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

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