BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s recently adopted 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms, gun parts and ammunition.

The case was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Joining SAF are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Joshua Gerken and Danielle Jaymes, for whom the case, James v. Maduros, is named. The defendant is Nicolas Maduros, director of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in his official capacity. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Konstadinos T. Moros, Tiffany Cheuvront and Joshua Robert Dale at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California, and by David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

“We are challenging the constitutionality of the tax, as adopted by Assembly Bill 28,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We contend in the lawsuit that this 11 percent tax is unconstitutional because it literally taxes conduct protected by the Second Amendment. There is no analogous evidence such a tax was ever applied at the time of the Founding era, as required by the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen ruling.”

“The power to tax is literally the power to destroy,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Assembly Bill 28 gives the State of California the power to destroy the exercise of a right protected by the Constitution by singling it out for special taxation. If allowed to stand, this tax could be expanded, and California could ultimately impose similar excise taxes on other constitutional rights it dislikes. This will not stop with a tax on the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari in Barnett v. Raoul, one of several challenges to Illinois’ bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines. The decision not to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision at this early stage of the litigation, while disappointing, does not mean the Supreme Court will not review the matter later after final judgment.

The Supreme Court denied review now because the U.S. Court of Appeals has not yet issued a final judgment. Justice Samuel Alito, however, would have granted the petition now. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture. But, I hope we will consider the important issue presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment.”

Justice Thomas concluded Illinois’ bans are “highly suspect,” finding it “difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an appellants brief with the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the continuing challenge of the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois.

Joining SAF in its appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois are the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, D.C. The case, filed originally in 2021, is known as Viramontes v. Cook County.

“The question presented in this case is straightforward,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “whether the Second Amendment permits the government to ban the best-selling rifles in America and similar semiautomatic firearms erroneously labeled as ‘assault weapons.’ We maintain the answer to that clearly is no.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is pleased to announce that EOTECH has identified SAF as a beneficiary of their new “2A Initiative.” With every purchase made through the program, EOTECH will donate a portion of proceeds to SAF.

EOTECH will launch the initiative with a special edition EOTECH EXPS3 and XPS2 Holographic Weapon Sight (HWS) featuring the “2A” logo on the hood. Proudly made in the USA, these models feature the quick acquisition 68MOA ring and 1MOA dot. The sight requires little rail space and provides the reliability and dependability both professionals and civilians demand.

“We are very passionate about our support and dedication to protect the Second Amendment,” said EOTECH Director of Marketing Lisa Kemp. “Investing in the organizations that defend this right and provide education and resources to protect its position is critical. We are proud to support this cause and preserve these rights for future generations.”

In addition to the sight, you can also show your 2A support by purchasing unique swag items like shirts, hats, patches, stickers and glassware. Read more

“…domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.”

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Today’s narrow Supreme Court decision in Rahimi failed to produce the damage the anti-gun crowd hoped for against Bruen. The Bruen decision remains intact and will continue to be an important building block necessary to continue winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.

None of the justices in the Bruen majority cast aside the test rearticulated in that decision which controls how Second Amendment challenges are to be analyzed. Additionally, the justices declined to adopt the Government’s preferred time period of reconstruction as the controlling era for which historical analogues may be drawn upon.

Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve. And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.

As Justice Thomas wrote “the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s prohibition against allowing young adults aged 18 to 20 from acquiring a license to carry a firearm (LTCF) for personal protection. The case is known as Brown v. Paris.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. SAF is joined by three young adults, all who are SAF members. They are Taylor Brown, Shawn Palmer and Max Ness. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince at the Civil Rights Defense Firm in Bechtelsville, Pa., and Adam Kraut at the Second Amendment Foundation. Named as the sole defendant in the case is Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, in his official capacity.

“Our individual plaintiffs have no criminal backgrounds and would like to procure a LTCF,” said Kraut, who also serves as SAF’s executive director. “However, the state law precludes them from carrying firearms, whether openly or concealed, in public for self-defense. Yet, a look back at history reveals young adults between 18 and 20 were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Indeed, at the time of the founding, young adults in this age group were actually required to keep and bear arms.” Read more

The Biden re-election campaign has launched a 30-second television advertisement touting Joe Biden’s gun control crusade, which the Second Amendment Foundation says is the president’s desperate reaction to SAF’s own national television effort showing him admitting he wants to ban modern semi-auto rifles and 9mm handguns.

“Our 60-second ad cuts right to the heart of Joe Biden’s lifelong crusade to ban the most popular rifles and pistols in the country today,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed. “Our message features his infamous remarks during a CNN Townhall program in which he admitted he wants to stop the sale of those firearms. Our message finally and forcefully reveals the truth about the Democrats’ gun ban agenda, and it hurts. While others have claimed they do not want to take away anyone’s guns, Joe Biden is right there on live television acknowledging their true intentions.

“Obviously,” Gottlieb continued, “our message, which has been appearing on dozens of cable networks encouraging people to join our legal efforts to stop Biden’s unconstitutional gun bans, is having a devastating impact on the Biden campaign, otherwise they would not have spent the time and money to create a response ad. No matter how the Biden camp tries to portray Joe as a compassionate leader, the whole country knows he is a gun-grabbing zealot, thanks to our advertising.

“In the wake of recent events,” he added, “President Biden will eventually have to acknowledge the greatest failure of his half-century of gun control extremism, the conviction of his own son in a Delaware courtroom, for violating the federal laws Joe fondly claims he shepherded through Congress. His gun ban agenda has failed to keep the country safe, and more importantly, Joe Biden has failed to uphold his oath of office to protect and defend our Constitutional rights.

“Biden’s campaign ad is a desperate attempt to distract the public from the truth we’ve been sharing for weeks,” Gottlieb said. “It won’t work.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Hawaii resident Christopher L. Wilson’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his challenge of the Hawaii state Supreme Court’s decree that individual citizens in the Aloha State do not have the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside their homes.

SAF is represented in its effort by attorneys Edward A. Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York, N.Y.

“When the Hawaii Supreme Court brazenly declared in February that the Second Amendment essentially does not exist within the state,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we were stunned. This declaration is so astonishing in its nature that the U.S. Supreme Court simply cannot allow one-tenth of the Bill of Rights to be arbitrarily erased. Hawaii is still part of the United States. It is not a police state.”

“The Hawaii court has reduced an established right protected by the federal Constitution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “This is nothing short of open rebellion against the Supremacy Clause. Lawless judicial activism of such an extreme nature, if left undisturbed, would set a dangerous precedent that State supreme courts are free to tunnel below the constitutional floor of the Second Amendment. Read more