Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final brief in support of Supreme Court review in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, asking the Supreme Court of the United States to finally decide the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapon” bans.

The filing argues that the lower court’s decision upholding Cook County’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 is “based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that flagrantly distorts this Court’s precedent and makes a mockery of the Amendment’s text, history, and purposes.” That, they say, is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and Bruen decisions.

The brief explains that multiple federal courts have now split on how to apply Bruen’s text-informed-by-history framework, including whether “in common use” is a textual or historical inquiry and which side bears the burden of proof. It warns that “lower courts are in conflict” and cites Justice Thomas’s and Justice Kavanaugh’s recent calls for the Court to “address the AR-15 issue.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today issued the following statement condemning the Trump Administration’s ongoing defense of federal gun control laws and calling on President Trump to take immediate action to restore the integrity of his pledge to protect Second Amendment rights:

Since President Donald J. Trump signed the “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” executive order in February, his Department of Justice has done exactly the opposite—relentlessly defending the federal government’s unconstitutional gun control regime. Instead of using the Justice Department’s vast power to secure Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, the Trump DOJ has used it to fight against the People—even taking extreme positions in court to resist injunctions that block the government’s enforcement of gun laws that federal judges have already found unconstitutional.

Last month, the Administration’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer—the government’s top appellate lawyer, often called the “10th Justice” for his influence with the Supreme Court—urged the Court to deny review in a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and taxation scheme for short-barreled rifles. The Administration argued that the NFA’s intrusive requirements are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” effectively endorsing the very federal overreach the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

In an effort to convince the Court to dodge the question of unconstitutional federal restrictions, the Trump DOJ suggested that the Court should focus on “laws banning AR-15 rifles.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Grant v. Rovella, SAF’s challenge to Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.

Connecticut is on the minority list of states that have banned, both by name and by feature set, commonly owned contemporary semi-automatic rifles. As part of SAF’s nationwide initiative to put an end to these types of unconstitutional arms bans, the organization filed suit on the grounds that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August, SAF is now presenting the case to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Grant joins three other SAF cases currently before the Court, including Viramontes, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban.

“Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the ban on electronic arms in New York City.

New York City flatly prohibits the possession of stun guns, despite their common nationwide use as a less-lethal option for self-defense chosen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Joining SAF in Calce v. City of New York are five individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Courts all over the country have struck down bans just like this one as plainly unconstitutional,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “But the District Court in this case found a way to uphold New York City’s ban by improperly placing the ‘common use’ part of the analysis in the plain text portion of the test. This error not only ignores express instructions to the contrary from the Supreme Court but also shifts the burden from the government to prove their ban is constitutional, to the Plaintiffs themselves to prove their arms are protected. That is not the law, and appeal to the Second Circuit aims to correct these errors.” Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined the National Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation in urging the Supreme Court to strike down the federal lifetime gun ban for nonviolent offenses in a critical new brief filed today in Duarte v. United States.

As FPC and its allies argue in the brief, “Historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—who did not demonstrate a propensity for violence retained the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, they noted, “some laws expressly allowed or even required them to keep and bear arms. Certiorari should be granted to establish that the Second Amendment forbids the disarmament of peaceable Americans, including nonviolent felons.”

“Never in our history has any government had the authority to permanently disarm an individual for non-violent crimes,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “The lifetime federal ban of today would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court should grant review in this and other cases to restore the right to keep and bear arms of all peaceable Americans.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are celebrating a major victory for Tennessee gun owners after the Shelby County Chancery Court rejected the City of Memphis’ unconstitutional and illegal gun-control ordinance.

In its ruling, the Court made clear that Memphis’ sweeping local gun restrictions were not just unlawful—but entirely void.

The following are two major points outlined in the order:

1. The City CONCEDED its ordinance violates state law.
   Memphis admitted that every line of its handgun-carry ban, vehicle-storage rule, so-called “assault rifle” ban, and red-flag scheme is 100% illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1314. (Order pp. 3, 9–11)

1. The Judge called the ordinance “DEAD AS A DOORNAIL.”
   The Chancellor wrote that “The Ordinance and those who proposed it engaged in ‘virtue signaling,’” but “the Ordinance is as dead as a proverbial doornail as a matter of Tennessee law.” (Order p. 6) Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant certiorari in Duarte v. United States, a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by nonviolent felons.

SAF is joined in the filing by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling defies Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of someone who committed nonviolent offenses, ignoring that our historical tradition only supports disarming ‘dangerous’ persons – those with a proven proclivity for violence or threats to government,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “From colonial laws targeting violent threats to founding-era ratification proposals protecting ‘peaceable citizens,’ the shared common denominator has always been danger, and no precedent exists for stripping Second Amendment rights from nonviolent felons. We urge the Court to intervene and clarify that felon bans are ‘presumptively lawful’ only when applied to dangerous individuals.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, have filed a new lawsuit challenging the confiscation of a New Jersey resident’s firearms after his wife was involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation.

The case, Aliaj v. Fort Lee Police Department (FLPD), stems from a language-related misunderstanding at a medical clinic in Englewood, New Jersey. Elsid Aliaj’s pregnant wife sought care for pregnancy-related nausea during which time she made a remark in her second language of English that caused the provider to mistakenly believe she may want to harm herself. She was put on a 72-hour mental health evaluation hold to rule out any danger to herself.

Subsequently, however, officers with the FLPD showed up at the couple’s home and demanded Aliaj turn over his firearms due to his wife’s involuntary admission to the medical facility. Believing he would be arrested if he didn’t comply, Aliaj handed over his firearms, ammunition and accessories. The officers provided no warrant or red flag order which would provide authority for such a seizure because they had none. Since the unlawful seizure, both FLPD officers and local prosecutors have continued to withhold Aliaj’s firearms with no legal justification, and have since doubled down on their unconstitutional conduct by seeking to revoke Aliaj’s New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. There are no criminal or prohibiting allegations against Aliaj – merely that his wife may be prohibited.

“The actions by the Fort Lee Police Department and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office are absolutely unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a petition for a writ of certiorari 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 appellate court’s ruling, the petition explains, shreds the clear command of the Constitution and defies the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

The Seventh Circuit wrongly declared that buses and trains are “sensitive places” where Illinois can disarm peaceable people by decree. But the right to bear arms for self-defense does not vanish the moment a citizen boards a bus or subway. Millions of Americans rely on public transportation every day—and they don’t surrender their rights when they do. The Supreme Court’s review is urgently needed to restore clarity, reaffirm the Constitution, and end the lower courts’ retreat from fundamental liberties.

“The Seventh Circuit’s dangerous opinion was legally, historically, and morally wrong,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court must step in and make clear that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn’t stop when you step onto a bus, train, or subway.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to grant certiorari in Harris v. United States, a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center.

“The Third Circuit’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of sober citizens who occasionally use a substance – marijuana – that is now legal to various extents in 40 states and socially accepted by a supermajority of Americans,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively intoxicated, never by stripping gun rights from anyone who simply drank in moderation. The Third Circuit ignored this close historical analogue and instead relied on remote comparisons to laws disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court to intervene and restore the proper Bruen framework.”

While the Supreme Court has recently granted cert in another marijuana-related case, U.S. v. Hemani, that case involves harder drugs than marijuana and other unusual facts, and the brief urges the Court to hear this case alongside it. Read more