Track Legislation in Your State with

the Sportsmen’s Alliance Legislative Action Center!

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to block Maryland’s Gun Industry Accountability Act, or House Bill 947, that attempts to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA prohibits frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold legal firearms by remote third parties. NSSF also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown.

Maryland’s Gun Industry Accountability Act is part of a coordinated effort by antigun state legislatures, their attorneys general and gun control special interest groups to engage in lawfare against the firearm industry as an “end run” around the bipartisan PLCAA which Congress passed in 2005. Read more

The State of Colorado has followed California’s radically anti-rights example by enacting unconstitutional new taxes on firearms, parts, and ammunition. This abusive new strategy from these states is dangerous and must be stopped. That is why the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Colorado’s new tax that targets gun owners and their constitutionally protected rights.

What We’re Working to Achieve

We are working to accomplish two things through this lawsuit:

1) Permanently ending this unconstitutional tax in Colorado; and,

2) Ending similar taxes on guns and ammunition nationwide.

Get in the Fight — Support the Case! Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is calling a decision by Lake County, Ill., Judge Jorge L. Ortiz to allow a wrongful death lawsuit against Smith & Wesson to proceed “outrageous.”

Seven people were killed and dozens more were injured when Robert Crimo III opened fire at a July 4, 2022 parade in Highland Park. He has pleaded guilty in the case and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. His father also pleaded guilty on seven felony counts of reckless conduct for signing his son’s Illinois Firearm Ownership Identification (FOID) card, according to a report by CBS News.

“Such legal actions are precisely why Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) back during the George W. Bush administration,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Smith & Wesson is no more responsible for the evil act committed by the Highland Park shooter than a car manufacturer would be if some drunk behind the wheel smashed into a school bus and caused a fatal crash.”

“Smith & Wesson, like any number of other manufacturers in other industries, had absolutely no control over the criminal misuse of their product,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Allowing these types of lawsuits to proceed only invites further litigation against firearms manufacturers to drive them out of business through lawfare. While such an end result may be the desired effect by the anti-gun crowd, it would be detrimental to the exercise of Second Amendment rights and also national defense.”

More than 20 years ago, several cities tried to sue the firearms industry in an effort to hold gun makers and firearms retailers responsible for violent crimes committed by people over whom they had no control. These legal actions were dubbed “junk lawsuits” by the industry, and only succeeded in costing gun companies millions of dollars in legal fees.

“The argument today is essentially the same used almost 25 years ago,” Gottlieb recalled. “They are accusing Smith & Wesson of marketing practices aimed at teens and younger people, in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws, which is nonsense. This legal action appears solely designed to cost the company millions of dollars in an attempt to drive it out of business. We’re aware the plaintiffs have been working with billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, which has previously supported lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry, thus depriving consumers from purchasing firearms and exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.”

For more information, visit saf.org. Read more

Monday, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), together with the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Colorado State Shooting Association, Magnum Shooting Center, and an NRA member, filed a lawsuit challenging Colorado’s 6.5% excise tax on the retail sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition.

Colorado’s tax is set to take effect on April 1, 2025. The tax is levied on vendors, but the amount is passed through to law-abiding Coloradans every time they purchase such constitutionally protected items. The law also imposes burdensome registration and recordkeeping requirements on vendors and subjects them to harsh punishments for violations.

“Colorado’s firearms excise tax is an overt assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Coloradans and a deliberate attempt to discourage the exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “Recently, anti-gun activists in Colorado have been adopting California’s radical gun control agenda to systematically erode gun rights in the state. We are pleased to join with other Second Amendment advocates in this lawsuit to protect and defend the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

The United States Supreme Court recognized long ago that a right to tax is essentially a power to destroy. Thus, the Court has repeatedly held that the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be singled out for special taxation. But Colorado’s law does precisely that, penalizing Coloradans for exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms through an infringement-by-taxation scheme. Read more

In November of 2024, Colorado created a 6.5% state excise tax to be paid by vendors on the sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts to consumers located in Colorado. The excise tax does not apply to wholesale sales or sales to peace officers, active-duty U.S. military personnel, and law enforcement. The provisions of “Proposition KK” are codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-37-101, et seq.

Who Does This Apply To?

For the tax Colorado defines a “vendor” as a person or company doing business as an ammunition vendor, firearms dealer, or firearms manufacturer. All Colorado Vendors must register with the Colorado Department of Revenue by April 1, 2025, and file annual registration renewals. Vendors must keep complete and accurate records to determine their correct tax liability, including itemized invoices of all taxable products sold to Colorado consumers.

Vendors that do not have a location in Colorado must register when annual retail sales into the state exceed $20,000. This includes online sales, catalog sales, etc. If sales in Colorado are $20,000 or less for the prior calendar year, the vendor must register by the 1st of the month 90 days after retail sales exceed $20,000 for the calendar year.

Firearm Ammunition FAQs

Firearm industry vendors must register with the Colorado Department of Revenue by April 1, 2025. Failure to register opens vendors to back payment requirements and potential penalties. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting petitioners in a case known as Andrew Hanson, et. al. v. District of Columbia, et. al., challenging the District’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” capable of holding more than ten cartridges.

SAF is joined by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The case has national implications and the amicus brief calls the court’s attention to the fact that the federal circuit courts are divided on the question whether magazines are “arms,” what constitutes “common use,” and whether arms most useful for military service are protected by the Second Amendment.

SAF is represented by attorney Adam Kraut, who is SAF’s executive director. NRA is represented by attorneys Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

“In our brief,” Kraut noted, “we remind the court that repeating arms predate the Second Amendment by roughly three centuries, and that semiautomatic firearms were invented in 1885. Likewise, detachable box magazines came along back in 1862. Despite technological advances over the past 200 years, neither the sale nor possession of repeating arms of any capacity were ever banned in the United States.”

“The very essence of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The language of the Second Amendment does not stipulate which bearable arms are protected, only that they are, and that the right of the people to bear those arms shall not be infringed. Because of the lower court split on whether magazines are ‘arms,’ we believe the high court needs to resolve this controversy without further delay.” Read more

Yesterday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin reaffirmed his support for the rights of law-abiding gun owners by vetoing two dozen bills that would have trampled on the Second Amendment freedoms of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Similar to last session, Governor Youngkin disposed of egregious legislation that would have emboldened criminals and left peaceable Virginians defenseless.

“On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.”

The bills vetoed by Governor Youngkin came from the long wish list of radical gun control activists. This included attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, dramatically expand gun-free zones that would have left law-abiding Virginians defenseless and enact a mandatory waiting period to take possession of a legally purchased firearm. In addition, the vetoed legislation would have banned a wide range of commonly owned firearms used by Virginians to hunt, compete and for self-defense. Read more

NEW YORK CITY – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its opening brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges some of the State of New York’s post-Bruen bans on public carry. The opening brief, filed Friday, addressed the plaintiffs claims regarding carry in public parks and can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron. The Second Circuit plans to hear arguments in June.

“Given that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the ‘plain text’ of the [Second] Amendment extends to cover carrying firearms in public, and the Parks Ban prevents carrying firearms in public parks, this case unquestionably passes Bruen’s threshold inquiry, and the Parks Ban is presumptively unconstitutional,” argues the brief. “The question then is one for history, and the history of firearms regulation demonstrates that the Parks Ban is neither facially constitutional nor, in the alternative, constitutional when applied to parks outside of urban areas.”

“New York’s ban on carry in parks is unconstitutional and it’s not a close call. The Second Circuit should put a stop to this restriction that the State enacted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s clear decision in Bruen,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

NEW ORLEANS – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) issued the following statement regarding United States v. George Peterson, a criminal matter presenting an FPC-backed challenge to the U.S. Government’s regulation of suppressors through unconstitutional registration and taxation requirements. Key case documents in Peterson can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/peterson.

Background

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (26 U.S.C. § 5801, et seq.) which, among other things, regulates firearm suppressors (“silencers”), imposing registration and tax payment requirements.

Under federal law, the terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).)

In 2022, the United States Government criminally charged Mr. George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, with possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor (i.e., “silencer”) in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871.

Mr. Peterson has been and remains an FPC member.

As an affirmative defense to the charge, Mr. Peterson challenged the NFA’s constitutionality with respect to its regulation of suppressors as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

In 2023, Mr. Peterson entered a conditional plea of guilty (pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), reserving the right to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit review the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the Indictment and to suppress evidence.

In February 2025, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. Peterson’s motion to dismiss in a horrifically flawed and dangerous decision.

Recognizing the danger the panel decision represents to Second Amendment-protected rights, FPC agreed to financially back world-class counsel for Mr. Peterson’s appeal. Read more