BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed its opening brief with the Third Circuit in its case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.

Greene v. Bondi is now on appeal before the Third Circuit from a district court opinion dismissing the suit. SAF is joined in the case by two private citizens – Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene and James Irey. Greene currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card (MMID) under Pennsylvania law and desires to possess firearms and ammunition. Irey is a disabled veteran who wishes to obtain a MMID to treat his service-related injuries but not forfeit his Second Amendment rights in the process.

“Unlike prescription pain pills, marijuana is federally classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, even if a state has legalized it for medical purposes,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That poses a dilemma for anyone who legally uses medical marijuana – either give up your Second Amendment rights or receive relief from your symptoms. This is an absurd choice to force someone to make, especially given that anyone taking prescription pain killers, such as oxycodone, are allowed to purchase firearms.” Read more

Friday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) condemned a decision by Chief United States District Judge Denise J. Casper that upheld Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns and granted summary judgment to the state.

“The Court’s opinion is as dangerous as it is wrong. Incredibly, the judge held that Massachusetts’s handgun ban doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment. In this bizarre and deeply flawed decision, the Court effectively said governments could ban every handgun make and model but one. This decision is absurd, lawless, and impossible to reconcile with binding Supreme Court precedent or the text and history of the Constitution,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Make no mistake: FPC will appeal this insane ruling and we will fight until this unconstitutional ban is struck down—whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today condemned a badly flawed decision issued by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. George Peterson, an FPC-backed criminal appeal challenging the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm suppressor rules:

Once again, the Fifth Circuit has wrongly upheld the National Firearms Act in a dangerously flawed opinion that tramples the Constitution and disregards our nation’s history. Suppressors are unquestionably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Nothing in our nation’s history of arms regulation supports the government’s unconstitutional taxation and registration mandates. Indeed, the federal government’s NFA scheme is not just dangerous to liberty, it is blatantly unconstitutional. FPC will continue to stand with Mr. Peterson and his counsel as they weigh every option in the fight ahead to put an end to the NFA and its unconstitutional regulations on suppressors and other protected arms. Individuals who would like to support Mr. Peterson’s appeal, our Brown v. ATF NFA challenge, and dozens of important cases to eliminate unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws should join our FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that it has petitioned the United States Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, seeking to overturn Cook County’s unconstitutional ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

This case is the ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to say—once and for all—that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are protected by the Constitution,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The stakes could not be higher: If the Second Amendment doesn’t cover the most popular rifles in America, then it covers virtually nothing at all.”

Combs went on, “The Supreme Court must end this lawless two-step where politicians ban arms they dislike and judges pretend that’s constitutional to rubber-stamp their policy preferences. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, owned by millions of peaceable people for lawful purposes every day. The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It’s time for the Court to make that unmistakably clear to the lower courts.”

“The issue raised by this case is exceptionally important,” the petition argues. “The AR-15 platform rifle is the most popular rifle in the country, and modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are the second-best selling type of firearm in the country behind only semiautomatic handguns.”

Indeed, the petitioners argue in the filing, it is “hard to imagine a court of appeals treating any other provision of the Bill of Rights this way. If the Second Amendment is not to be relegated to second-class status, and if it truly is intended to elevate above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense, then the decision below must be overturned.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the court hear Jamond M. Rush v. United States of America, a case challenging restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs). It is SAF’s second Supreme Court amicus brief on this topic, following a similar brief filed in David Robinson Jr. v. United States of America.

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

“Similar to other circuit courts, the Seventh Circuit decided that U.S. v. Miller (1939) and its ruling allowing restrictions on short-barrel shotguns because they had no documented militia use, remains controlling and applicable to SBRs as well,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Our amicus brief makes several arguments as to why the Seventh Circuit’s analysis was flawed and why the Supreme Court should grant cert in this case. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will step in and correct courts reaching the wrong conclusion on this fundamental question, both as it pertains to SBRs and to other common arms.”

The brief explains that SBR’s are “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. In order to then regulate them, it is the government’s burden to show a historical tradition of such regulation. Such a historical tradition simply does not exist, nor is there one supporting the taxation regime of the National Firearms Act. The brief also discusses how some circuit courts are getting basic questions about protected arms wrong and misapplying the Bruen analysis, which necessitates the Supreme Court’s intervention. Read more

GW:  Anyone remember when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and guns were actually confiscated during the “state of emergency” declaration by the mayor?  Just when guns are needed for self-protection, the gun grabbers want to disarm citizens.  Same in Pennsylvania.

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, for conference to be held on Monday, Sept. 29.

The case seeks to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults by challenging Pennsylvania state law which prohibits them from carrying firearms during a declared state of emergency. Joining SAF in the case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.

“We agree with the commonwealth that cert should be granted in this case, and this conference distribution is one step closer to that goal,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court steps in and puts to bed once and for all the question as to whether 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ who share the same Second Amendment rights as their older counterparts.”

Originally filed in 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled in SAF’s favor. After the initial ruling, the commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in turn, remanded the case back to the Third Circuit to reconsider in light of the Court’s ruling in Rahimi. The Third Circuit determined that Rahimi had changed nothing about their analysis and once again ruled for SAF and the plaintiffs. After being denied en banc review by the Third Circuit, the commonwealth has once again petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

“If you’re an adult, then you should be able to fully exercise your Second Amendment rights, period,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Third Circuit has made the determination that 18-20-year-olds are members of ‘the People’ more than once, and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will follow suit and determine that adults under 21 have the same rights as other American adults.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

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

Originally filed in 2021, the case was put “on hold” during which time the Supreme Court handed down the 2022 Bruen decision, and the Illinois legislature passed the nearly identical statewide ban on “assault weapons,” which SAF has also challenged, in Harrel v. Raoul. SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“The Supreme Court has indicated its interest in addressing assault weapons bans within the next term or two, and we think this case is a solid vehicle for that review,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “As Justice Thomas rightly pointed out in his dissent from denial in Snope, the longer SCOTUS delays, the longer millions of Americans are subject to these unconstitutional, categorical bans of the some of the most popular arms in America.”

As noted in the petition: “Cook County’s ‘assault weapons’ laws restrict many perfectly ordinary and common firearms, like the AR-15 rifle. These firearms are not distinct from other rifles in their design or their function. Indeed, the very term ‘assault weapon’ is a political slogan masquerading as a meaningful designation, designed to exploit ‘the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic’ firearms.”

“The idealogues in Cook County wrongfully think that the AR-15, and similar firearms, are not appropriate for self-defense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The disenfranchisement of an entire population of residents is an absolute infringement on their Second Amendment rights. We’ve fought this case for far too long and it’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and determine that bans on the AR-15 are unconstitutional.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson urging the FTC to support President Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights by conducting a thorough review of relationships and activities by the Biden FTC with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that propagated “whole of government” infringements on Second Amendment rights.

Gun control groups were welcomed to the Biden White House, including through the now-defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, that built a reciprocal relationship to attack Second Amendment rights and the firearm industry that makes exercising those rights possible. As part of a coordinated “lawfare” campaign, gun control NGOs aligned with the Biden administration coordinated to publish a series of misleading “complaints” urging the FTC to investigate and a take legal action against truthful and constitutionally-protected firearm advertising.

“Countering President Biden’s ‘whole of government’ effort to infringe the Second Amendment necessitates a whole of government response by this administration,” wrote Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel, to Chairman Ferguson. “Likewise, the particular focus from the Biden Administration and NGOs on co-opting the Biden-era FTC for their unconstitutional agenda, necessitates decisive action from the current Commission.”

Specifically, NSSF urged the FTC to take the following actions to implement President Trump’s Executive Order: Read more

Tuesday, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a brief countering the federal government’s argument that, if FPC is successful in striking down the law, the court should enter an extremely narrow injunction that would deny millions of peaceable people their right to keep and bear arms.

Although summary judgment briefing had concluded in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF — FPC’s Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the federal ban on purchasing handguns outside a person’s state of residence — the organization sought leave of court to respond to the Trump DOJ strategy to avoid having to follow the Second Amendment and respect constitutional rights. FPC’s brief, however, shows how binding Supreme Court precedent would require relief to apply to all FPC members, not just the named individual and retailer plaintiffs in the case.

“Should Plaintiffs prevail on their motion for summary judgment, they are entitled to injunctive relief for the Individual Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition,” says FPC’s brief. That FPC has the right to sue and seek relief on behalf of its members “is not debatable,” the brief goes on. Indeed, FPC said, “The Supreme Court reaffirmed associational standing two years ago” in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. And while the government complained that compliance with an injunction against enforcement of the ban as to FPC members would be challenging, as FPC’s new brief explained, “the Government could comply with an injunction by, for example, directing FFLs to ask whether prospective non-resident purchasers are FPC members or declining to enforce the restriction across the board.” Read more

Fairfax, VA – Tuesday, the National Rifle Association filed a challenge against Florida’s unconstitutional waiting period law in federal court. Following the filing, John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, released the following statement:

“For nearly 35 years, law-abiding Floridians have had to endure unconstitutional laws that arbitrarily deny them access to legally purchased firearms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “Thanks to the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, illogical, nonsensical, and unconstitutional gun control laws like this are being thrown out in federal courts across the country. We are confident that our challenge today will be successful and serve as another critical step in rehabilitating Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.”

BACKGROUND:

• Florida established a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases in 1990 through a constitutional amendment, which was later expanded to apply to all firearms in 2018 as part of a broader gun control package.
• Waiting period laws have come under intense scrutiny by federal courts. This month, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s 7-Day Waiting Period is unconstitutional in the NRA’s challenge against the law.
• In March, a federal district court ruled that Maine’s waiting period law likely violates the Second Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law. This challenge is currently before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• These rulings are based on the landmark NRA-backed Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun control laws are unconstitutional unless they are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Read more