NSSF praises the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for its decision that found New Jersey’s laws banning the sale and possession of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment. This decision is momentous as it fuels the challenges that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on similar state and municipal MSR bans in the next session and creates disagreement between the circuit courts on the constitutionality of both MSR and magazine bans. “Today’s ruling by the Third Circuit vindicates what NSSF has argued for decades. The MSR is a commonly used firearm that is protected for legal sale and lawful ownership under the Second Amendment. Additionally, standard-capacity magazines are ‘arms’ that are also protected by the Second Amendment,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. Read the full press release here.

No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle that was based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from an unlawful search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Based only on an overheard conversation that Harrington lawfully owned a firearm, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home, nowhere near the school campus.

“Entirely lawful and constitutionally protected conduct cannot be the grounds for a search,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “School officials, especially when accompanied by law enforcement as was the case here, need at minimum reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle. Here, those officials learning that our client was a gun owner gave them that suspicion. They are mistaken. If that were the case, student gun owners all over the country could be subject to repeated and endless harassment.”

As noted in the motion, “Defendants relied upon a week-old, stale report of a single comment made by Jack and overheard by an assistant coach…relating to Jack’s storage of his handgun in the glove box of his truck while at a gas station nowhere near campus – indisputably legal and constitutionally protected conduct. At no point during the interrogation, the search, or at any time since, have defendants brought forth a single shred of evidence of unlawful conduct by Jack. Moreover, defendants confirmed that they did not view Jack as a threat to school safety; they did not believe Jack had a weapon on his person during the interrogation; and Jack had no previous disciplinary issues.”

“District officials – and even a school resource officer who should know better,took it upon themselves to violate the constitutional rights of a peaceable, adult, firearm owner for no other reason than they learned of his status as a gun owner,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Law enforcement and school officials are required to understand the law and to follow it, and in this case, it appears they failed at both.” Read more

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is disappointed by the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Barnett v. Raoul. NSSF respectfully disagrees with the Court’s decision to reverse and remand a lower court’s ruling — made after conducting a several-day bench trial — that Illinois’ law is unconstitutional and that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. As disappointing as this decision is, NSSF is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and Bruen are clear and those precedents plainly vindicate the challenges to similar laws that will be argued before the Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins in the next session.

NSSF is a plaintiff in this case and plans on filing a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NSSF believes the Seventh Circuit erred in its decision when it ruled that MSRs are “dangerous and unusual.” There are more than 32 million MSRs in circulation today, making these semiautomatic, centerfire rifles commonly owned and commonly used by nearly every standard. Likewise, there are hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines owned by law-abiding Americans in the United States. Further, NSSF believes the court misapplied the Bruen test by relying on a handful of laws restricting the carrying of Bowie knives that are in no way analogous to Illinois’ law and post-date not only the Nation’s founding, but also the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

NSSF agrees with Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent, in the strongest terms, in which he wrote, “Now, with perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date, this court repeats its error. Our Nation’s enduring traditions forbid governments from prohibiting firearms commonly owned for self-defense. Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment.”

About NSSF: NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) President Brandon Combs issued the following statement responding to the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in FPC’s Harrel v. Raoul lawsuit (consolidated with Barnett v. Raoul and others) challenging the Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. The district court declared the bans unconstitutional following extensive briefing, presentation of evidence, and a trial, but the Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling today:

“Today’s decision is exactly what we’ve come to expect from courts desperately contorting themselves to keep failed gun-control theories alive. While the opinion is unquestionably atrocious in both its legal reasoning and moral foundation, the good news is that today’s opinion is not the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence but the death rattle of the failed gun-control era—the last gasp of a dying authoritarian legal movement that has spent years engaging in judicial jiggery-pokery, inventing exceptions, rewriting history, misrepresenting reality, and treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right.

Just days ago, the Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case, which squarely presents the issue these lower courts keep working so hard to avoid. That grant of certiorari was not an accident. It is a recognition that the confusion and open defiance in the lower courts—exemplified yet again by today’s Seventh Circuit decision—cannot and must not continue.

The Constitution does not permit governments to outlaw these firearms and magazines, full stop. Nor does it allow judges to substitute their personal policy preferences for the scope of the right the Constitution enshrined, or to ignore the test the Supreme Court has repeatedly required. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to restore order to a body of law that some lower courts have treated as optional. When it does, opinions like this will serve as little more than historical reminders of how far some courts were willing to go to deny Americans the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

For years, anti-rights governments have benefited from some judges willing to do whatever it took to preserve their unconstitutional and immoral bans. They’ve won some battles along the way. But we are going to win the war.

FPC is going to achieve our Current Mission which is to restore the essential right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. We will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional arms ban falls and the Second Amendment is treated like every other constitutional guarantee—not as a suggestion, but as the supreme law of the land.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion to supplement Renna v. Calif. Attorney General Rob Bonta, its federal lawsuit challenging California’s handgun roster, to add a claim against the State’s ban on semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars, including nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market.

The plaintiffs include FPC, individual and retailer FPC members, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, and National Rifle Association of America. They are represented by Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC.

The motion was filed on July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

California’s ban on handguns with a cruciform trigger bar adds to its existing unconstitutional handgun-ban regime by prohibiting peaceable people from acquiring some of the most popular handguns in the country. Read more

 

What: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), filed a new federal lawsuit, Elliott v. Denver, challenging Denver’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Denver’s and Colorado’s bans on magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. The filing comes the same day the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County challenge to Cook County, Illinois’s “assault weapons” ban.

Who: The plaintiffs include FPC, CSSA, and individual FPC members. They are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

When: June 30, 2026.

Where: The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Why: The challenged bans unconstitutionally prohibit peaceable people from acquiring, possessing, and using firearms and magazines protected by the Second Amendment. This lawsuit is part of FPC’s nationwide strategy to eliminate bans on constitutionally protected arms throughout the United States.

Quotes:

“We filed this lawsuit to end Denver and Colorado’s war on gun owners and force these tyrants to respect the Second Amendment, whether they like it or not. This case is another critical step in our nationwide campaign to eliminate tyrannical bans on constitutionally protected firearms and magazines. Alongside our friends at CSSA and the FPC Grassroots Army, we’re proud to Fight Forward for all Coloradans and everyone who visits the Centennial State.” — FPC President Brandon Combs

“Denver’s ‘assault weapons’ ban and Colorado’s magazine restrictions don’t make anyone safer — they just turn law-abiding citizens into criminals for owning some of the most common firearms and components in America. The Colorado State Shooting Association is proud to stand alongside the Firearms Policy Coalition in challenging these unconstitutional laws, and it’s no coincidence the DOJ is challenging the same policies. The writing is on the wall for lawmakers who’ve ignored the Second Amendment for too long.” — Kolby Zipperer, Vice President, CSSA Read more

The Supreme Court of the United States denied Pennsylvania officials’ request for review (certiorari) in Firearms Policy Coalition’s Bivens case, formerly captioned Lara v. Paris and Lara v. Evanchick, leaving in place FPC’s Third Circuit victory against Pennsylvania laws that banned peaceable adults under 21 from carrying firearms outside the home.

After FPC first prevailed at the Third Circuit in January 2024, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration after it issued the June 2024 United States v. Rahimi decision. The Third Circuit then issued a new decision again holding that Pennsylvania’s ban violates the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania officials asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, but the Court rejected their petition today.

The plaintiffs challenging Pennsylvania’s ban include FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C.

Today’s Supreme Court action leaves in place FPC’s win securing the right to bear arms for peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults in Pennsylvania. This win adds to FPC’s growing record of victories including those against age-based gun bans. It also strengthens FPC’s ongoing Pennsylvania carry-license challenge in Young v. Ott, which seeks to ensure that adults under 21 can apply for and obtain the carry licenses needed to lawfully carry in public, carry in vehicles, and carry in Philadelphia.

“Today’s Supreme Court order makes clear that Pennsylvania’s ban is finally dead. FPC and our Grassroots Army beat this immoral and unconstitutional ban twice at the Third Circuit, and now the Supreme Court has allowed that victory to take effect. That matters not only for this case, but for others where FPC is fighting to make sure peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults can actually obtain carry licenses and exercise their right to bear arms throughout Pennsylvania, including in Philadelphia. Anti-rights governments do not get to deny the rights of peaceable adults, full stop. FPC and our Grassroots Army will keep Fighting Forward until every age-based ban is eliminated.” — FPC President Brandon Combs Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) a victory today by declining to hear a case brought by the organization to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults in Pennsylvania. By refusing to take the case, SAF’s victory in Third Circuit Court of Appeals is now final.

The Third Circuit twice ruled in SAF’s favor, finding that adults under 21 are indeed members of “the People” as contemplated by the Second Amendment, and therefore enjoy the same scope of rights as all other adults. The ruling struck down a portion of Pennsylvania’s carry regime which prevented young adults from being able to carry firearms during declared states of emergency.

“While a cert grant on this case could have meant an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take our win in the Third Circuit and apply it nationally, we are still content that our victory in this case is now permanent and final,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Adults under 21 enjoy all the same constitutional rights as their older adult counterparts, and the rights protected by Second Amendment are no different. This victory serves as a major stepping stone to striking down additional unconstitutional portions of Pennsylvania state law and those like it around the country.”

Joining SAF in Bivens v. SAF (formerly Lara v. Paris) are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.

“The Third Circuit ruled not once, but twice, that 18-20-year-olds have the same rights as their peers older than 21,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Those over 18 in this country can buy property, join the military and get married just like those over 21-years-old. Why then should they be forced to wait to enjoy their Second Amendment rights? There is no reason – they are adults under the law and should therefore be afforded their full constitutional rights.”

For more information visit SAF.org. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The U.S. Supreme Court has granted two of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) petitions for a writ of certiorari in both Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the organization’s challenges to the bans on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois and Connecticut.

Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern guns, which was the precursor for the nearly identical statewide ban passed by the Illinois legislature. In Grant, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles – both by name and by feature set. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, SAF presented the case to the Supreme Court for consideration.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, and is joined in Grant by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.

“Lawmakers have long relied on fearmongering to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment, especially when it comes to common, semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re hopeful the Court will finally put to rest the idea that these rifles are not covered by the Second Amendment simply because of their look and features. These arms are no different than other semi-automatic firearms millions of Americans own for self-defense, and we look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms for countless citizens through these cases.” Read more

Consistent with FPC’s victories against “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, the United States Supreme Court today issued a major 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez holding that Hawaii cannot presume that peaceable carry is forbidden on private property held open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. In the decision, the Court held that this reversal of the longstanding common-law default unconstitutionally infringes upon the exercise of the right to bear arms and violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court explained that these laws did not merely regulate where licensed people could carry. Instead, they severely burdened the ordinary exercise of the right to bear arms by forcing peaceable people to seek permission before entering the stores, restaurants, gas stations, pharmacies, and other businesses they visit every day. That burden, the Court held, is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to carry firearms for self-defense as Americans go about their daily lives.

The case against the State of Hawaii was brought by three individuals and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Notable amicus briefs filed in support of Wolford include those by FPC, California Gun Rights Foundation, and the United States. FPC has successfully blocked enforcement of “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

The Court’s opinion for Wolford was written by Justice Alito. A concurring opinion was written by Justice Barrett and partially joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Dissenting opinions were written by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor).

The ruling confirms what FPC has argued from the beginning: States may not nullify Bruen by turning ordinary places open to the public—stores, restaurants, parking lots, and other public-facing private property—into carry-prohibited zones by default. Read more