BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply brief with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding arm braces for pistols.

In 2023, SAF won, in part, a preliminary injunction in the case. Last August, in a 2-1 ruling, a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the rule was “likely illegal” because the government had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.

The case is known as SAF v. ATF and was filed in February 2023. SAF is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston.

In their brief to the court, SAF and its partners maintain the appeals court should hold the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success because the Final Rule changes the definition of an arm brace “using the guise of mere clarification.”

“Our challenge is part of a consolidation of four separate cases for briefing purposes, underscoring the broad and compelling opposition to the ATF’s action,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We have contended all along the Final Rule regulates brace-equipped pistols, which are in common use, as short-barreled rifles. This is a complete reversal of previous policy.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation are thrilled to be partnering with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a lawsuit challenging the Biden ATF’s new rule to require background checks on the private sales of firearms. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah also joined in the filing.

As argued in the suit, the Biden Administration’s rule goes well beyond the changes made by Senator John Cornyn in his “compromise” gun control package, which passed in 2022. This rule would subject “hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal guilt for all manner of activities relating to the innocuous, statutorily authorized, and constitutionally protected private sale of firearms.”

Simply by selling one firearm, individuals could be required to obtain a Federal Firearms License and conduct a background check or face criminal prosecution.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“We warned the American public that this legislation brokered by Senator Cornyn was no small compromise, and here we are today filing our second lawsuit challenging a major policy derived from that anti-gun law.

“Criminalizing untolled numbers of Americans for simply selling a firearm in a private party transaction is wrong, unconstitutional, and must be halted by the courts. Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Two Second Amendment Foundation cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazine capacity—one in Illinois and the other in Maryland—are among five cases distributed Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court for conference May 16.

The cases are known as Harrel v. Raoul and Bianchi v. Frosh. They were accompanied by cases known as Gun Owners of America v. Raoul, Caleb Barnett v. Raoul and Javier Herrera v. Raoul.

“Today, the Supreme Court’s docket reflected that both of our cases challenging Illinois’ and Maryland’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ were distributed for conference,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We are hopeful that the Court will discuss these cases during their next conference in mid-May and ultimately grant cert so that millions of Americans can enjoy the same Second Amendment rights their counterparts do throughout the country. It is time for the Supreme Court to confirm that these modern firearms are in fact protected by the Second Amendment.”

“We’re encouraged that these five cases, all essentially dealing with the same issue in two different federal court circuits, were distributed for Supreme Court conference at the same time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb acknowledged. “This could be the signal for which we have been waiting, that the Supreme Court may be ready to consider cases challenging bans on the most popular firearm in America today and their magazines. These firearms are owned by millions of peaceable citizens, and because they are in common use, they certainly qualify for Second Amendment protection.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” in Illinois have filed a response brief to the state in their effort to have the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in the case, which is known as Harrel v. Raoul. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a long-running challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have filed a reply brief in their effort to obtain certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

As noted in the brief, “The case was fully briefed and argued before a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit. Inexplicably, over a year after argument was held and with no panel opinion issued, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte elected to hear the case en banc, further delaying the exercise of a fundamental right and seemingly to prevent publication of an opinion that favors the plaintiffs. Seeking certiorari before judgment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of imperative public importance.”

SAF petitioned for certiorari in February. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh. The high court had previously granted certiorari in June 2022, and immediately vacated a lower court ruling and remanded the case back for further review in the aftermath of the court’s landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen decision.

SAF is joined in the case by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders, LLC and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is titled. They are represented by attorneys Nicole J. Moss, David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of North Carolina.

“This case has been lingering too long in the Fourth Circuit and it needs to be resolved,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no credible reason for inaction by the appellate court, thus allowing Maryland’s ban on commonly-owned modern semiautomatic rifles to continue. Clearly, the Supreme Court must resolve this issue.” Read more

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has handed a significant victory to the Second Amendment Foundation and young adults in the 18-20-year age group, allowing them to apply for concealed carry licenses in the state, while enjoining the state from arresting any law-abiding citizens in that age group for openly carrying firearms during a state of emergency.

The case is known as Lara v. Evanchick. SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including Madison M. Lara, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince of the Civil Rights Defense Group, David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman, a Donald Trump appointee, issued the ruling in which he writes the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police “is hereby enjoined from arresting law-abiding persons 18 to 20 years old who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Judge Stickman further enjoined the commissioner and his subordinates from preventing “any individual between the ages of 18 and 20 years old, who are not disqualified from exercising their Second Amendment rights from carrying loaded, operable firearms, including handguns, on their person, in public and in their vehicles, for all lawful purposes including self-defense.”

“Judge Stickman’s injunction has conferred the same Second Amendment rights upon 18-20-year-olds that those over 21 have had,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Now 18-20-year-olds in Pennsylvania may apply for License to Carry Firearms and the state’s draconian transportation laws have been enjoined from enforcement. This is a victory for Second Amendment rights in PA.” Read more