BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a petition for en banc review with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in SAF’s lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” firearms carry restrictions.

The case, Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, challenges the law New Jersey enacted in response to the 2022 landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision, which creates multiple overlapping categories of so-called “sensitive places” where even those with a concealed carry permit are prohibited from carrying a firearm. This patchwork of restrictions created by the challenged law encompasses nearly every square inch of the state and was passed with the express intent of extinguishing the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In September, SAF secured a partial victory in the case when a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for the carry of loaded, operable firearms in private vehicles and carry on private property open to the public without the owners express consent or signage. That panel decision did, however, uphold carry bans on public transportation, in public libraries and museums, places where alcohol is served and in entertainment venues.

“Major elements of the panel decision run contrary to both Third Circuit and Supreme Court law in ways which demand review by the entire Third Circuit,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “By deriving overly broad generalizations to define what a ‘sensitive place’ actually is under the law, the panel decision improperly bars New Jersey residents from exercising their rights in many of the types of places people go during the course of normal life in a way entirely inconsistent with the demands of the Supreme Court.” Read more

Tuesday, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment. Read more

Silencer Central, the pioneer of home suppressor delivery, has initiated a lawsuit against FedEx and its subsidiary corporations. Filed October 8, 2025, in the Southern Division of the District Court of South Dakota, the complaint seeks to recover damages caused by FedEx’s alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

“I have been discriminated against by big banks for over 20 years because of the type of business I am in, now it looks like common carriers are changing the rules to avoid transporting firearms and accessories.” Having just achieved a landmark reversal from J.P. Morgan Wealth Management regarding discriminatory denial of services, Silencer Central and its CEO Brandon Maddox are fighting back against FedEx to ensure firearm manufacturers and related organizations get fair treatment from one of the nation’s largest courier companies.

“They woke up one morning and decided they didn’t want to ship suppressors,” said Maddox. “Our agreement with FedEx was negotiated over months, key details were confirmed and reconfirmed, and we entered into a major contract in good faith. Based on the agreement, we transitioned our nationwide home-delivery network to FedEx, only to have the rug pulled out from under us. Almost overnight, FedEx decided it would not or could not provide the to-your-door customer delivery service which was central to our agreement.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a scathing rebuke of the Northern District of Texas, which, in a profound act of judicial abdication, delivered an erroneous opinion upholding the federal government’s unconstitutional prohibition on the acquisition of handguns by peaceable Americans in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF.

Despite the clear mandates of the Supreme Court’s binding Bruen opinion, the Trump Administration shamefully defended this unconstitutional regulatory scheme, adopting the rhetoric of gun control extremists by arguing that this fundamental, enumerated right can be dismissed as merely subject to “reasonable commercial restrictions” and a “minimal burden on the right to acquire arms.” The district court—wrongly—agreed with the government.

“In short, the Court holds that the Sale Restrictions do not function as a de facto prohibition on possession but rather a reasonable commercial restriction enacted by Congress,” said Judge Pittman in his decision. “Consequently, the Court holds that the Sale Restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment.”

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “This ruling is nothing short of judicial abdication. The court chose to ignore the clear mandate of Bruen and instead applied the very sort of test the Supreme Court rejected three years ago. The right to keep arms inherently includes the right to acquire them, and federal regulations that prohibit peaceable Americans from purchasing handguns across state lines are patently unconstitutional. We reject the fiction that infringing upon a fundamental, enumerated right is merely a ‘modest inconvenience’ that can be deferred to Congress. We will appeal this horrifically flawed decision to the Fifth Circuit.” Read more

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a case challenging the ban on possessing and carrying firearms in United States Post Offices.

In granting summary judgment in favor of SAF, the court granted both declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the ban unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement for the plaintiffs, including SAF members. Originally filed in June 2024, the lawsuit challenges the ban on firearms carry in U.S. Post Offices and on postal property. SAF is joined in the case, FPC v. Bondi, by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.” Read more

SAN FRANCISCO — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an important brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining how the appellate court should apply the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test for determining the constitutional protection for arms first established in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller ruling and further explained in the 2022 NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

In its September 5, 2025, order in the case of Knife Rights v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit requested amicus briefs to address critical questions around the Supreme Court’s use and application of the terms “in common use” and “dangerous and unusual.”

“FPC is interested in this case because it raises fundamental and important questions about the nature and application of the ‘in common use’ test the Supreme Court has established to govern Second Amendment challenges to laws banning a type of weapon,” FPC explained in the brief. “The answers to these questions are of critical importance to FPC’s many members throughout the country, including within this Circuit, who wish to keep and bear common arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.” Proper application of the Supreme Court’s binding precedents is important to ensuring the full protection of bearable arms by the Second Amendment—a determination that is central to FPC’s ongoing lawsuit challenging California’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons,” currently before the Ninth Circuit. Read more

Twenty years ago, as the residents of New Orleans were reeling in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III ordered law enforcement officers to seize lawfully owned firearms from civilians stating at the time “Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed suit against the city and, 20 years ago today, were granted a consent order forcing law enforcement to immediately stop confiscating firearms. Thanks to the continued work of SAF and the NRA after Katrina, President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which included provisions prohibiting the seizure of legally owned firearms during emergencies.

“In the aftermath of one of the worse natural disasters this country has ever seen, the mayor and law enforcement in New Orleans unthinkably decided to go door-to-door confiscating firearms when citizens needed them most,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case serves as a great reminder of why SAF must continue its critical work. The Second Amendment rights of American citizens cannot be wiped away just because a handful of people want to disarm a population.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a new lawsuit challenging the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department’s exorbitant fees and mandated psychological exam associated with applying for a concealed carry permit.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the California Rifle and Pistol Association and several individuals. In Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of carry permit policies and practices that charge excessive and burdensome fees to obtain a concealed carry permit in Santa Clara.

“Fees this extreme for the application of a simple permit can only be in place for one reason – to keep the peaceable citizens of Santa Clara from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “These fees amount to nothing short of a pay-to-play scheme wherein only those with the means to afford the application costs have the ability to exercise their constitutional rights. Not only is this discriminatory, but it’s a clear violation of the Second Amendment.” Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners a partial victory today in a case challenging New Jersey’s “Sensitive Places Law” but left in place carry restrictions for many public areas.

The case, Koons v. Platkin, challenges New Jersey law that create a series of “sensitive places” in which even permitted concealed carriers are prohibited from carrying their firearms. Those places create a patchwork of overlapping categories such as public gatherings, zoos, parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and more, intended to encompass nearly every square inch of the state.

In the partial victory, the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for some of these categories: youth sports events, private vehicles, public property and private property without the owners express consent. The Court also upheld the injunctions against a tax on the states carry permit, and a liability insurance mandate.

“Today, a panel of the Third Circuit concluded that ‘the People’ have the fundamental right to bear arms in public, with the minor caveat they simply can’t do so where people assemble with others, eat and drink, conduct commerce, discuss opinions, seek amusement and recreation, learn, worship, travel on public transit, seek leisure or community, and anywhere children or vulnerable people are normally present,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And even then, in the remaining social wastelands leftover which the court grudgingly allows, one may only carry a firearm for self-defense if they have first secured the subjective endorsement of at least four ‘reputable’ persons. This treatment would not be tolerated in the context of any other constitutional right, and it should not be so here.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit challenging Illinois law that bans firearms in homes licensed to provide foster or day care.

The Foster Home and Day Care Home Rules and statutes in Illinois ban adults licensed to foster parent or provide day care in their own homes from keeping functional firearms for self-defense, even if they are otherwise allowed to possess them.

“Being a caretaker does not come at the expense of your fundamental rights,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The constitutional analysis is no different here than for any other type of gun control. The burden is on the state to prove a historical tradition of similar regulation at the time of the Founding, and that tradition simply does not exist.” Read more