The Second Amendment Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a complicated case known as United States v. Rahimi challenging a civil restraining order disarmament provision. The brief relies on last year’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to argue that the total disarmament is not analogous to the Founding era regulations, calling into question the constitutionality of such provisions.

SAF’s interest in this case is based on the fact that many firearms owners in this country suddenly find themselves subject to civil restraining orders, which deny them their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a manner that does not comport with the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.

“As our brief explains,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “laws mandating total disarmament, in the relevant historical period, were related to disarming loyalists to preserve the integrity of our newly-formed government. The current federal law governing how gun owners’ rights are treated in relation to civil restraining orders lacks any well-established historical analogue.” Read more

A U.S. District Court judge in Maryland has granted in part a motion for a preliminary injunction in two cases—including one involving the Second Amendment Foundation—challenging Maryland’s “sensitive places” law, which is supposed to take effect Sunday.

The case, known as Novotny v. Moore, was filed earlier this year against the law, which places broad restrictions on where a legally-licensed private citizen may carry a firearm for personal protection. The decision by Judge George L. Russell, III consolidates the Novotny case with another action known as Kipke v. Moore. Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging newly-signed California Senate Bill 2—a gun control measure designed to make it impossible to legally carry firearms in most places—have filed a brief supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.

SAF is joined in the case by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, the Liberal Gun Club and nine individuals. The case is known as May v. Bonta. The “Memorandum of Points and Authorities” was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Michel & Associates, and Don Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer.

In their brief, the plaintiffs argue, “California is defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings and order that the Second Amendment includes a right to carry arms in public for self-defense. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised the U.S. Congress for the swift and overwhelmingly decisive vote to rebuke President Joe Biden’s unprecedented move to defund scholastic hunter education and archery programs available for youths. The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 5110, the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act, in a 424-1 vote and the U.S. Senate hot-lined the legislation, passing it by unanimous consent. The legislation, introduced by U.S. Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) is now headed to President Biden’s desk for consideration.

The White House has not signaled whether the president will sign or veto the legislation. However, Congress approved the bill in a rare and overwhelming veto-proof majority. Should the president veto the legislation, Congress could override the president’s veto and enact the law.

“This is a tremendous victory for true and proven firearm safety, as well as a reminder of how Congress can unite to protect the American public from special-interest driven agendas,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This should have never been an issue. Congress never wrote into the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that hunter education and archery programs were ineligible for funding. That was a unilateral decision to appease gun control and anti-hunting special interests. It was an unforced error that the Biden administration refused to acknowledge. Congress, as the representatives of the people, has spoken and spoken loudly and clearly.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law yesterday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:

• Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
• Require 16 hours of training;
• And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signing of extremist gun control measures Tuesday amounts to a giant leap backwards from protecting public safety and the rights of law-abiding citizens, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

“Gavin Newsom continues to blame gun owners for problems he is not addressing as the state’s chief executive,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb. “Instead of cracking down on law-abiding gun owners by signing Senate Bill 2, which restricts lawful concealed carry, and Assembly Bill 2, creating an 11 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition, he should be focusing his attention on the people committing crimes.”

Gottlieb said both measures are likely to be found unconstitutional, but in the meantime, Golden State residents will be penalized for crimes they didn’t commit. Read more

By Larry Keane

Gun control activists who have been angered by President Joe Biden’s inaction that he hasn’t done more to “combat gun violence” have forced the president’s hand. Their disappointment with the administration has often spilled over into public media reports.

The president is so desperate to generate some kind of excitement that he caved to their demands and during a White House Rose Garden gun control speech announced the creation of a new federal Office of Gun Violence Prevention. It’s something one of the president’s key voting constituencies has demanded since he first took office.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who seems to be “failing up” in Washington, D.C., has been tapped to lead the office. She’s been criticized as being mostly ineffective during her time as Veep, most notoriously so for her dismal record while “in charge” of securing the southern border.

In addition, several longtime gun control groups – including Everytown of Gun Safety – have garnered key leadership positions in the office. The hypocrisy of the gun control movement’s enthusiasm for the new federal office so closely aligned with the White House is not lost.

They were singing a different tune 20 years ago.

The Announcement

President Biden and Vice President Harris were joined by U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and dozens of gun control activists and attendees at the White House for their announcement. Exclusive speech excerpts were unsurprisingly given to a supportive mainstream media ahead of time.

Today, the president remarked, “I created by executive order, I’m determined to send a clear message about how important this issue is to me and to the country.” That’s in stark contrast to previous comments the president made, declaring earlier this year, “I have gone the full extent of my executive authority to do, on my own, anything about guns.”

Vice President Harris added, unironically, “President Biden and I believe in the Second Amendment but Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauds U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for directly addressing the ongoing and illegal discrimination of the firearm industry by major banks and payment processors. Fox Business reported on this continued discriminatory practice of major banking institutions and payment processors refusing services because officials in those financial sectors politically disagree with Second Amendment rights.

“Discrimination against firearm manufacturers and retailers is not a new phenomenon but it is long past time this practice is ended,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Major banks, and the payment processors they support, benefit from taxpayer dollars to insure they stay afloat, including the multi-trillion-dollar bailout they enjoyed at taxpayer expense. The discriminatory practice of denying banking services to a Constitutionally-protected industry with which they politically disagree is an abuse of those taxpayer funds. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund banks that actively work to erase their rights. The Second Amendment is not for sale.”

Sen. Cruz, in his capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, recently wrote to Intuit, a payment processor, that reversed their discriminatory policies of denying QuickBooks services to firearm manufacturers and retailers. The change came only after Senate inquiries into the discriminatory practices. Intuit claimed the policy was directed to them by JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, both banks that hold discriminatory policies against the firearm industry and refuse banking services in an effort to starve them of essential financial services.

NSSF supports legislative efforts to halt these discriminatory practices by financial service providers, including the Firearm Industry Nondiscrimination (FIND) Act (S. 428/H.R. 53), introduced by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.). This vital legislation would end the ability of corporate entities to profit from taxpayer-funded federal contracts while discriminating against a Constitutionally-protected industry at the same time.

NSSF also supports the Fair Access to Banking Act (S. 293/H.R. 2743), introduced by Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and U.S. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.). These bills would require banks to provide access to services, capital and credit based on the objective risk assessment of individual customers, rather than subjective broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers.