Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its Pool v. Besson lawsuit, asking the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to immediately block Louisiana’s ban on handgun carry permits for 18-to-20-year-old adults.

The lawsuit is brought by Louisiana residents Ella Pool, Christian McDuffie, and Charles Matthews, along with FPC. Each individual plaintiff is a peaceable adult between the ages of 18 and 20 who is legally eligible to possess firearms and would apply for a Louisiana concealed handgun permit, but is prevented from doing so because of the State’s age restriction.

Louisiana generally allows adults 18 and older to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. But the State still prohibits 18-to-20-year-old adults from obtaining a Louisiana concealed handgun permit. That ban has significant real-world consequences, including restrictions on carrying within 1,000 feet of school grounds under federal law and the denial of legal protections Louisiana grants to permit holders.

But this lawsuit could have been avoided if Louisiana had simply fixed the constitutional problem when FPC first raised it.

In April 2025, while FPC was working with Louisiana officials to resolve constitutional problems raised in its Mate v. Wescott litigation to end the State’s non-resident carry permit ban, FPC’s counsel warned Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga that the State’s carry laws also violated the rights of 18-to-20-year-old adults, and provided Louisiana with proposed legislative language addressing both problems. The proposal would have allowed nonresidents to obtain Louisiana permits and lowered the minimum carry permit age from 21 to 18. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Novotny v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s so-called “sensitive places” carry ban.

In May, SAF petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s ultra-restrictive “sensitive places” carry ban, passed after the landmark Bruen ruling forced the state to begin issuing concealed carry permits. Lawmakers sought to circumvent Bruen by passing a new law prohibiting carry in an overlapping patchwork of newly defined areas deemed “sensitive places.” Examples include mass transit facilities, establishments that serve alcohol, state parks, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums and more.

“The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment protects a right for individuals to carry for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Put bluntly, when forced by the Supreme Court to issue carry permits, Maryland simply made those permits useless everywhere. Today’s reply makes clear that neither Maryland, nor the other jurisdictions that passed similar laws, should be allowed to so blatantly thumb their noses at the Supreme Court or the Constitution.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Pratt v. Westbrook, a case challenging subjective carry permit denials.

SAF is joined in the brief by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The brief was filed by attorney Jason Guida, who served as local counsel pro bono.

The brief argues that Massachusetts laws related to carry permit issuance, which empower licensing authorities to deny a license to carry based on a subjective determination that an applicant is “unsuitable” or “may create a risk to public safety,” are unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The statutes at issue allow precisely the kind of discretionary “appraisal of facts, exercise of judgment, and formation of an opinion” that Bruen‘s footnote 9 held is incompatible with a shall-issue regime. Read more

In a pivotal procedural win, a federal judge in Massachusetts has denied the government’s attempt to dismiss a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lawsuit challenging the state’s process for non-residents to acquire a license to carry (LTC).

As SAF’s original complaint in Lawson v. Campbell explained, non-residents of Massachusetts are forced to go through an arduous process to even receive their LTC and are then required to renew the permit each year. Often, those applying or renewing their “temporary” LTC must wait as long as three months or longer before receiving an in-person interview appointment, which is required by state law before a non-resident can be considered for a permit. This new lawsuit asks the court to remove these barriers and prevent further constitutional violations of non-residents who wish to exercise their full Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts.

“Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out-of-state residents but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis unconstitutionally burdensome,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Delays of multiple months for both new applications and renewals – which are required every year – are commonplace, and without any grace period for those folks with pending renewals, our members who are subjected to these delays have their rights extinguished for extended periods of time year after year.”

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Gun Owners Action League and three individuals who have been, and remain, at the mercy of the permit application and renewal process.

“Because the right to carry is a federally recognized right, a state government cannot force someone to give up their right to keep and bear arms just because they crossed a state line,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Constitution doesn’t know state lines, and neither do our rights. Permits available on paper, but nearly impossible to maintain in practice, do not meet the clearly articulated demands of the Second Amendment. We are optimistic the Court will agree and fully restore the Second Amendment rights of non-residents who wish to travel and spend time in Massachusetts.” Read more

Following closely on the heels of celebrating its 52nd anniversary, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed their opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in cases challenging assault weapons bans in Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut.

On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two SAF cases – Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins – challenging the prohibitions of many commonly owned rifles, including the ubiquitous AR-15, in Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut. While legal and broadly adopted by Americans all over the country for a litany of lawful purposes – including self-defense – a minority of states have sought to outright ban the possession of these types of firearms. The question presented in Viramontes and Grant is whether those states may categorically ban a widely defined class of the most commonly possessed firearms in the country. SAF’s opening brief explains precisely why the Second Amendment, and well-established Supreme Court caselaw, have already concluded that no, they may not. Read more

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has granted summary judgment and entered final judgment holding New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham. The case was brought by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, in partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In response to the ruling, the NRA released the following statement: Read more

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms congratulates the three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for unanimously rejecting a lawsuit by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Giffords Law Center (GLC) against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) because they lacked standing as plaintiffs.

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed in Defense Distributed v. Blanche (formerly VanDerStok v. Bondi), holding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule, which expanded the definition of a “firearm,” unconstitutional on both Second Amendment and due process grounds.

In April 2022, under the Biden administration, the ATF published its Rule amending the regulatory definition of “firearm” to encompass partially manufactured firearm frames and receivers. In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Rule impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to personally manufacture and gunsmith firearms, as well as establishing a convoluted and opaque set of non-exclusive “factors” that informed when an inert piece of raw material became a “firearm” under federal law. The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the Court granted.

“This rule was such a mess that it not only violated the Second Amendment but was so terribly drafted that it managed to be ruled unconstitutionally vague,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Court rightly held that the Biden ATF’s rule not only sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct but was written in such a vague and vaporous manner as to chill that protected conduct by making it impossible to even know what was legal and what wasn’t.”

As the judge stated in the opinion, “The decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, The Firing Pin v. James, after New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S9005C that bans so-called “convertible pistols,” semiautomatic handguns with a cruciform trigger bar. The ban applies against nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market. FPC is seeking a declaration holding the law unconstitutional, an injunction against the enforcement of the ban, and other relief.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include FPC, two individuals, The Firing Pin, LLC, the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

The lawsuit was filed on August 13, 2026.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

New York’s new law prevents peaceable people from acquiring some of the most popular handguns in America because those firearms can be illegally modified using devices that are already banned under both federal and New York law. FPC’s lawsuit argues that the State cannot ban commonly possessed handguns merely because someone could illegally convert them into something they are not. The case continues FPC’s nationwide campaign against similar Glock bans, including its challenges in California and Maryland.

“Tyrants in New York have joined California and Maryland in imposing a new assault on our rights by banning some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC is already challenging Glock bans in other states, and now New York will once again have to answer for its authoritarian actions. We and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward and eliminate every one of these immoral and unconstitutional bans throughout the United States.” — Brandon Combs, FPC President Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, a case challenging the state’s prohibition on publishing computer files which can be used for 3D printing firearms.

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on the grounds it violates the First Amendment. Other courts have ruled that such computer code is indeed covered under the First Amendment, but the Third Circuit disagreed, creating a circuit split. In March, SAF filed a motion for rehearing with the Third Circuit, which was denied, creating the need to request the Supreme Court hear the case.

“The files at issue in this case are speech, and their publication is as protected as a book about gunsmithing,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As is typical in states like New Jersey, all basic principles of law and civil rights get thrown out the window when it’s related to guns. New Jersey hates the Second Amendment so much that it’s willing to infringe on other rights as collateral damage. Speech about making guns is no different from any other protected speech, and computer files that provide that instruction are no less protected than a textbook full of diagrams and measurements.” Read more