Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed its reply brief in support of a preliminary injunction in Bathras v. Moore, urging the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to block the State’s new ban on Glock and Glock-style handguns before it takes effect. Individuals who want to join the FPC Grassroots Army and help support important lawsuits like this one can sign up in under three minutes at JoinFPC.org.

Maryland’s new law prohibits the manufacture, sale, purchase, receipt, or transfer of so-called “machine gun convertible pistols” beginning January 1, 2027. The State acknowledges that the law targets ordinary semiautomatic handguns because criminals can illegally modify them using illegal conversion devices. FPC’s reply argues that this turns the Second Amendment on its head: the government cannot ban common, constitutionally protected arms because someone could later criminally alter or misuse them.

“Maryland is trying to impose a tyrannical ban on some of the most popular handguns in America, full stop. Glocks are constitutionally protected arms and Maryland can show no historical tradition that justifies banning them. We will Fight Forward until this immoral scheme is eliminated,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

The reply explains that Glock-style handguns are indisputably common arms used for lawful purposes, and that Maryland does not identify any historical tradition of banning an otherwise lawful firearm merely because criminals could illegally convert, misuse, or abuse it. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) secured a major win today in Harrington v. Crawford after school district officials admitted the search of plaintiff Jack Harrington’s vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

In October last year, SAF filed the case after Harrington’s vehicle was searched on Hillsboro-Deering High School grounds solely on the basis of school officials learning that Harrington lawfully owned a firearm in his personal life. Harrington owns a handgun which he sometimes carries with him in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and New Hampshire state laws – but never brought the gun to school, which he knew was prohibited. Upon learning that Harrington lawfully owned a firearm, however, he was subjected to interrogation and his vehicle being searched without his consent. No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home, nowhere near the school campus.

“Maintaining safety on school grounds is a laudable goal,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “But the Constitution demands that school officials have, at minimum, reasonable suspicion to search a student’s property. Critically, choosing to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights cannot be interpreted as a waiver of your rights under the Fourth Amendment, nor can it create reasonable suspicion of a crime. We’re pleased the school district here has admitted their errors and reinforced that the fundamental rights of their students will be respected.”

As noted in the original complaint, “…after the Interrogation in which Jack repeatedly refused to consent to a search and after Jack’s parents were contacted by phone and similarly refused to consent to a search, Defendants searched the Subject Vehicle anyway, finding no firearm.”

“Publicly acknowledging that you’re a gun owner does not justify endless harassment or subject you to invasive searches,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law-abiding peaceable people for their entire lives. Simply choosing to exercise your rights under the Second Amendment does not imply that you may do something criminal with a firearm and does not create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If that were the case, then lawful gun owners like Mr. Harrington would not just be subject to search of their property on one day – but every day – unless and until they prove that they have sold their constitutionally protected property to the satisfaction of school officials. The Constitution prevents precisely that outcome and worked exactly as designed in this case.” Read more

Court reverses lower court, renders judgment for FPC, and holds federal handgun purchase restrictions unconstitutional under the Second Amendment

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today a major victory in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the federal government’s ban on direct interstate handgun purchases violates the Second Amendment. The Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case and rendered judgment for FPC and its co-plaintiffs.

Individuals who want to join the FPC Grassroots Army and help support important lawsuits like this one can sign up in under three minutes at JoinFPC.org.

The federal laws challenged by FPC categorically prohibit people from directly purchasing handguns from licensed dealers outside their state of residence. While federal law provides exceptions for interstate rifle and shotgun purchases, handgun buyers are instead forced to arrange an additional transfer through a licensed dealer in their home state—a process that depends on another dealer agreeing to participate and typically imposes additional fees and delays.

The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: “The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.” The Court reversed the district court and rendered judgment for FPC and the other plaintiffs. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review in Christian v. James, a case challenging New York’s sweeping “sensitive places” firearms carry ban.

SAF has already secured two victories in the case, with the federal district court ruling that New York’s prohibition of concealed carry on private property open to the public is unconstitutional – a ruling later conceptually reaffirmed when the Supreme Court struck down a near-identical Hawaii state law in Wolford v. Lopez. In May, the Second Circuit affirmed that ruling as it relates to carry on private property open to the public. In the same ruling, however, the Second Circuit upheld the constitutionality of New York’s carry ban in public parks. That ruling lead to today’s petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case.

“For the same reasons both the Supreme Court and Second Circuit struck down major portions of this law already, the remaining ban on permitted carry in public parks should meet the same fate,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “This firearm carry ban applies to every public park across New York, from Central Park in Manhattan to remote state forests and recreational areas. New York has beautiful outdoor spaces and those who enjoy those scenic landscapes should not be forced to be vulnerable and unable to protect their families. We learned in the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision that the Second Amendment protects the ability of peaceable Americans to carry as they go about their daily lives. For many New Yorkers, taking advantage of the beautiful public parks is part of their daily lives. As the Court continues to explain precisely what types of public spaces can be deemed ‘sensitive’ we are hopeful that it takes this opportunity to hold that public parks are not among them.”

As stated in the petition, “Only (the Supreme Court) can resolve whether the Second Amendment’s promise will apply to all Americans guaranteed the fundamental right it protects.” SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Brett Christian, for whom the case is named.

“If there’s ever a time when a citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense, it’s in the wilds of New York,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in Struck v. Davenport, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to declare the State’s “one-gun-a-month” handgun purchase ban unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement. This move comes after FPC was successful in striking down California’s similar law—the first time the Ninth Circuit issued a final judgment striking down a law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

FPC’s motion argues that the case is straightforward under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. The constitutional text protects the right to “keep and bear Arms,” and courts across the country have recognized that the right necessarily protects the ability to acquire firearms. Because the plaintiffs seek to acquire handguns for lawful purposes, the motion argues that their conduct is presumptively protected and New Jersey bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The FPC motion also points to FPC’s landmark victory in Nguyen v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s substantially similar one-gun-a-month restriction. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Jacobson, urging the Court to grant review in the case and confirm that states must honor carry permits, no matter where in the country they were obtained.

SAF was joined in the brief by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The case challenges Minnesota’s refusal to honor valid concealed-carry permits issued by other states. Johnson, a long-haul truck driver licensed to carry in Florida and Georgia, cannot legally carry in Minnesota without obtaining a separate Minnesota permit. The Eighth Circuit upheld that requirement. The brief argues that the Second Amendment’s general right to carry arms in public for self-defense is national in scope and cannot be made to depend on a costly, state-by-state licensing gauntlet.

From the colonial era through the 19th century, “traveler’s exception” laws routinely exempted visitors from concealed-carry restrictions that applied to locals. The brief documents that tradition in the colonial era through the 19th Century. Amici contend that history demands summary reversal of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in favor of Minnesota.

“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros, counsel of record on the brief. “A truck driver who already holds permits from Florida and Georgia should not have to fly to Minnesota, appear in person at a sheriff’s office, pay another set of fees and complete another training course just to exercise the same constitutional right he already has. Our historical tradition offered travelers more leeway than residents when it came to the right to carry. Minnesota’s scheme turns that tradition on its head.” Read more

Texas DPS Director agrees challenged laws are unconstitutional while Houston Astros and other anti-rights organizations ask Fifth Circuit to preserve them

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed its reply brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Ziegenfuss v. Martin, urging the Court to reverse the judgment below and strike down three Texas laws that criminalize carrying firearms at certain locations, including racetracks, businesses that derive 51 percent or more of their revenue from alcohol sales, and sporting and interscholastic events.

The case presents an unusual situation: Defendant Texas Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin agrees with FPC that the challenged carry bans are unconstitutional, but nevertheless argues that FPC’s lawsuit should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, which would allow DPS to continue enforcing bans it still enforces today. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed an important friend-of-the-court brief in United States v. Squire, urging the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse Curtis Squire’s conviction and hold that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to turn purely local firearm possession into a federal crime merely because a gun crossed state lines sometime in the past.

This case is about whether the federal government has constitutional authority to turn purely local firearm possession into a federal crime merely because the gun crossed a state line sometime in the past. Here, the federal government does not contend that Squire engaged in interstate commerce involving the handgun found in his home. Instead, it relies on the fact that the firearm had previously traveled across Louisiana’s border to prosecute him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

“The federal government does not get to use the Commerce Clause as a backdoor to powers the Constitution never gave it,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “A firearm does not become subject to permanent federal control just because it crossed a state line sometime in the past. That fiction has been used for far too long to manufacture federal crimes out of purely local conduct. Congress has limited, enumerated powers, and it is time for courts to enforce those limits.”

FPC’s brief argues that the Constitution does not give Congress a general police power to legislate on whatever subject it chooses. Instead, every federal law must rest on an authority actually granted to Congress by the Constitution. Mere intrastate possession of a firearm is noneconomic conduct, FPC argues, and Supreme Court decisions including United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison foreclose treating local criminal conduct as interstate commerce simply because Congress wants to regulate it.

The Squire brief is part of FPC’s broader effort to challenge federal gun-control laws that exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Read more