.
That issue matters beyond Adamiak. If courts can say gun parts, accessories, or related conduct fall outside the Second Amendment before the government ever has to produce historical analogues, then Bruen’s protection becomes easy to evade. SAF warns that this same logic has been used in cases involving magazines, stun guns, acquisition rights, and other Second Amendment-adjacent conduct.
The brief also argues that Bruen is not supposed to be a new two-step test. SAF says the analysis is “one step: history and tradition.” Once a firearm regulation implicates the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the government to show the law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said lower courts are distorting Bruen by turning the plain-text inquiry into a restrictive test that lets the government avoid history.
“Lower courts continue to distort Bruen by turning the ‘plain text’ step into a restrictive Goldilocks test that lets the government evade its historical burden entirely,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “If cut-up gun parts and inert training aids are being regulated as ‘firearms’ under the NFA, they are presumptively ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment and require historical analogues. Patrick Adamiak should not be spending decades in prison because, among other abuses, courts refuse to apply the Supreme Court’s precedents faithfully.”
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said Adamiak’s case shows the “human cost” of lower courts refusing to apply Bruen faithfully.
“This case highlights the human cost of lower courts’ refusal to faithfully apply Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A Navy veteran is behind bars over inert gun parts, yet his Second Amendment claim was never even heard on the merits. SAF and its partners are committed to defending the right to keep and bear arms against this kind of judicial abuse, and we believe the Supreme Court must intervene.”
For AmmoLand readers, the case is important for two reasons. First, Adamiak remains a central example of the controversy surrounding ATF classifications and NFA prosecutions. Second, the amicus brief gives the Supreme Court a clean legal question: when the government prosecutes someone under federal firearms law, can courts avoid the Second Amendment by narrowing what counts as “arms” before the historical test ever begins?
The brief asks the Supreme Court to grant Adamiak’s petition or at least hold the case pending another case that resolves the same Second Amendment issues.
The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. SAF’s brief argues that some lower courts are still treating it like one by shifting the burden back onto gun owners and avoiding the historical inquiry Bruen requires. Adamiak’s case now asks the justices whether they are willing to stop that practice before more Americans are forced to fight the government under a watered-down version of the right to keep and bear arms.
Gun Owners Should Write President Trump & Demand a Pardon for Patrick “Tate” Adamiak
