Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that the parties have reached an agreement to successfully resolve the plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit challenging the New York state and county defendants’ laws, policies, and practices banning firearm carry by residents of other states, Shaffer v. Quattrone. FPC filed the case in November 2024, arguing that people “do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

Now, as a result of the FPC lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ settlement with the State of New York, the State now expressly holds the position that in-state residency or employment is not required for licensure and clearly posted this confirmation on its website, which is now obligated to state (in relevant part):

Is New York residency or employment required to apply for a firearm license?

No. New York law does not require residency or in-state employment to apply for a firearm license. While the Penal Law directs applicants who live or work in New York to file their firearm application in the county of residence or principal place of employment, this provision does not exclude nonresidents from applying. Licensing officers may accept applications from nonresidents, and residency is not among the eligibility criteria for being issued a firearm license. Applications from nonresidents who do not live or work in New York should be evaluated under the same standards as all others.

Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its opening brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, which challenges the federal laws prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to out-of-state buyers. FPC filed its appeal after the district court wrongly upheld the ban.

FPC is joined in this case by Elite Precision Customs LLC and two individual FPC members. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Cody J. Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation and R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

The brief was filed at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans and covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Hemani, which challenges the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana users. FPC’s brief argues that the court does not need to decide the Second Amendment issue in this case because Congress lacks the Article I authority to enact the ban in the first place.

FPC is represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC.

The amicus brief was filed at Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., and the Court’s decision in this case will apply throughout the country.

FPC’s amicus brief was filed on January 30, 2026. Oral arguments in this case will take place at the Supreme Court on March 2nd, and the decision should be issued by the end of the court’s term in June.

A decision in Ali Danial Hemani’s favor could enable millions of peaceable people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The full extent of the ruling will depend on the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Read more

The federal government has filed an amicus brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Granata v. Campbell lawsuit, which challenges Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns. FPC’s appeal in this case was filed after the district court upheld the ban.

In the case of Granata v. Campbell, FPC is joined by two individual members as well as The Gun Runner, LLC, a retailer in the state. The parties are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr. of Chambers Law Office. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the respondent in United States v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession for marijuana users. Read more

Silencer Central, America’s leader in silencer sales and advocacy for suppressor ownership, proudly supports actions by the South Dakota legislature to deregulate these essential firearm accessories. Current law states that suppressors are legal only if the owner has the proper Federal Stamp. In 2026, the Federal Stamp fee was reduced to $0, bolstering the ongoing movement for full deregulation and removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA), altogether. If successful, however, current state laws would not allow for new purchases of suppressors outside of the traditional NFA Federal Stamp process. And South Dakota is not alone. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Grant v. Rovella, SAF’s challenge to Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.

SAF originally filed its cert petition in November last year urging the High Court to take the case and decide once and for all that AR-15-style rifles are most certainly in “common use” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. In Connecticut it is a crime to sell, transfer, or possess so-called “assault weapons” in the state. Connecticut’s law specifies some firearms by name and identifies various features to define what it believes constitutes an “assault weapon.”

“There are tens of millions rifles in circulation across America that meet Connecticut’s made-up definition of ‘assault weapon,'” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Given that these firearms are no different than any other semi-automatic firearm owned by citizens for self-defense, there is no doubt these arms are in ‘common use’ and are certainly covered under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already stated that a firearm cannot be banned if it is in common use for lawful purposes, which is exactly what is happening in Connecticut and elsewhere across the country.”

As noted in the brief, “Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and similar rifles, and most do so for defensive purposes…applying the correct “common use” standard, and situating it at the proper historical stage of Bruen’s framework, could change the outcome of this case.” SAF is joined in the case by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.

“This is SAF’s second ‘assault weapons’ ban challenge we have before the Supreme Court for consideration,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The list of banned firearms in Connecticut – and elsewhere across the United States – make peaceable gun owners felons for simply owning certain types of arms for self-defense. This obstruction to the Second Amendment rights of Americans cannot be allowed to stand, and we are optimistic the Court will agree to hear at least one of our lawsuits in relation to these infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

GW: How prophetic was Abraham Lincoln, when he delivered, in part, the speech below? Judge for yourself in consideration of the chaos that has developed by those among us who hate America.

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838

…At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide…

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises the unanimous decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals to end the City of Gary, Indiana’s 26-year-old frivolous lawsuit against firearm manufacturers that sought to hold them responsible for the criminal actions of unrelated and remote third parties. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted law — championed by NSSF — providing that only the state of Indiana can bring a lawsuit against a firearm industry member. As a result, it directed the trial court to dismiss the lingering Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary public nuisance lawsuit, which failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing despite more than a quarter century of litigation.

“This is a tremendous day for of the rule of law, common sense and the firearm industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The City of Gary never had a serious claim. Instead, it was committed to a losing lawfare strategy to abuse the courts in order to force gun control policy outside of legislative channels. The bottom line is that these sorts of frivolous claims have no business clogging our courts and special-interest groups cannot circumvent elected representative bodies by attempting legislation through litigation. NSSF is deeply grateful to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for his strong defense of this law.”

Former Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed House Bill 1235 into law in 2024 that “provides that only the state of Indiana may bring or maintain an action by or on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer concerning certain matters.” The law “prohibits a political subdivision from otherwise independently bringing or maintaining such an action,” effectively negating the City of Gary’s frivolous claims. Read more