Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in Escher v. Noble, its federal constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ sweeping ban on the possession and carry of semiautomatic firearms and handguns by law-abiding adults under 21. The motion urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to strike down the Commonwealth’s age-based prohibitions, arguing that the Second Amendment protects these adults and that the state cannot point to any historical tradition supporting its categorical disarmament scheme.

“This case is about ending Massachusetts’ authoritarian, age-based attack on peaceable adults,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The state’s ban isn’t just unconstitutional—it’s an insult to the very principles this nation was built on. And just like we’ve done in other anti-rights states, we will force Massachusetts to comply with the Constitution, whatever it takes.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a scathing brief responding to a recent Department of Justice motion to gut a major Second Amendment victory in Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Bondi, a case where the court previously held that peaceable Americans must be allowed to carry firearms in Post Offices.

This latest DOJ maneuver—stripping nearly all practical benefit from a court order declaring a federal gun law unconstitutional—is not an isolated incident. Rather, this is part of the Trump DOJ’s sustained pattern of defending federal gun control at all costs.

“President Trump’s DOJ is again using tyrannical legal tactics to gut a major constitutional victory and continue enforcing federal gun control laws—even those already declared unconstitutional by federal courts,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Instead of complying with the court’s order in this case, the Trump DOJ is spending time and money to keep people disarmed and defenseless. The Trump DOJ must stop wasting taxpayer money defending illegal gun control laws and start honoring the Bill of Rights—and their promise to protect the Second Amendment rights of the American people.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a brief in response to the government’s efforts to limit the scope of the injunction SAF obtained on behalf of its members in its U.S. Post Office carry ban challenge.

In September, the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of SAF and declared the carry ban on post office property unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement against the plaintiffs, including SAF members. In response to the ruling, the government filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members of SAF and its partner organizations, but only to those who were members when the complaint was originally filed and who have been identified and verified.

“The critical thing to remember here is that the government is fighting tooth and nail to continue enforcing an unconstitutional law against as many people as possible,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The DOJ’s position that it would be ‘impossible’ for it to know who was protected by the injunction without a membership list is just plain silly. If officials want to know if someone found to be carrying at a post office is a SAF member they can simply ask.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of plaintiffs challenging Vermont’s mandatory 72-hour “cooling off” waiting period when lawfully purchasing a firearm. NSSF argues that nothing in the nation’s history or tradition supports delaying a law-abiding citizen from exercising their Second Amendment rights when legally purchasing a firearm.

The challenge to Vermont’s law, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc., v. Birmingham, is pending before the Second Circuit. NSSF’s amicus brief was filed on Tuesday.

“NSSF has long held that these mandatory waiting period laws are unconstitutional. Simply, rights delayed are rights denied,” explained Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that New Mexico’s similar law requiring a mandatory waiting period when purchasing a firearm violated the Second Amendment. NSSF also supported a challenge to a similar 72-hour waiting period law in Maine, which is preliminarily enjoined pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This is the same question before the Second Circuit.”

Firearms sold at retail are required to be transferred only upon the purchaser completing and signing a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, attesting that the purchaser (or transferee) is not prohibited from possessing a firearm and is the true intended recipient of that firearm. The purchaser must also be subject to an FBI National Instant Background Check System (NICS) verification that there are no records of prohibiting factors that would bar that individual from taking possession of a legally purchased firearm.

Vermont’s law requiring a mandatory 72-hour “cooling off” waiting period to take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm denies citizens facing credible threats against their safety or lives the ability to defend themselves. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting plaintiffs-appellants in Vt. Fed. of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Birmingham, a case challenging Vermont’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases.

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

“The district court’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by misapplying the Second Amendment’s historical test and creating a false ‘fork’ in the analysis for so-called ‘ancillary’ rights, and by relying on unserious analogues like laws disarming intoxicated persons,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows no tradition of waiting periods, even as mass production made guns widely available in the 19th century. We urge the Second Circuit to reverse and restore the proper Bruen framework.”

The Tenth Circuit recently struck down a similar waiting period in Ortega v. Grisham, and several other cases challenging waiting periods are pending nationwide. The brief also relies on primary sources in the form of historical newspaper advertisements offering firearms for sale as far back as 1745. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in Jensen v. ATF, an FPC-backed federal case challenging key provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The motion—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—asks the court to strike down and permanently enjoin enforcement of the challenged provisions of the NFA. The full brief is available at firearmspolicy.org/jensen.

The filing argues that the NFA exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and can no longer be justified under the Constitution. Because Congress eliminated the NFA’s making and transfer taxes for most regulated firearms in 2025, the Act’s remaining registration and recordkeeping mandates lack any valid constitutional foundation. The challengers also argue that the NFA’s regulatory scheme is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “For nearly a century, the federal government has used the NFA to turn peaceable Americans into criminals. It was never about safety—it was always about control. When Congress erased the tax, it erased the last illusion of legitimacy holding this law together. What’s left is an unlawful exercise of government power aimed squarely at the very people the Constitution was written to protect.”

Combs continued, “The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a privilege that the government can tax, track, or ration—it’s a birthright. The NFA’s collapse isn’t just overdue—it’s inevitable. And when it falls, it will remind Washington that freedom isn’t granted by permission slip or registration form, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final brief in support of Supreme Court review in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, asking the Supreme Court of the United States to finally decide the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapon” bans.

The filing argues that the lower court’s decision upholding Cook County’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 is “based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that flagrantly distorts this Court’s precedent and makes a mockery of the Amendment’s text, history, and purposes.” That, they say, is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and Bruen decisions.

The brief explains that multiple federal courts have now split on how to apply Bruen’s text-informed-by-history framework, including whether “in common use” is a textual or historical inquiry and which side bears the burden of proof. It warns that “lower courts are in conflict” and cites Justice Thomas’s and Justice Kavanaugh’s recent calls for the Court to “address the AR-15 issue.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today issued the following statement condemning the Trump Administration’s ongoing defense of federal gun control laws and calling on President Trump to take immediate action to restore the integrity of his pledge to protect Second Amendment rights:

Since President Donald J. Trump signed the “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” executive order in February, his Department of Justice has done exactly the opposite—relentlessly defending the federal government’s unconstitutional gun control regime. Instead of using the Justice Department’s vast power to secure Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, the Trump DOJ has used it to fight against the People—even taking extreme positions in court to resist injunctions that block the government’s enforcement of gun laws that federal judges have already found unconstitutional.

Last month, the Administration’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer—the government’s top appellate lawyer, often called the “10th Justice” for his influence with the Supreme Court—urged the Court to deny review in a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and taxation scheme for short-barreled rifles. The Administration argued that the NFA’s intrusive requirements are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” effectively endorsing the very federal overreach the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

In an effort to convince the Court to dodge the question of unconstitutional federal restrictions, the Trump DOJ suggested that the Court should focus on “laws banning AR-15 rifles.” Read more

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

Connecticut is on the minority list of states that have banned, both by name and by feature set, commonly owned contemporary semi-automatic rifles. As part of SAF’s nationwide initiative to put an end to these types of unconstitutional arms bans, the organization filed suit on the grounds that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August, SAF is now presenting the case to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Grant joins three other SAF cases currently before the Court, including Viramontes, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban.

“Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the ban on electronic arms in New York City.

New York City flatly prohibits the possession of stun guns, despite their common nationwide use as a less-lethal option for self-defense chosen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Joining SAF in Calce v. City of New York are five individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Courts all over the country have struck down bans just like this one as plainly unconstitutional,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “But the District Court in this case found a way to uphold New York City’s ban by improperly placing the ‘common use’ part of the analysis in the plain text portion of the test. This error not only ignores express instructions to the contrary from the Supreme Court but also shifts the burden from the government to prove their ban is constitutional, to the Plaintiffs themselves to prove their arms are protected. That is not the law, and appeal to the Second Circuit aims to correct these errors.” Read more