The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply in support of its petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Schoenthal v. Raoul, SAF’s challenge to Illinois’ ban on public transit carry.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2022 and challenges the public transit firearms carry ban in Illinois. To lawfully carry a firearm in the state, residents are required to obtain not only a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID), but also a concealed carry license. However, even with both the FOID card and a carry license, Illinois still bans carrying a firearm on “…any bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.”

“One of the animating principles behind the Second Amendment is the ability to be armed in public in case of confrontation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The practical effect of banning carry on public transit is obvious – anyone who relies on it faces a de facto ban on their ability to carry anywhere. There is no historical support for the categorical ban of permitted carry on all public transportation, and without that the Second Amendment and Supreme Court have held that this law must be struck down.”

A District Court in Illinois originally granted summary judgment in favor of SAF and its partners in the case, agreeing the public transit carry ban was unconstitutional. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, allowing the ban to remain in place. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens.

“There’s no doubt these ‘sensitive places’ laws do little in terms of thwarting criminals from carrying a firearm on public transit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In fact, the ban only forces peaceable citizens to disarm, leaving them and those around them more vulnerable to criminal violence. The Second Amendment equally protects your right to carry for self-defense, whether you take the train to work or drive your car.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that a reply brief in support of the cert petition has been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in Schoenthal v. Raoul, an FPC-backed lawsuit asking the Court to overturn the Seventh Circuit’s dangerous decision upholding Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation.

The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with David G. Sigale.

The reply brief in Schoenthal v. Raoul was filed at the United States Supreme Court, and a decision in the case will affect the entire country.

The reply brief was filed on March 3, 2026.

A ruling in FPC’s favor would restore the right to carry firearms for self-defense on public transportation, which has been unconstitutionally banned by Illinois and other states. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for rehearing in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey after a three-judge Third Circuit panel recently dismissed the case.

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on First and Second Amendment grounds. The dismissal was largely based not on the substantive constitutional claims, but on legal technicalities and perceived factual deficiencies in the record presented to the court.

“The Third Circuit’s panel opinion included a number of analytical errors that run contrary to well-established legal precedent,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that our petition for rehearing inspires some additional reflection and research and either the panel, or the entire bench, is willing to step in and set things straight.”

As noted in the petition, “This appeal challenges the New Jersey Attorney General’s long-running censorship of Second Amendment speech. It implicates fundamental speech rights protected in parallel by both the First and Second Amendments and exposes ‘the abusive manipulation of federal court procedures’ designed to evade merits review, bringing ‘issues that implicate not only the parties’ interests but those of the judicial system itself.'” Read more

In an effort to remove the remaining registration requirements from the National Firearms Act (NFA) for silencers and short-barreled rifles, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is now supporting a third lawsuit challenging the law.

In July last year, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill which eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons.” The result being that individuals are no longer taxed for making and transferring most firearms under the NFA, yet burdensome registration requirements for these arms remain in place.

“The government’s historically claimed constitutional authority for the NFA was its ability to levy taxes,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Once President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill and taxes on silencers and short-barreled rifles were zeroed out, that authority no longer applied. Without it, the remaining registration requirements must be struck down as well. That’s exactly why we are now supporting a third challenge to this law in federal court.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is now backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and the newly filed Roberts v. ATF. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the named plaintiffs in Roberts are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Center for Human Liberty, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Meridian Ordnance and two private citizens.

“SAF’s mission remains the same as it was when the organization was founded 52 years ago – to defend, secure and restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “That’s why SAF now supports three cases challenging the registration scheme left in the NFA – to ensure law-abiding citizens across America can fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being added to a government watchlist.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to support the introduction of SB 1071 in West Virginia. A GOA-drafted measure that would authorize the creation of a state entity to purchase and transfer machine guns to qualified law-abiding citizens pursuant to existing federal law.

The legislation utilizes a clear statutory exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), commonly known as the Hughes Amendment. While that provision generally restricts civilian possession of post-1986 machine guns, it expressly states that the prohibition “does not apply with respect to … a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of” a State or any department or political subdivision thereof.

Under the bill introduced in West Virginia, the State would establish state-run distribution centers authorized to acquire machine guns and conduct transfers “by” the State to qualified members of the general public. By structuring transactions within the text of the federal exemption, the legislation seeks to restore access to constitutionally protected arms while adhering to existing federal law.

The proposal is rooted in both statutory construction and the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Beginning with the Militia Act of 1792, and continuing with surplus military sales throughout American history, federal and state governments have repeatedly supplied military-grade arms to civilians. Supporters argue that the Founders envisioned a citizenry equipped with arms suitable for militia service and national defense.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: “For decades, Americans have been told that the 1986 machine gun ban permanently stripped them of access to modern arms. But Congress included an explicit exemption for transfers ‘to or by’ a State, and that language matters. West Virginia is demonstrating that states have both the authority and the responsibility to defend the Second Amendment, restore parity between citizens and the government, and lead the way in dismantling unconstitutional federal overreach.”

Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, added: “The plain text of Section 922(o) makes clear that its prohibition does not apply to transfers conducted by a State. By carefully structuring this legislation within the existing statutory framework, West Virginia lawmakers are advancing a serious, legally grounded effort to vindicate the rights protected by the Second Amendment while exercising the State’s sovereign authority.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for summary judgment in FPC v. Platkin, its lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s total prohibition on “short-barreled rifles” (SBRs), defined in state law as those with a barrel shorter than 16 inches or an overall length under 26 inches.

FPC is joined in the case by five individual FPC members, along with High Caliber Ordinance LLC and Louie G’s Outdoors. Plaintiffs are represented by Chad Flores of Flores Law and Bradley Lehman of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston.

The motion in FPC v. Platkin was filed in the federal court for the District of New Jersey, which covers the entire state.

The motion was filed on February 18, 2026.

A ruling in FPC’s favor would allow peaceable people to lawfully buy, own, and use these rifles in New Jersey without fear of arrest or prison time. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in support of defendant SIG SAUER’s motion for reconsideration in Hall v. Sig Sauer, Inc., a product liability case in which plaintiffs seek to force disclosure of gun owners’ identities without their consent.

SIG SAUER was ordered to divulge the identities of some of its customers to the Plaintiffs in the case as part of the discovery process and seeks reconsideration of that order. SAF is joined in the brief by the National Rifle Association.

“The Second Amendment has always protected not just the right to keep and bear arms, but the privacy necessary to exercise that right without fear of government-compelled exposure or social ostracism,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that the parties have reached an agreement to successfully resolve the plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit challenging the New York state and county defendants’ laws, policies, and practices banning firearm carry by residents of other states, Shaffer v. Quattrone. FPC filed the case in November 2024, arguing that people “do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

Now, as a result of the FPC lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ settlement with the State of New York, the State now expressly holds the position that in-state residency or employment is not required for licensure and clearly posted this confirmation on its website, which is now obligated to state (in relevant part):

Is New York residency or employment required to apply for a firearm license?

No. New York law does not require residency or in-state employment to apply for a firearm license. While the Penal Law directs applicants who live or work in New York to file their firearm application in the county of residence or principal place of employment, this provision does not exclude nonresidents from applying. Licensing officers may accept applications from nonresidents, and residency is not among the eligibility criteria for being issued a firearm license. Applications from nonresidents who do not live or work in New York should be evaluated under the same standards as all others.

Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its opening brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, which challenges the federal laws prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to out-of-state buyers. FPC filed its appeal after the district court wrongly upheld the ban.

FPC is joined in this case by Elite Precision Customs LLC and two individual FPC members. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Cody J. Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation and R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

The brief was filed at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans and covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Hemani, which challenges the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana users. FPC’s brief argues that the court does not need to decide the Second Amendment issue in this case because Congress lacks the Article I authority to enact the ban in the first place.

FPC is represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC.

The amicus brief was filed at Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., and the Court’s decision in this case will apply throughout the country.

FPC’s amicus brief was filed on January 30, 2026. Oral arguments in this case will take place at the Supreme Court on March 2nd, and the decision should be issued by the end of the court’s term in June.

A decision in Ali Danial Hemani’s favor could enable millions of peaceable people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The full extent of the ruling will depend on the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Read more