After its landmark Fifth Circuit victory, FPC rejects DOJ’s latest attempt to avoid a lasting injunction protecting its members nationwide against the unconstitutional handgun purchase ban for adults under 21.

NEW ORLEANS — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed a reply brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in FPC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (formerly Reese v. ATF), fighting the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to evade meaningful judicial relief after FPC’s landmark victory against the federal government’s unconstitutional ban on handgun and ammunition sales to 18-to-20-year-old adults.

In January 2025, FPC secured a major victory when the Fifth Circuit held that the federal ban on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition by licensed dealers to 18-to-20-year-old adults violates the Second Amendment. But rather than accept that defeat and provide complete relief, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) fought to restrict the resulting injunction to the geographic boundaries of the Fifth Circuit and individuals who were already members of the plaintiff organizations when the district court entered judgment.

FPC appealed those restrictions, continuing its fight against the DOJ’s injunction-avoidance scheme and seeking complete relief for its members throughout the United States.

Now, nearly six years after FPC filed the lawsuit, the Trump DOJ is asking the court to dismiss the case as moot because its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a September 17 opinion agreeing with FPC and the Fifth Circuit that the federal age-based handgun purchase restrictions are unconstitutional. Read more

After a landmark Third Circuit victory, FPC now urges the Supreme Court to hold New Jersey’s petition pending a decision in FPC’s Viramontes case.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed a response brief with the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v. Cheeseman, defending its historic victory against New Jersey’s unconstitutional bans on common semiautomatic rifles and firearm magazines. The filing asks the Court to hold New Jersey’s petition for review until it decides FPC’s landmark Viramontes v. Cook County case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 2.

In July, the en banc (full-court) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit delivered a groundbreaking victory for FPC and its fellow challengers, becoming the first federal appellate court in American history to strike down a ban on so-called “assault weapons” under the Second Amendment. The court also held that New Jersey’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Constitution.

The historic decision rejected New Jersey’s attempt to prohibit an entire class of popular semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s, and recognized that the Second Amendment protects magazines commonly possessed for lawful purposes. The court further rejected New Jersey’s historical justifications for these categorical bans.

New Jersey has now petitioned the Supreme Court to review that decision. But with the Justices already preparing to hear Viramontes, which presents the same fundamental question concerning bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles, the State has asked the Court to hold the petition until it issues its decision. FPC agrees that the Supreme Court should hold the petition—but emphatically maintains that the Third Circuit correctly decided the case.

“New Jersey lost before the full Third Circuit, and we’re not giving back an inch of that win. No amount of legal maneuvering by these tyrants changes the fact that New Jersey’s bans on common semiautomatic rifles and magazines are unconstitutional. Now, with our Viramontes case being heard by the Supreme Court in just a few weeks, we’re positioned to take that victory nationwide. FPC has spent years building the precedent, fighting these cases, and driving toward a national ruling that will end these bans once and for all. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional arms ban is eliminated, full stop,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

The Cheeseman victory is a central part of FPC’s deliberate nationwide strategy to eliminate unconstitutional arms bans through original historical research, strategic litigation, and precedent-setting victories. FPC’s nationwide campaign to eliminate laws that deny access to Second Amendment-protected arms includes cases in New York, Maryland, California, Virginia, Delaware, Colorado, and Washington. That campaign has already produced major results, including FPC’s landmark district court victory against California’s so-called “assault weapon” ban in Miller v. Bonta, the historic en banc Third Circuit victory in Cheeseman, and the recent historic victory over New York’s body-armor ban in Heeter v. James.

Now, through Viramontes, FPC is asking the Supreme Court to establish a nationwide constitutional rule protecting commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles from categorical government bans. A favorable ruling would have far-reaching implications for FPC’s continuing challenges to prohibited arms and other unconstitutional restrictions throughout the United States.

The Cheeseman plaintiffs, including FPC and two individual FPC members, are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Bradley Lehman of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLC.

FPC thanks its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making this historic litigation possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits, research, and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

After defeating Pennsylvania’s age-based carry restrictions in the Third Circuit, FPC and NRA return to federal court to challenge the Commonwealth’s ban on licensed carry by 18-to-20-year-old adults.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit, Maines v. Bethel, challenging Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional ban on lawful firearm carry in most public places by adults under 21. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the lawsuit is brought by FPC and the National Rifle Association (NRA), alongside a member whose right to carry firearms for self-defense is being denied by the Commonwealth.

Under Pennsylvania law, individuals generally must obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm, carry a firearm in a vehicle, or carry a firearm in public in Philadelphia. But Pennsylvania categorically prohibits adults under 21 from even applying for the license they need to exercise those rights. As a result, peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults who are legally eligible to possess firearms face criminal prosecution, potentially including felony charges and years in prison, simply for exercising the same rights available to other adults.

Although Pennsylvania generally allows unlicensed open carry in some circumstances, that does not solve the problem. Adults under 21 still cannot generally carry firearms for self-defense in their vehicles or on Philadelphia’s public streets. Even a routine trip to work, the grocery store, or another destination by car can put the exercise of their rights out of reach.

The consequences extend even further because of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. That federal law generally criminalizes firearm possession within 1,000 feet of school grounds unless the person has a qualifying license issued by the state where the school is located or qualifies for another narrow exception. Because Pennsylvania refuses to issue carry licenses to 18-to-20-year-old adults, even those who could otherwise lawfully carry firearms openly under state law face federal criminal prosecution for carrying through these expansive school zones. Pennsylvania’s age-based licensing ban thus creates a massive labyrinth of prohibited areas throughout the Commonwealth, effectively disarming peaceable adults under 21 across vast portions of the places they live, work, and travel.

“Pennsylvania already lost in the Third Circuit when it tried to deny 18-to-20-year-olds their right to carry firearms, but the Commonwealth still insists on treating peaceable adults as second-class citizens,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a preliminary injunction motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking to block enforcement of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s law requiring a seven-day “cooling-off” waiting period to take legal possession of a lawfully purchased firearm after the buyer has passed a federally mandated National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check. NSSF, earlier this week, filed a legal challenge to the law.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in an NSSF-supported challenge Ortega v. Grisham that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases infringes on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms by those who had already passed a NICS check. The case was sent back to the district court which, citing the Tenth Circuit’s decision, granted summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing the law as to the named plaintiffs in that case. Despite these rulings, the state is appealing again and has said it will enforce this unconstitutional law. As a result, NSSF filed a second challenge to New Mexico’s law.

“It would be unconscionable to allow this blatantly unconstitutional law to be enforced and infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Mexicans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The burden is on the state to demonstrate that this unconstitutional law is consistent with a national tradition of imposing waiting periods before taking possession of a firearm, something the state was unable to do in the prior lawsuit. NSSF will not stand idly by and allow New Mexico to continue to knowingly trample on its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.” Read more

The opposition in Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans has filed their opening briefs with the Supreme Court laying out why their bans meet the demands of the Constitution.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear SAF’s two cases – Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins – challenging bans on commonly owned rifles, including the AR-15, in both Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut. Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern firearms, 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.

“Categorical bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America violate the Second Amendment, full stop,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Unfortunately, countless peaceful Americans across the U.S. are subject to these unconstitutional bans, which single out and demonize modern semi-automatic rifles for nonsensical reasons like the adjustability of a shoulder stock or angle of a grip. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the en banc (full-court) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Cordova, urging the court to reject an erroneous legal theory used to justify federal lifetime gun bans and recognize that Americans cannot be permanently disarmed merely because they have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

FPC’s brief challenges the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Diaz, which reasoned that because some crimes were punishable by death at the Founding, permanently disarming people convicted of similar crimes today is constitutionally permissible. FPC argues that this deeply flawed approach has produced absurd results and bears little resemblance to the historical analysis required by the Supreme Court.

In Cordova, Peter Villa Cordova was previously convicted of possessing marijuana and evading arrest in a motor vehicle. He was not sentenced to serve a single day in prison for those offenses and completed probation years before he was found possessing a firearm. Federal prosecutors nevertheless charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which imposes a lifetime firearm prohibition on people with qualifying convictions. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel upheld his conviction, but the full court subsequently granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel’s decision.

Notably, Judge Andrew Oldham sharply and correctly criticized the Fifth Circuit’s approach in his opinion accompanying the now-vacated panel decision, declaring that “Diaz must go.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed an amicus brief in United States v. Cordova, urging the Fifth Circuit to adopt a dangerousness standard to challenges of lifetime federal firearms bans.

The case returns to the Fifth Circuit after the court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion. The brief filed today urges the court to hold that historical tradition supports disarming only dangerous persons – those with a proven proclivity for violence or who pose a threat to the government – not every person convicted of a felony. Colonial and Founding-era restrictions targeted the dangerous. Militia laws required able-bodied men to keep arms and contained no exemption for prior nonviolent convictions, and some statutes even expressly protected criminals’ arms from seizure.

“History disarmed the dangerous, not the peaceable,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “A nonviolent felony is not a lifetime forfeiture of the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a new lawsuit in New Mexico challenging the state’s “cooling off” waiting period for firearms purchases.

In 2024, New Mexico enacted House Bill 129 which forces firearms purchasers to wait out a multi-day waiting period before taking possession of a firearm despite having already been approved through the state’s background check system. This new case follows the 2025 Ortega v. Grisham lawsuit where the Tenth Circuit held the law was unconstitutional and remanded to the district court, which subsequently issued a permanent injunction. Despite these rulings holding the law to violate the Second Amendment, New Mexico has maintained that it will continue to enforce it against everyone except the named individuals in Ortega. The suit filed today seeks to expand the coverage of the Ortega holding to include all SAF members.

“It’s incredibly concerning that state officials would flaunt a federal circuit decision and publicly boast of their intentions to continue to enforce an unconstitutional law,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. Read more

FPC files appeal brief and seeks full-court review to overturn second-class legal standard blocking challenges to D.C.’s ban on common firearm magazines.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed an opening brief and a petition for initial hearing en banc in its Wehr-Darroca v. District of Columbia appeal, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn decades-old precedent that treats Second Amendment challenges differently from other constitutional cases and keeps peaceable gun owners out of court.

At issue is Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Violating the ban is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $12,500 fine, with a conviction potentially triggering a federal lifetime ban on possessing firearms. FPC and two of its members, William Wehr-Darroca and Gary Stemple, challenged the law because it prohibits them from possessing the standard magazines that came with their handguns. To avoid prosecution, the members were forced to leave those magazines outside the District and purchase restricted-capacity replacements.

But rather than hear their constitutional challenge, the federal district court dismissed the case under D.C. Circuit precedent requiring a heightened showing of a specific threat of prosecution. Under that rule, law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their rights but refuse to risk criminal prosecution can be denied the opportunity to challenge the very laws threatening them.

“D.C. threatens peaceable gun owners with felony prosecution and years in prison for possessing standard firearm magazines, then hides behind a court-created rule to deny them their day in court,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “That is a disgraceful constitutional Catch-22. The government does not get to tell Americans they must either surrender their rights or risk prison just to challenge an unconstitutional law. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and gun owners are not second-class citizens. We’re demanding that the D.C. Circuit end this absurd exception, open the courthouse doors, and let us fight D.C.’s immoral magazine ban on the merits. FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until these unconstitutional bans are eliminated everywhere.” Read more

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah – In August, we celebrated one of the most impactful victories directly affecting suppressor ownership since the NFA was enacted in 1934. On October 9, the celebration returned following ATF’s announcement that it will no longer enforce the NFA’s requirements regarding making or transferring suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and “any other weapons” (AOWs).

Also, ATF will no longer enforce the requirement that these items be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. According to ATF, these policies apply to anyone otherwise subject to these requirements, not just the plaintiffs in the litigation.

We fought, we won. Now, that victory belongs to every American, and we think that’s worth celebrating. Quietly, of course. Very, very quietly.

So what does this mean for Americans? Read more